EDITORIAL : THE INDENDENT, IRELAND

          

 

Out-of-touch CEOs must share pain

MEMBERS of the government that met a humiliating fate in the February general election were frequently and rightly accused of being out of touch with the feelings of the people at large. Recent events make one wonder how widely this problem extends across the Irish establishment as a whole.

Happily, the controversy over the bonus for the chief executive of the Dublin Airport Authority has been resolved. He has relinquished it voluntarily. It appears that the Government did not have the legal power to force him to do so, and presumably the same applies to chief executives of other semi-state companies.

In the private sector, the market decides prices and wages. Often the practice does not match the theory, as witness the hair-raising salaries and bonuses in banking. But at least the beneficiaries are subject to the disciplines of the market. And most of them have little or no job security.

Politicians' pay is determined by politicians, who for many years treated themselves with great indulgence. Lately, considerable progress has been made in reversing the process -- by no means enough, but we are heading in the right direction.

So far, so simple. But remuneration of semi-state executives is not simple. Everybody would like to see large publicly owned companies, many of them vital to our future economic health, run by the best people. Does it follow, though, that they should be paid as much as they might earn in the private sector? And does it follow that they should be awarded bonuses by private-sector methods?

We can expect the latest of the many reviews of the issue to be brisk and take a no-nonsense line. It will probably ban the practice whereby a board decides a bonus without giving reasons. Instead, executives will have to make their own cases.

But many people will remain puzzled by the reluctance of numerous high earners to take pay or bonus cuts, and by the attitudes of those who make the awards.

In the early decades of this State, it was normal for top politicians, civil servants and chiefs of nationalised industries to accept modest rewards and make sacrifices for the common good. Nobody demands the same level of abstinence nowadays, but almost everybody marvels at how far removed establishment figures are from public opinion.

People are suffering from pay cuts, job losses, mortgage increases. They fear for their homes, they fear for their pensions, they fear for their children's future. They think that those less vulnerable should share at least some of their feelings and at least some of their pain. And they think that the Government should be firm in imposing its will on those who appear reluctant to co-operate.

One of the lowest crimes imaginable

THE theft of an elderly man's life savings in Cork must rank among the lowest and meanest crimes imaginable. He took the word of a man masquerading as a garda, let him into his house and showed him an envelope containing "a considerable sum of money". The robber grabbed the envelope and ran off.

At the root of this lies what has become a worldwide phenomenon -- distrust of financial institutions. Not long ago, banks were regarded as models of security. No longer.

In the same city not long ago, a man admitted to hospital for surgery was found to have €60,000 attached to his body. A woman had €5,000 sewn into her clothes. Elsewhere, more sophisticated persons buy safes or invest in gold. But the sad truth is that no such thing exists as complete safety.

In the wake of the Cork incident, the Garda Siochana issued a piece of wise advice, particularly valuable for the elderly: let nobody into your home without, at a minimum, demanding identification. To that might be added a reminder that the most plausible conmen can also be the lowest and meanest.

EDITORIAL : THE AUSTRALIAN, AUSTRALIA

If there's smokes, there's ire

TOBACCO is a legal product that fewer than one in every five Australians chooses to consume, with an inevitable deleterious impact on their health.

So federal Health Minister Nicola Roxon is prepared to do almost all within her power to prevent its use. In defending her plain packaging laws, Ms Roxon has made no secret of her aim to eliminate any opportunities for the tobacco companies to market or distinguish their branded products. When her legislation is passed, as seems certain given the opposition's acquiescence, it will be illegal not only to advertise, display or market this product but also to attach a trademark to its packaging.

Such is the government's crusade against tobacco it begs the question of why they have not sought to outlaw the substance. In fact, Ms Roxon has said if we were starting the country from scratch, "there is no way this would be a legal product". Certainly the rhetoric deployed against tobacco is one of zero tolerance. "Everyone knows it's a habit that will kill you," says the minister.

This presents a stark contrast to the rhetoric used against illicit drugs. When tackling the devastating consequences of drugs such as crystal methamphetamine (crystal meth, meth, speed or ice), heroin, cocaine or even marijuana, the attitude of authorities is driven by an over-arching strategy of "harm-minimisation" rather than zero tolerance.

Go to the National Drugs Campaign website to view information about a range of drugs and you will see their extensive health risks detailed along with descriptions such as "marijuana produces a 'high' that generally makes the user feel more relaxed, happy and more talkative" or "both ice and base produce a very intense rush". Fair enough. But click on tobacco and there is no reference to why anyone would want to smoke. Rather we are told "Smoking is the leading preventable cause of death" and "People near a smoker breathe in the poisons too, which can also cause them disease and premature death". Again this is fair enough but it highlights the completely different emphasis.

Government ministers and activists seem to speak out more on the evils of the legal product of tobacco than they do on the need to stamp out the illicit drugs. One reason is that cigarettes are an easy target, with not even smokers kicking up much of a fuss anymore. While laws restricting the tobacco trade have been ratcheted up over recent decades, around the country marijuana offences have been decriminalised, even though that drug is inhaled in an unhealthy fashion.

It is little wonder tobacco companies are doing all they can to contest the latest measures and seek compensation. Plain packaging laws effectively remove valuable assets from the tobacco firms -- the intellectual property of their marketing brands. This is a dangerous precedent to impose on a legitimate industry because similar arguments could be mounted, and no doubt one day will be, against alcohol packaging and various food trademarks. A sophisticated economy should not be so frivolous about commercial property rights.

We believe people concerned about their physical wellbeing should not smoke, but it is their choice. As for the Health Minister, we would be more impressed if she devoted her energies to tackling the terrible problems of illicit drug dependency, and the recreational drug use causing problems among our young.

The Greens must focus on the national interest

ON Friday, Australia enters uncharted political territory when the Greens take the balance of power in the upper house.

We are accustomed to individual senators exerting influence from the cross-benches and to legislative refinement, sometimes for the better, from minor parties of the centre. Bob Brown and his colleagues represent something different altogether. Their agenda goes beyond keeping the government honest, extracting bounty for local constituencies or operating as brokers between the two major parties. It is a party in formal alliance with the government, one that commanded almost 12 per cent of the vote at the last election -- small enough to be unrepresentative of Australians' views but big enough to push its own radical agenda, ranging from the economy to West Papua, from transgender issues to mental health.

A parliament with two elected chambers has served Australia well since Federation, imposing an extra layer of accountability that sometimes frustrates governments but often improves the quality of legislation. With power comes responsibility, however, which is why the easy ride the Greens have been given in terms of public and media scrutiny must end.

A leader who appears to be more interested in the game of politics than the substance of policy should face greater scrutiny than Senator Brown has so far experienced. In a taste of what he should now expect, Chris Uhlmann on 7.30 last month challenged Senator Brown's claim, against the evidence of an article he wrote for this newspaper, not to have called for coal exports to be phased out. Instead of clarifying his position, Senator Brown later accused The Australian of being part of the "hate media".

