EDITORIAL : THE DAILY NEWS EGYPT, EGYPT

Brotherhood: the cake is ours

True, a chapter is gone. A black phase seems to have passed, at least for now. Currently, we have a newly-elected president and a new chapter in our contemporary history has begun. But is the future filled with pitfalls, or is it a future marking a new era of progress? Who knows? Only time will tell.

Apparently, there are some positive signs taking place, like the return of foreign investment, political semi-stability and measured expectations for the time ahead. The president says that 100 days are enough to deal with major strategic issues affecting the daily life of people.

His followers hope for a prosperous future while opponents are watching and waiting, readying themselves to pounce. The outside world is also watching with its own agenda, at times in direct conflict the president’s aspirations to reform the country.

Last, and not least, the Muslim Brotherhood has its own agenda based on absolute rule and total dominance. For them, there is no exception to the rule and no compromise on its objective.

Going back to history and reading the chapters of the development of one of the most organised religious-based groups, the Brotherhood, observers can note how well-integrated the organisation can be at infusing itself into public life.

We have seen this before. The Brotherhood has proved it has a distinct blueprint to integrating itself into society. It operates charity and clinical organisations that seek to respond to basic human needs. It mobilises uneducated populations by using Islam.

President Mohamed Mursi is no exception. For him, there is a heavy bill to be paid. The man on the street voted for a president who represents his look as well as his mind and heart. He is in the common man and common woman’s’ point of view ready and able to deliver miracles.

For people like devoted to the ideals and staunch beliefs entrenched in the Brotherhood, Egypt is only one district within the large Islamic peninsula, the Ummah. President Mursi is caught between the ideals of staunch Islamists and Islamic reformers. From one side, the bill should be paid in favour of various supporters, and on the other side, the large opposition, abiding by legitimacy, denying his illusive ascent to power and taking it only for an ipso facto subject to change.

The harsh reality coupled with the impossibility of submitting the Egypptian social fabric to radical and dramatic changes “a la Salafits” makes this hero’s dream hard to achieve.

While the Brotherhood has the ability to twist around and maneuver, flexibly reaching their objectives, Salafis are rigid, and stubborn enough to never alter visions and adopt objectives other than their own. The Salafists dream of power, use aggression, and prefer violence than submit to the “other.” Their agenda is based on Islamic principles, devoid of the wants and needs of the ‘street.’

Unlike the apparent peace and harmony, conflicts are waiting somewhere in the midst of this conundrum.The cake should be divided. Yet, the Brotherhood will never share their piece, but will they do it now, after their ultimate ascension to power? Absolutely not, it is a fact, preserved in history. They have always proved the same, time and time again. A clash is inevitable.

Time will reveal the other face of their religion and politics marriage. Should we expect failure? Not necessarily. If the model succeeds, it should be for our benefit. If it were to fail, an inevitable confrontation would ensue.

Rumours are flying all around in the air and, again, only time will tell. Our agendas are not the same and will never be. The layman is searching out a good living. The opposition is looking for its power back. These two conflicting ideas will never match one another.

President Morsi should prove his strategic thinking, strong management, absolute freedom, and extraordinary skill to manage such a controversy-riddled situation in order to become truly one-of-a-kind.

If the man succeeds pulling us from this crisis, I will be the first one to make up my mind and, proudly, vote for him again.

Morsi’s ties with Muslim Brotherhood

As president Mohamed Morsi continues to assume his tasks as Egypt’s first civilian president, a few columnists in Egyptian newspapers have rejected the idea that Morsi shall cut ties with his Freedom and Justice Party (FJP) and become a truly non-partisan president.

Other columnists have paid tribute to the Supreme Council of Armed Forces (SCAF) for fulfilling their promise with regards to transferring powers to a civilian president.

Al-Shobaki

Amr Al-Shobaki
Al-Masry Al-Youm

In his column, ‘The partisan president,’ Amr Al-Shobaki denounced those urging the newly elected president Mohamed Morsi to quit his Freedom and Justice Party and the Muslim Brotherhood.

Al-Shobaki said in modern democracies, any president rising to power on the shoulders of a political party, has a clear partisan agenda.

It is by virtue of the party’s ideology and vision voters are convinced to elect the president.

It is equally hard to imagine Morsi, after long years with the Brotherhood, rejecting the principles of the party and the Revival Project based on his predecessor’s abuse of power.

In Al-Shobaki’s estimation, the case of Hosni Mubarak is hardly comparable with Morsi, in the sense that Mubarak did not necessarily need to operate through the NDP.

In the last presidential elections, Al-Shobaki said the only candidate affiliated with a political party was Morsi, while his counterpart’s campaign revolved around an independent vision for the future of Egypt.

The writer said having the support of a party was a clear advantage for President Morsi.

In the meantime, Al-Shobaki stressed the need to limit the powers of the president and his political party and reject any attempts to infuse the judiciary system, the army, and the police with party politics.

If the Freedom and Justice Party did in fact attempt to inoculate itself inside other branches of the government, it would mean a return of the former political machine of the NDP.

He said nearly 70 journalists belonging to a major national newspaper have recently applied for membership into the Freedom and Justice Party, in the hopes that their party affiliation would carry them swiftly to the top ranks of the journalist syndicate.

Al-Shobaki suggested the issuance of legislation preventing the president, his political party, and also the opposition, from influencing the judiciary and the legislative authorities.

At the end of the day, the president cannot be hindered from his right to identify with a political party representing his political orientations and agenda, and it is up to voters to accept or reject.

Nafaa

Hassan Nafaa
Al-Masry Al-Youm

Hassan Nafaa examines the restrictions faced by Egypt’s President Mohamed Morsi, in light of the Supplementary Constitutional Declaration issued by the Supreme Council of Armed Forces (SCAF).

Not only does this declaration deprive the president from appointing a minister of defense other than the current head of the SCAF, Field Marshal Hussein Tantawi, but it also compels him to maintain the same current formation of the SCAF.

In short, Morsi is banned from making any decisions about the army, until the Constitutional Drafting Committee completes the new constitution.

Nafaa foresees that the role played by the SCAF in the coming period will not be confined to the administration of the armed forces affairs, but will extend to the political sphere.

The SCAF has the right to object to any clause in the new constitution, a situation which will turn Egypt into an entity being run by two heads in two opposite directions.

From another perspective, Morsi is the first elected president after a popular revolution, and proclaims himself the legitimate and natural representative of the revolution’s goals.

In contrast, Tantawi considers himself in a situation where he has to show no compromise in protecting the state’s institutions from revolutionary acts.