On Sunday's Insiders, Senator Brown reverted to his original stand, confirming that the "coal industry has to be replaced by renewables", thereby begging the question: will the real Bob Brown now stand up?

The Greens are playing a high-stakes game as negotiations over the carbon tax enter the final leg. The choice is between compromising in order to achieve a tax or once again wrecking Labor's proposal just as in 2009, when they rejected Kevin Rudd's emissions trading scheme. The Greens seem to be laying the groundwork for both -- agreeing to a tax but criticising it so comprehensively that they destroy any hope of Labor containing the issue politically.

Senator Brown may calculate he cannot lose, given that the continuing relevance of his party rests with carbon remaining a hot button issue in the electorate. For that, he seems to suggest, he needs an adversary such as Tony Abbott. That's the only conclusion to be drawn from his statements on Insiders when he all but salivated at the prospect of "putting the blowtorch to" and "taking on" the Coalition leader if Mr Abbott is in government after the next election. Perhaps aghast at such politicking, presenter Barrie Cassidy threw the senator a lifeline, saying: "But you hold the balance of power. You don't take him on. The idea is to work co-operatively with the government of the day, isn't it?"

The Greens' push for more money for renewables as part of the government's carbon tax package reveals their efforts to have a foot in both camps. Greens deputy leader Christine Milne has argued for more money to be spent on renewable energy technologies, even though the Productivity Commission has exposed the inefficiency of such subsidies. It found the state and commonwealth schemes have cost billions of dollars for little result, with schemes such as state-based feed-in tariffs for rooftop solar costing between five and 10 times as much as a market-based scheme to cut the same amount of CO2 emissions.

Clearly the Greens have little faith in the carbon tax delivering much by way of cuts in carbon emissions and are keen to retain direct action along with a market-driven system. They criticise the Coalition's ad hoc approach to "complementary measures" yet want to see more of such direct action themselves. They attack the Opposition Leader on carbon, yet champion -- at least in part -- the same sort of approach to direct action he advocates.

The Greens must be held to account for environmental and economic policies that could have a major influence on Australia's future. The party may have a fraction of the national vote but their holding of the balance of power demands the same scrutiny be applied to their policies as to those of the major parties. Their command of the Senate cross-benches will be a test of the party's maturity and willingness to develop from a party of moral opposition to one that can play a constructive role through negotiation and compromise. Senator Brown faces an internal challenge managing the expectations and ambitions of a disparate group of senators within a party without clear internal structure. The direction the Greens take when they hold the balance of power will determine whether they are seen as a constructive, political force or as a permanent protest group.

Senator Brown has proved himself to be a masterful politician but it is now up to him take on a serious policy mantle and work for pragmatic solutions in the interests of the nation rather than pursuing the narrow agenda of a minority. With the balance of power with the Greens, the opportunity is there for him to take.

EDITORIAL : THE JAKARTA POST, INDONESIA

A mediocre badminton force?

It was a sad end for Indonesian badminton players as they saw their opponents romp home with all titles at stake at the Djarum Indonesia Open Super Series on Sunday. For three years in a row Indonesia has failed to win any titles in the tournament it once dominated.

The last time Indonesia won titles was in 2008, with men’s singles Sony Dwi Kuncoro — who this year could not even make it into the main draw — and women’s doubles pair Lilyana Natsir and Vita Marissa.

On Sunday, Lilyana raised Indonesia’s hopes in the mixed doubles with Tontowi Ahmad, but failed to clear the final hurdles. Meanwhile, Vita and Nadya Melati lost easily to their Chinese opponents in the women’s doubles.

China, again, reigned supreme, pocketing four of five titles on offer, losing only the men’s singles crown to Malaysian world number one Lee Chong Wei.

The poor performance on home soil should serve as a wake-up call for the Badminton Association of Indonesia (PBSI) that it needs to overhaul its development programs, starting with talent-scouting, recruitment and training. Under the old method, Indonesia produced the so-called “Magnificent Seven” who were a dominant force in world badminton between the 1970s and 1980s, especially in the men’s division.

But the world has changed. The sport has gradually lost its charm in Indonesia, making it hard for the PBSI to find talents with great potential to excel.

The snail-paced regeneration has forced Indonesia to bank on the same old players in major tournaments, placing too much burden on them, while at the same time their performance is on the decline.

The All England, Thomas Cup and Uber Cup titles, to name a few, are now elusive for Indonesia as the competition has grown tighter.

Following the recent Indonesia Open, PBSI chairman Djoko Santoso promised an immediate evaluation of the national players, given the fact that this year’s tournament also served as a qualifying round for the 2012 London Olympics. Badminton became the only sport in which Indonesia had Olympic hopes after it won two gold medals in the 1992 Olympics in Barcelona.

Critics have suggested that senior players should focus on majors only, with the inclusion of some potential junior players to help improve their world rankings. It wouldn’t be a sin for Indonesia to emulate China, which sends as many young players as possible to tournaments to give them the experience they need to fill their seniors’ shoes.

Unlike economic giant China, Indonesia may face financial constraints to field a huge team, but that’s what the PBSI is for. Badminton officials must deal with the challenge to find creative solutions to finance their long-term investment development program.

With only one year left before the Olympics, national shuttlers need to focus on major tournaments, including next month’s World Championships, to qualify for London.

The responsibility should not go solely on the players. They need all stakeholders, including us, to contribute if this nation wishes to continue its gold-medal-winning tradition at the Olympics.

Beyond the Olympic dream, the full support of the public would also help prevent the badminton team from descending to such mediocre status after a long history of success.

EDITORIAL : THE TRIPOLI POST, LIBYA

US Foreign Policy Invigorated at the Expense of Gaza

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has made a series of stern and fiery statements recently, giving the impression that war is somehow upon us once again. Oddly, Clinton’s sudden reappearance into the Middle East diplomacy scene was triggered by the brave attempts of peace activists to break the siege on Gaza. In recent months, as Arab nations settled old scores with their insufferable dictators, US foreign policy started taking a backseat. Attempts at swaying Arab revolts teetered between bashful diplomatic efforts to sustain US interests - as was the case with Yemen - and military intervention, as in Libya, which is still being marketed to the US public as a humanitarian intervention, as opposed to the war it actually is. The indecisiveness and double-standards on display are hardly new. The US’ stance during the Tunisian popular revolution ranged between complete lack of interest (when the protests began brewing in December 2010), to sudden enthusiasm for freedom and democracy (when the revolts led to the ousting of longtime President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali on January 14, 2011). The same foreign policy pendulum repeatedly swung both ways during the Egyptian Revolution. The US political definitions of Hosni Mubarak shifted from that of a friendly leader to that of a loathsome dictator who had to go for the sake of Egyptian democracy. It took Tunisians 28 days to overthrow their leader, and Egyptians 18 days to outset Mubarak. During these periods, US foreign policy in the two countries - and the Middle East as a whole - seemed impossible to delineate in any concrete statements. Hillary Clinton was an emblematic figure in this diplomatic discrepancy. Now Clinton is back, speaking in a lucid language which leaves no room for misinterpretation. When it comes to the security and interests of Israel - as opposed to those of the entire Middle East region and all its nations - Clinton, like other top American officials, leaves no room for error. Israel will always come first. Clinton’s forceful language was triggered by the decision of humanitarian activists from over 20 countries to travel to Gaza in a symbolic gesture to challenge the Israeli blockade of one of the poorest regions on earth. The 500 peace activists on board ten boats will include musicians, writers, Nobel Laureates, Holocaust survivors, and members of parliament. “We think that it's not helpful for there to be flotillas that try to provoke action by entering into Israeli waters and creating a situation in which the Israelis have the right to defend themselves,” Clinton told reporters on June 23. Of course, the foreboding language offers another blank check to Israel, giving it permission to do as it pleases. If Israel repeated the same scenario it used to intercept and punish activists abroad the first flotilla on May 31, 2010 - killing nine activists in the Mavi Marmara - then it would constitute another act of ‘self-defence’, according to Clinton’s avant-garde rationale. Responding to Clinton’s comments, Irish MEP Paul Murphy told the Irish Examiner on June 24: “It is not true that we will be entering Israeli waters. We will be sailing through Gaza waters.” He added, “Ms Clinton’s comments are disgraceful. She has essentially given the green light to Israeli Defence Forces to use violence against participants in the flotilla.” Indeed, Israeli diplomats will be utilizing Clinton’s advanced verbal and political support for the Israeli action in every platform available to them. According to Clinton, the entire business with the flotillas is unnecessary. “We don’t think it’s useful or helpful or productive to the people of Gaza,” she told reporters in Washington, adding that, “a far better approach is to support the work that’s being done through the United Nations.” The United Nations had already declared the Gaza siege illegal. Various top UN officials have stated this fact repeatedly, and the international body had called on Israel to end the siege. Notable among the many statements was a 34-page report by UN human rights chief Navi Pillay. Published on August 14, 2009, the report “accused Israel of violating the rules of warfare with its blockade stopping people and goods from moving in or out of the Gaza Strip,” according to the Associated Press. The Gaza blockade,” Pillay stated, “amounts to collective punishment of civilians, which is prohibited under the Geneva Conventions on the conduct of warfare and occupation.” Before the 34 pages could be thoroughly examined, both the US and Israel dismissed the findings. Now Clinton is suddenly urging all interested parties to work through the same institution that her department has repeatedly undermined. Pillay’s report was issued nearly two years ago. Since then, little has been done to remedy the situation and to bring to an end the protracted Palestinian tragedy in Gaza. In fact, UNRWA has recently put Gaza’s unemployment at 45.2 percent, allegedly amongst the worst in the world. The UN report, released on June 14, claimed that unemployment in the first half of 2011 had increased by 3 percent. Monthly wages were also shown to have declined significantly. It seems the humanitarian crisis in Gaza is not only bad, it is progressively worsening. This time, Clinton is speaking from a power position. As diplomatic pressure from Israel finally dissuaded Turkey from allowing the Humanitarian Relief Foundation (İHH) from joining the flotilla, it seems the Mavi Marmara won’t be setting sail to Gaza anytime soon. As if to confirm that the IHH decision was motivated by political pressure, Clinton “spoke to her Turkish counterpart, Ahmet Davutoglu to express her happiness at the announcement” (according to Turkey’s Hurriyet Daily News, June 21). With political victory in mind, the State Department travel warning of June 22 read like a legal disclaimer issued by the Israeli foreign ministry. It warned US citizens to avoid any attempt to reach Gaza by sea. Those who participate in a flotilla risk arrest, prosecution, deportation and a possible 10-year travel ban by Israel. In a region that is rife with opportunities for political stances - or at least a measurable shift in policy - the US State Department and its chief diplomat have offered nothing but inconsistency and contradiction. Now, thanks to a group of peaceful civil society activists, including many pacifists and elders, the State Department is getting its decisive voice back. And the voice is as atrocious and unprincipled as ever.

EDITORIAL : THE NEW YORK TIMES, USA

The First Amendment, Upside Down

The Supreme Court decision striking down public matching funds in Arizona’s campaign finance system is a serious setback for American democracy. The opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. in Monday’s 5-to-4 decision shows again the conservative majority’s contempt for campaign finance laws that aim to provide some balance to the unlimited amounts of money flooding the political system.

In the Citizens United case, the court ruled that the government may not ban corporations, unions and other moneyed institutions from spending in political campaigns. The Arizona decision is a companion to that destructive landmark ruling. It takes away a vital, innovative way of ensuring that candidates who do not have unlimited bank accounts can get enough public dollars to compete effectively.

Arizona’s campaign finance law provided a set amount of money in initial public support for candidates who opted into its financing system, depending on the type of election. If a candidate faced a rival who opted out, the state would match the spending of the privately financed candidate and independent groups supporting him, up to triple the initial amount. Once that limit is reached, the publicly financed candidate receives no other public funds and is barred from using private contributions, no matter how much more the privately financed candidate spends.

Chief Justice Roberts found that this mechanism “imposes a substantial burden” on the free speech rights of candidates and independent groups because it penalized them when their spending triggered additional money for a candidate who opted into the public program. The court turns the First Amendment on its head. It denies the actual effect of the Arizona law, which is not to limit spending but to increase it with public funds. The state program expands political speech by giving all candidates, not just the wealthy, a chance to run — while allowing privately financed candidates to spend as much as they want.

Justice Elena Kagan, writing in dissent, dissects the court’s willful misunderstanding of the result. Rather than a restriction on speech, she says, the trigger mechanism is a subsidy with the opposite effect: “It subsidizes and produces more political speech.” Those challenging the law, she wrote, demanded — and have now won — the right to “quash others’ speech” so they could have “the field to themselves.” She explained that the matching funds program — unlike a lump sum grant to candidates — sensibly adjusted the amount disbursed so that it was neither too little money to attract candidates nor too large a drain on public coffers.

Arizona’s system was a response to a history of terrible corruption in the state’s politics. Rather than seeing the law as a way to control corruption, the court struck it down as a limit on the right of wealthy candidates and independent groups to speak louder than others.

The ruling left in place other public financing systems without such trigger provisions, including public financing for presidential elections. It shows, however, how little the court cares about the interest of citizens in Arizona or elsewhere in keeping their electoral politics clean.

Lots of Talk, Too Little Action

The price of agricultural commodities has surged by more than a third over the past year — cereal prices by 70 percent — surpassing even the levels that sparked widespread food riots in 2008. According to the World Bank, the rise in prices pushed 44 million more people into hunger in the second half of 2010.

It is disappointing that the agriculture ministers from the 20 large industrial economies who gathered last week in Paris failed to end two policies that are a big part of the problem: bans on agricultural exports by certain producers and government supports for food-based biofuel production.

A report for the Group of 20 meeting by the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization, the World Bank and others noted that eliminating or curtailing these policies would help mitigate the spikes in prices that have deepened hunger in the poorest countries in the world.

The United States, Brazil and several other biofuel makers opposed an agreement to cut support for biofuels. This country is the world’s biggest ethanol producer. The 13.5 billion gallons made here last year used about 40 percent of the nation’s corn crop. Government supports include a nearly $6 billion annual subsidy for ethanol makers.

The ministers agreed only to further study the relation between biofuel production and food prices. That is just an excuse for continuing to protect these industries. The cost should be clear to all by this point. The report to the Group of 20 noted that biofuels consumed 20 percent of the global sugar cane crop between 2007 and 2009, when food prices soared, as well as 4 percent of the beet crop and 9 percent of the world’s production of coarse grains like corn.

The ministers also failed to forbid the use of export barriers to hold down food prices at home. Argentina, Russia and more than two dozen others have adopted bans since prices began to surge, sending global prices even higher and discouraging investment in food producing regions. The ministers did agree that countries could not restrict sales to the World Food Program so it can continue to address crises. It is not enough.

The agricultural summit meeting, the first of its kind, did make some progress. The participants agreed to set up a system to monitor world food stocks and production to prevent misinformation that can contribute to price fluctuations. They also agreed on a pilot program for an emergency food reserve system to respond to shortages in vulnerable countries.

More aggressive action is needed. High energy prices and irregular weather patterns are likely to keep food prices volatile, even as demand increases from fast-growing developing countries. The first step to ensuring a steady food supply is to eliminate the most egregious distortions in agriculture policy.

A Gravel Road Too Far

It would be nice to be able to praise the Tanzanian government and President Jakaya Kikwete for dropping plans to build a road across the northern section of Serengeti National Park. The road, about 32 miles long, would have cut across one of the planet’s major migratory corridors — used by great herds of wildebeest and other animals — and one of the last of its kind on the planet.

Unfortunately, the letter announcing Tanzania’s change in plans is too ambiguous to celebrate, and it leaves the ultimate fate of Serengeti unresolved.

Tanzania now proposes to build roads right up to the edge of Serengeti. The letter, from the minister for natural resources and tourism to Unesco’s World Heritage Center, then announces that the controversial route across the park “will remain gravel road” and be managed by the Tanzanian national parks system. But such a gravel road does not now exist, since much of this section of the park is maintained as wilderness.

By conceding its hopes for an asphalt road across Serengeti, Tanzania gets a gravel road by sleight of hand. In fact, it was a plan for a gravel road across the park that caused worldwide protest last year.

Serengeti lies directly on a route from Uganda to a Tanzanian port called Tanga, on the Indian Ocean. The pressure to develop this route is intense, thanks largely to mining and other extractive industries in Uganda. Tanzania has a right, of course, to pursue its economic future. A major part of its economic present is revenue from tourism, mostly related to Serengeti. It is time for the Tanzanian government to do the right thing, economically and environmentally, and declare its unequivocal commitment to protect Serengeti’s integrity.

New Jersey’s Governor, Champion of Inequality

New York’s approval of same-sex marriage was a testament to Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s political courage. In the New Jersey governor’s office, it is good sense that is in short supply on this issue.

It appears as though there are sufficient votes in the State Legislature to pass a marriage-equality bill in New Jersey — a positive change from last year when the freedom to marry was defeated in the Democratic-led State Senate. The obstacle is Gov. Chris Christie, a Republican.

“I’m not a fan of same-sex marriage,” Governor Christie said on the NBC News program “Meet the Press” on Sunday — a rather strange way of putting it. “I believe marriage should be between one man and one woman.” He vowed to veto any bill resembling the historic civil rights law that was approved in New York with help from his Democratic peer, Gov. Andrew Cuomo. Mr. Christie said the state would “continue to pursue civil unions,” a separate and inferior category of recognition that still results in inequality.

A new court fight looms. On Wednesday, a civil rights group, Lambda Legal, plans to file a lawsuit in New Jersey Superior Court with the goal of showing that civil unions fail to meet the mandate of equal legal rights and financial benefits for same-sex couples set by the State Supreme Court in a 2006 ruling. The group’s hope, which we share, is that the case leads to a ruling by New Jersey’s top court ending the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage.

It should not take a court’s edict for lawmakers to do what is right. Governor Christie’s veto threat is no excuse for legislators to sit on their hands. The president of the State Senate, Stephen Sweeney, recently said that he had made the “biggest mistake” of his career when he withheld his support for same-sex marriage last year for timid political reasons, and at a time when a Democrat, Jon Corzine, was in the governor’s chair. He can make amends by building a veto-proof majority for the marriage bill.

EDITORIAL : THE DAILY STAR, BANGLADESH

           

 

Proposed changes to ACC Act

Defeats purpose of eliminating corruption

WE welcome the decision of the parliamentary standing committee on law ministry to further scrutinise sections of the Anti-Corruption Commission (Amendment) Bill 2011 before finalising it. We especially thank the Finance Minister who voiced strong support for the parliamentary body's stance against the proposed provision of the bill which stipulates that, before corruption charges can be filed against a judge, magistrate or public servant, permission must be obtained from the government. This proposed version seems almost designed to protect the corrupt in high places.

The ACC was constituted with a mandate of rooting out corruption -- which robs us of some 2% of our national GDP. The ACC chief had previously complained of the body being made toothless and has recently demanded financial autonomy and administrative power. If the proposed changes were to come through, how would we distinguish between the former anti-graft body, the Bureau of Anti-Corruption and the ACC, which would simply become an appendage of the executive? As the Finance Minister himself has said, under the proposed bill, only "small fry" would be brought to book. We have seen in the case of Pakistan that, under such a law where permission to file corruption charges against civil servants had to be sought from the government, only one person has ever been charged. The anti-graft bodies of the UK, USA and India, which are in no way connected to the executive, are ones we should rather replicate.

Containing corruption was an election promise of the government. Contrary to sane advice from civil society, the media and development partners to not dilute the authority of the ACC, however, the government shows signs of appeasing the bureaucracy. We urge the government not to succumb to bureaucratic pressure and to discard the controversial provision of acquiring permission from the government to file graft cases against civil servants, for its own sake and for that of the nation. If the law becomes conditional, the nation will never be freed of corruption. We must have a zero tolerance policy towards corruption and to ensure this, the ACC must be strengthened further and not made to become a redundant appendage of the government.

JS body finds prices stable

Really?

ONE must take the report of the JS committee on commerce, that it is satisfied that the prices of daily essentials were "stable" and that it did not "increase" after the announcement of the budget on 9 June, with more than a pinch of salt. What we find rather inexplicable is the incorrect reflection of actual prices of commodities, in some cases, in the report, which was prepared on the basis of a visit by the committee to a few of the kitchen markets of Dhaka.

The visit was conducted with a great deal of fanfare and accompanied by a bevy of staff and law enforcing personal, as one could make out from the footages appearing on the telly. And that is not quite the way to assess the prices of daily essentials. Reportedly, the committee was misled by the shopkeepers who fed them with false figures.

We wish we could concur with the committee. The reality on the ground speaks quite differently than what the committee would have us believe. And that was reflected in the comments of several members of the parliament, including those belonging to the ruling coalition, who had expressed concern over the rise in prices of essentials, in the parliament on Sunday. In reality prices have actually markedly increased since the announcement of the budget, and unfortunately that is quite in keeping with the pre-Ramadan trend of the past.

The committee should do more than merely express its hope that the prices would remain stable during the month of Ramadan. And certainly hanging price lists in all the markets in the capital is not the way to control prices of essentials, least of all during Ramadan. To start with, they should get the real market picture and ensure that vested quarters, whose prime concern is to make profit only, are prevented from interfering with the market mechanisms.

EDITORIAL : THE NEW STRAITS TIMES, MALAYSIA

 

 

Aesthetic standards

WHEN Charice Pempengco -- the little Philippine singer with the big voice -- was about to join the cast of the TV series Glee, her choice of preparation for the show shocked and outraged fans and the public: The then 18-year-old got a Botox injection in order to look "fresh" for the camera. Even entertainment media critics were astonished by the need for someone so young to get such a procedure. But the United States is seeing an increase in the demand for Botox, from children as young as 13. In Britain, aesthetic surgery increases by five per cent annually, in spite of the recession there.

Whether or not these measures make sense to people who don't believe in aesthetic surgery, the fact is that patients do have a right to as safe and proper a treatment as elective surgery can afford. Unfortunately, the boom in aesthetic procedures in this country has not been complemented by the assurance of a professional medical practice. Patients go to beauty centres for Botox injections and surgery, even though the person conducting the procedure may not be medically qualified to do the job. As a result, assumed "simple" Botox or liposuction procedures have been known to go awry -- paralysing the patient or sending him or her into an irreversible coma, if not death.

Which is why the health minister's pledge to regulate the aesthetic industry and provide guidelines for aesthetic practitioners could not have come too soon. Including these practitioners in the Medical Act 1971 would require them to be registered with the Health Ministry; for which they would have to be qualified and professionally trained. The proposed regulations, including making it compulsory for practitioners to take up a special syllabus to qualify, will at least ensure that they are properly trained for that specific procedure. In the meantime, the ministry should apply and strictly enforce Section 33 of the Medical Act, which makes it illegal for unregistered medical centres to use the terms "clinic", "dispensary" or "hospital", or even use a stethoscope or hypodermic needle, so that people won't be induced into believing the person running such a place is qualified to practise medicine or surgery.

At the same time, people who are considering aesthetic surgery and procedures should think very carefully about the risks presented by injecting a toxin into the body or going for elective invasive surgery. Exposure to anaesthetics and the risk of infection leading to death are real risks, for which luck and statistics might not be in one's favour. The value of a life can go beyond mere aesthetics.

EDITORIAL : THE DAILY TRIBUNE, THE PHILIPPINES

 

 

Cop out question

EDITORIAL

06/28/2011
Social Weather Station (SWS)’s latest survey release was obviously meant to please the Malacañang tenant, what with a cop out question included over whether respondents believe that in the long run, Noynoy will be successful or unsuccessful president, preceded by an “OR”.
One question was whether respondents think that Noynoy will be a successful president, with a 22 percent affirming it, while 10 say the contrary. But there is an additional question, which was the cop out question, or the easy way out for an answer, which was, or whether it is still too early to tell.
So why include that question in the same questionnaire, when the majority answer would have to be “it’s too early to tell, if not to give Malacañang a “feel good” feedback?
As it was, Malacañang quickly welcomed the latest SWS release on this, with presidential mouthpiece Edwin Lacierda being quoted as describing the “too early to tell” majority response as “recognition on the part of the public of the magnitude of the tasks before (the Aquino administration),” adding that “the task of transforming our government and policies to promote inclusive growth, achieve justice for all, and restore our institutions to provide genuine service to our people, is one that requires cooperation for all. It also requires time, and sustained efforts from all concerned.”
See the quick Palace spin on this “too early to tell” majority when it really is a cop out question, or a way of evading either answer to the specific question of whether or not Noynoy will be a successful president.
This type of mind-conditioning survey question is hardly any different from the SWS’ pre-presidential election survey results for the same purpose, such as asking respondents who they think would make the best leader after Gloria and then letting respondents give three names, top of the head answers.
Mind-conditioning it was, since the figures would naturally be bloated, as the respondents vote three times, which makes no sense.
Since the results of the June survey showed a continuing decline in the satisfaction ratings of Noynoy, and that he and his aides had to do a Gloria on the “I prefer to be right than popular” line and going to the extent of their latching on the “very good” category claim, what better separate question to pose to respondents than one which would automatically extract a butter up to the Palace answer of “too early to tell?”
Noynoy will have been in office for a year in two days. What other answer would a majority of respondents — mixed in with the undecideds — give, as the question is much too safe, and intended to elicit an affirmative answer?
One can read the survey results differently should the question of whether Noynoy will be a successful president or not have been the only one asked of respondents. Twenty-two percent believe he would be a successful president while 10 percent do not think so, while 68 percent should have fallen under the undecided column.
Incidentally, such survey questions were never included in SWS surveys with past presidents, but again, one suspects that the “too early to tell” question is yet another mind-conditioning scheme of the survey outfit to counteract the growing perception that Noynoy’s ratings have fallen drastically and will probably keep on falling due to his do-nothing presidency and the clear absence of solid achievements in his first year in office.
About the only thing that can probably be gleaned from the SWS and Pulse Asia surveys is the downward curve of the satisfaction/approval/trust ratings of Noynoy, along with the upward curve, or at least the maintenance of the high ratings of Vice President Jojo Binay.
Taking both officials’ ratings, what is clear is that the public sees Binay as a performer and achiever while the same public sees Noynoy as a non-performer and a gross underachiever, else, how to explain the downward curve of Noynoy’s ratings and the upward curve of Binay’s ratings, with both having been in office for a year?

EDITORIAL : THE GUARDIAN, ENGLAND

        

 

In praise of ... senior backbenchers

More Labour veterans should emulate the example of Mr Straw

What should a senior politician do after the ministerial car and red boxes recede into memory? In too many cases, the Labour way – like that of many Conservatives before them – has been to get out too quickly. Some, from Tony Blair down, chose to leverage ministerial experience for a comfortable career in the private sector. Others, of whom Gordon Brown stands out, have found themselves stranded in the Commons without purpose or enthusiasm. Several of his last cabinet still seem undecided about the future. It is because it is so unusual for a former minister to return to the backbenches with a healthy appetite for parliamentary work that Jack Straw currently stands out. Mr Straw was, to say the least, a controversial minister – foreign secretary during Iraq, cautious on constitutional reform, instinctively conservative on law and order – but there is no question he has turned himself into a formidable senior backbencher. Regularly in the chamber, his interventions are independent and searching. On Monday he used his heft as a senior figure to create a stir over car insurance reform which no junior backbencher could hope to equal. Plenty of Conservative ex-ministers – Stephen Dorrell, Peter Lilley, Malcolm Rifkind for three – also stayed the unglamorous course in the Commons to the benefit of their party and parliament alike. More Labour veterans should emulate their example, and that of Mr Straw, by staying in the Commons to wield their not insignificant power as senior backbenchers.

 

 

 

China and the EU: The longest of marches

The Chinese are coming, and for some, like the workers at Saab's Trollhättan plant in Sweden, they cannot come fast enough

Forget the Russians. The Chinese are coming, and for some in Europe, like the 3,800 workers at Saab's Trollhättan plant in Sweden, they cannot come fast enough. Unable to pay its suppliers, or now, it seems, its workers, Saab was thrown a short-term lifeline yesterday by an order for 582 cars for which an unidentified Chinese company will pay upfront. Nor is this an isolated example. A report to be issued shortly by the European Council on Foreign Relations estimates that China's purchase of public debt in Greece, Portugal, Italy and Spain may be of the order of €15bn-€20bn, peanuts in comparison to the $647bn in which China's holdings in US treasuries have increased in the last three years, but, when coupled to its direct investments, which will grow to $1tn by 2020, significant enough to the distressed periphery of Europe.

China is not shy of using its growing economic clout. A Hong Kong Airlines contract to buy billions of euros' worth of Airbus aircraft has been put on ice, because the Chinese government is unhappy about EU emissions trading legislation which will force Chinese carriers to pay more for flights landing in Europe. There will be more of the same as two business cultures clash. China's export of its surplus capital is both unavoidable – because it is diversifying from its US holdings to invest in Japan and Europe – and welcome. But whereas public contracts in Europe are open to China, Chinese public contracts are anything but to European companies. European companies can only get Chinese public sector contracts under stringent conditions.

For this reason, the most significant meeting that prime minister Wen Jiabao will have on his European tour will be today at a joint meeting of the German cabinet. If anyone can speak for Europe and provide leadership on the need for reciprocity in trading relations with China, it is Angela Merkel. The crisis in the eurozone has provided rich short-term opportunities for the Chinese, but it is in the medium and longer terms that European interests in transparency, a level playing field and the rule of law should be brought to bear.

Either the EU gets tough in its demands, by threatening to shut out firms from countries like China that remain closed – barring them from tendering for public contracts in Europe – or it allows China to pick off one country with a tottering economy after another and use companies like Airbus as proxy lobbyists to derail Europe's emissions standards. It is clear what should happen to establish parity in trading relations in the long term. Making it happen in conditions where member governments are scrambling for cash is a more challenging but just as necessary task.

Wen said that China would not tolerate finger-wagging lectures on human rights and that the UK and China should respect each other as equals. Regular crackdowns on activists and lawyers, in the form of arrests and extrajudicial disappearances – the latest being in response to the Arab spring – are one symptom among many of how bumpy the process of internal reform is. It will get a lot bumpier in next year's leadership changes, which will usher in a new generation of leaders, the so-called princelings like Xi Jinping, who are sons of the heroes of the Long March. If, as we are constantly told, China's annual growth rates are unsustainable and the world's second-largest economy could yet hit its own Japanese-style brick wall – as an export and property boom collapses in stagnation – China has a clear interest in seeking European high technology and expertise in transforming its economy. An economy that seeks to become green, innovative and sustainable will also have to tap the strength of its own ecologists, lawyers and civil society. Mutual economic dependence is a good place to start, but the dialogue must not end there. China and Europe have a lot to give each other.

Ministry of Defence: Too many chiefs

No battle plan, it is said, ever survives the first contact with the enemy. It seems to be a bit like that with British defence planning too

No battle plan, it is said, ever survives the first contact with the enemy. It seems to be a bit like that with British defence planning too. This country is often on the verge of finalising the large strategic debate about national security, and the forces and structures required to protect it. But then events kick in and everything is bent in new directions, leaving the theorists and planners stranded and the old interest groups intact. Inevitably, there is suspicion that the latest internal recasting of the MoD, though triggered by 10 months' work by Lord Levene and the defence reform unit, has also been shaped at the 11th hour by Downing Street's extreme anger at recent unauthorised public complaints by the service chiefs about the sustainability of the Libya mission.

British defence thinking, planning and organisation often remain stubbornly out of sync with both the strategic and defence needs of the United Kingdom and with the ability to pay for it in tight times. Monday's statement by the defence secretary, Liam Fox, in response to the Levene report may in time come to be seen as pivotal in correcting this. Inevitably, that was how Dr Fox presented it in his speech to the Reform thinktank and then, later, in the Commons. But the proof of these things is in how they work out in practice. Past experience, and the current destabilising arguments over Libya, inescapably means that the claims made on behalf of the Levene reforms have to be taken with a pinch of salt.

The Levene reforms look right on paper. As Dr Fox made clear to MPs, the defence establishment is top-heavy, bureaucratic, and has an inbuilt tendency for counterproductive and expensive haggling. The reforms at the heart of Monday's statement – reduction in the numbers of commanders, better co-ordination through a slimmed-down decision-making structure, and service accountability for spending decisions – all make eminent sense in easing those problems. But, as the Libya arguments have shown, these good intentions struggle to survive big new commitments or shocks, some of them generated from 10 Downing Street rather than an external enemy.

National security strategists rarely have the luxury of making defence policy in isolation from dangerous and volatile events. Yet, as Afghanistan winds down and as the action in Libya evolves and, hopefully, concludes, this country needs to pause and take better stock of its future defence needs than it has done in the recent past. It is a debate that our national politics needs. And it is a debate in which the military, however self-interested and disruptive their rivalries can sometimes be, need to be heard too.

EDITORIAL : THE DAILY YOMIURI, JAPAN

            

 

Current govt set up for disaster mismanagement

The Yomiuri Shimbun

What part of government should be in charge of ensuring the safety of operations at nuclear power plants?

It has been unclear who is in command since the start of the ongoing crisis at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant.

In the past, it was presumed the duty of handling a nuclear accident should fall on the Nuclear Safety Commission, a body set up under the supervision of the Cabinet Office.

The NSC has five members, all specialists in nuclear science and areas of related expertise. It has a staff of about 100. The nuclear watchdog body has undertaken, for instance, to lay down safety design guidelines for the construction of new nuclear power stations. The panel has also put together a set of guiding principles to be followed by the national and local governments in responding to nuclear accidents.

The construction of nuclear power plants in Japan rests on the principle of double-checking--that is, the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency, an affiliate of the Economy, Trade and Industry Ministry, examines applications for nuclear power facility construction, based on the NSC's safety design guidelines. This is to be followed by efforts by the NSC to inspect the results of the NISA examination, thus catching anything the latter's inspection might have missed.

The NSC's strong authority is also evident in its action to be taken if there are grave concerns about the safety of operations at a nuclear power plant. In that event, the panel is authorized to issue advisory opinions, through the prime minister, to the Cabinet Office and other government ministries and institutions related to such issues.

But the NSC has hardly played a noticeable role in responding to the ongoing nuclear crisis.

===

Is anyone really in charge?

This is because Prime Minister Naoto Kan has refused to follow his predecessors' policies for dealing with similar accidents. Instead, the prime minister has added several specialists to a group of his advisers and set up too many new organs associated with his administration's response to the crisis. All this points to his emphasis on what is called "seiji-shudo," an initiative taken by elected politicians seeking to break the grip of the all-powerful bureaucracy and take greater policymaking authority into their own hands.

Kan is also proud that he is well informed about the technicalities of nuclear technology, and he has refused to bring the NSC into full play in trying to defuse the ongoing crisis.

The safety commission is in a position to spearhead efforts to contain the crisis under its own disaster-management guidelines. However, the fact remains that the NSC has limited its involvement in the government's response to the disaster, playing the minimal role defined in the law on its establishment.

The commission's involvement in this respect remains unsatisfactory. The panel has only offered expert advice when the government ministries and other offices related to the nuclear disaster have requested such assistance.

The NSC should understand its duty is to actively work to end the ongoing emergency.

===

Public anxiety growing

Little headway is being made in overcoming the nuclear crisis at the Fukushima facility. Residents in other areas hosting nuclear power plants are increasingly apprehensive about the safety of such facilities. It is feared that the status quo could eventually lead to the suspension of operations at one nuclear power plant after another, a development that would impair the nation's power supply.

Last week, the NSC started reconsidering its nuclear safety guidelines, including its guides for the design of new nuclear power plants.

We feel the panel is mistaken in its priorities. Under the circumstances, the commission should strive to end the ongoing crisis as soon as possible while also securing the safety of existing nuclear power facilities.

We also find it difficult to understand the motive behind some remarks by NSC Chairman Haruki Madarame. For example, he has said that "the Economy, Trade and Industry Ministry must be held responsible" for regulating nuclear power plants in operation. This remark sounds as if he regarded the regulation of nuclear power generation as having nothing to do with him.

Shortly after the nuclear crisis began, the NSC chief told the government a hydrogen explosion would not happen. This caused a delay in the government's response to the series of hydrogen blasts that did in fact take place.

The latest nuclear disaster has dealt a serious blow to public trust in Japan's administration of nuclear safety rules. The regulatory system must be rebuilt.

The NSC must play a central role in improving the safety of nuclear power plants in this country and gaining popular support for its measures to achieve that goal. Failure to do so would mean the nuclear watchdog has lost its raison d'etre.

World Heritage status a boost to recovery

The Yomiuri Shimbun

Hiraizumi in Iwate Prefecture and the Ogasawara Islands in Tokyo were designated last week as a World Heritage cultural site and a natural site, respectively.

In UNESCO's 2008 screening of applications, Hiraizumi stressed its "cultural landscape" but was not added to the World Heritage list. In its second attempt, the town finally succeeded by emphasizing that its Buddhist temples and related historical artifacts embody Jodo (Pure Land) Buddhism.

The designation is expected to provide a chance for the town to bring back tourists, whose numbers declined sharply in the aftermath of the Great East Japan Earthquake. It will also serve as a spiritual foothold for recovery and reconstruction of the Tohoku region. More than anything else, the designation must have come as great encouragement for people living in areas devastated by the March 11 disaster.

Refined Buddhist culture flourished in Hiraizumi under the 12th-century rule of the Oshu Fujiwara samurai clan in the Heian period (794-1192). Chusonji temple, known for its Konjikido golden hall, and other cultural assets were built with the wish of realizing a land of paradise based on Jodo thought.

===

Artifacts survive disaster

Almost all these cultural assets were unscathed in the recent disaster. Memorial services have been held at the Konjikido to console the souls of disaster victims. The assets handed down from generation to generation must continue to be preserved carefully for the future.

About 1,000 kilometers south of Tokyo, the Ogasawara Islands are dubbed the "Galapagos of the Orient." The island chain is so nicknamed because it has never been connected with a continent and its flora and fauna have followed independent paths of evolution.

A big headache for the moment is how to eliminate alien species from the islands. Plants and animals not native to the islands have proliferated there, threatening indigenous species.

The green anole, a lizard species said to have first appeared on the islands when they were under U.S. administration in the postwar period, eats insects indigenous to the islands. Out of concern about damage to the ecological system, the Environment Ministry has been working hard to capture the lizards.

The number of tourists to Yakushima island in Kagoshima Prefecture has increased since its designation as a World Heritage site in 1993, raising concern about the environmental impact of the visitors themselves.

Expectations are also high for the Ogasawara Islands to develop as a popular tourist destination by taking advantage of their designation as a World Heritage site. Many local residents are calling for the construction of an airport.

===

Assets common to humankind

But it must be remembered that designation of World Heritage sites is aimed at preserving valuable assets common to all humankind under the supervision of the international community. How can preservation and tourism promotion coexist? This is a difficult challenge but it is necessary to find an answer that can stand the test of time.

Designation of World Heritage sites began in 1978. The number of such sites has already topped 900, which some people criticize as excessive. Screening has become stricter year after year.

Mt. Fuji, the Tomioka silk mill in Gunma Prefecture and the ancient capital of Kamakura are currently on UNESCO's provisional list of World Heritage site candidates. Each is awaiting an official government recommendation.

It is essential to analyze the factors that led to the successful listing of Hiraizumi and Ogasawara and take advantage of the results in future bids for World Heritage designation.

EDITORIAL : THE DAILY MIRROR, SRILANKA

SLC bowled by party politics and fraud   The shocking news, that the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) had refused to issue ‘no objection certificates’ to the 12 Indian cricketers who had agreed to participate in the Sri Lanka Premier League (SLPL) T20 cricket tournament had not only ‘surprised and hurt’ the severely cash-strapped Sri Lanka Cricket (SLC) but also saddened and disappointed the millions of cricket fans in Sri Lanka. In the absence of some of the well known and popular cricketing talent from India, it appeared last week that the tournament might be a non-starter but SLC has decided to go ahead. The reason given by the BCCI for banning the Indian cricketers from taking part in the SLPL was that it was being conducted by a private company, the Singapore-based Somerset Entertainment Ventures Pvt. Ltd. But could this have been the only reason for the decision or could there have been other underlying factors which prompted the BCCI to announce a virtual boycott of the SLPL, from July 19 to August 4. Amid reports last week that top SLC officials will travel to India as announced by Sports Minister Mahindananda Aluthgamage to explain matters to Indian cricket board officials, the BCCI chief said the decision would not be changed and neither would it make any exceptions to the rule. In any event, the SLC officials did not go to India but are reported to have held a video conference with Indian cricket officials. Against this backdrop we found Minister Aluthgamage also last week denying an earlier front page news item headlined ‘Ministers no-ball two billion grant for SLC’. He said his request had not been rejected by the Cabinet but was under consideration. SLC once known to have been one of the richest institutions in Sri Lanka is now buffeted, riddled and hammered over the boundary lines with allegations of large scale fraud and corruption especially in the wake of the 2011 Cricket World Cup matches co-hosted by Sri Lanka. Readers will recall former Sports Minister C.B. Ratnayake telling local and foreign journalists, that SLC is the third most corrupt institution in Sri Lanka. But sadly his decision to clean up the mess was never carried out after he was compelled or coerced to reappoint the members whom he lambasted. Alas, he too was soon moved out of the sports ministry. Amid media reports that SLC had struggled to pay some 22 million rupees as salaries to its employees last month and with billions in unpaid bills, it was not surprising or unusual for Minister Aluthgamage to follow the usual pattern when confronted with such matters to say that SLC was financially sound but it is well known that SLC found some breathing space with a Treasury grant. But after all the big talk and empty rhetoric it did not take long for the minister to stretch out his begging bowl to the Cabinet with a plea for two billion rupees. Given the level of party politicisation and interference it will be a daunting task to pull SLC out of the financial mud hole it has got itself into. In the midst of all the confusion, double talk and secret agendas, millions of Sri Lankan cricket fans are anxious to know whether urgent remedial measures will be taken to help SLC regain its fast dwindling credibility, support base and financial resources.

EDITORIAL : THE HINDU, INDIA

The NSG challenge

The Nuclear Suppliers Group may well have been trying to tighten the general rules for the international transfer of enrichment and reprocessing equipment and technology (ENR) but its insistence on membership of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty as a condition of supply has effectively punched a hole in the historic waiver India negotiated with the cartel in 2008. This reversal will, of course, politically damage Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who promised Parliament in 2006 that his government would start placing Indian civil nuclear facilities under international safeguards only after all international restrictions in the nuclear field had been lifted. But a bigger challenge confronts our diplomatic establishment, which now faces the task of ensuring that the mutual commitments undertaken by India and its nuclear partners are implemented in full. Ever since the July 2005 joint statement with the United States, official India has asserted that all the promises and commitments it was making — the separation of its military and civilian nuclear sectors, the acceptance of international safeguards over its civilian facilities, the placing of huge commercial orders, etc. — were in exchange for full civil nuclear cooperation. The bilateral agreements signed with the U.S., France, and Russia, and the NSG statement on India that emerged after two bruising rounds of negotiations in 2008, were all drafted accordingly. If one side now insists on making unilateral changes, this will be a breach of trust.

India's initial response to last week's setback at the NSG has been guarded. It has indicated to the three major reactor-supplying nations that they must stand by their earlier commitments. But if they baulk or prevaricate, New Delhi will have to exercise the leverage it has. The U.S., France, and Russia are not doing India a favour by agreeing to sell nuclear reactors. The bill for this equipment will run eventually into tens of billions of dollars. India has promised to buy 10,000 MW worth of reactors from the U.S. alone. Then there are the defence purchases the country is slated to make. Smart diplomacy would have meant leveraging these assets in advance. The ENR writing has been on the wall since November 2008, when a ‘clean text' of the new restrictions first emerged in draft form. Unfortunately, the United Progressive Alliance regime soft-pedalled the issue, preferring to demarche its partners in private rather than making a big deal out of the fact that the terms of the nuclear deal were being arbitrarily redrawn. Even today, the ENR issue is not a lost cause: like the nuclear embargo itself, this latest unjust restriction on India can be reversed. But only if the government has the political stomach to play hardball.

Finally, a breakthrough

Under tremendous pressure to crack senior crime journalist Jyotirmoy Dey's murder on June 11, the Mumbai police have come up with an underworld shooter from the Chhota Rajan gang as the main culprit. Satish Kaliya and six others are to be booked under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) and their gang leader Chhota Rajan made an absconding accused in the case. The arrest comes a day after another gang leader, Chhota Shakeel, called up a leading newspaper and denied he had anything to do with the killing of Dey. Rajan too had reportedly denied his involvement. The Mumbai police took their time with the case and were reluctant to hand it over to the CBI. Investigations are still under way and the 3,000 emails in Dey's inbox have to be examined for crucial evidence. Importantly no motive, whether professional or personal, has been ascribed to the killing as yet. From police accounts, the murder was planned meticulously over 20 days. However, it is rather strange that the shooter was, according to the police, unaware of the identity of Dey as a leading crime reporter and he realised it only subsequently while watching television. The investigation covered a wide ambit since Dey was writing on the oil mafia, underworld links with policemen, and other issues. Admittedly, the police had a difficult task but pressure from the press, the court, and the government forced it into speeding up the investigation and zeroing in on the alleged killers unlike in other States where nothing has happened in similar cases.

For the beleaguered Mumbai police, the arrests have come as a respite after some red herrings were thrown in the path of the investigation. Its reputation has been under the scanner for a while and, even during its moment of triumph, the State Home Minister had to suspend a police inspector who was involved in organising a rave party outside Mumbai. Having caught the suspects, the police have an even bigger challenge — unravelling the motive behind this brazen killing. Most crime reporters have excellent contacts with the underworld and a network of informers. Dey did not speak to anyone of a threat to his life or demand protection. It is an unwritten rule that the underworld rarely killed members of the media, though there were two cases in early 1980s in and outside Mumbai in the heyday of Dawood Ibrahim. The police have indicated that the emails could lay bare the reasons for Dey's tragic death. The investigators cannot rest easy having caught the alleged culprits, though that is a major breakthrough. The reasons for the crime are just as important.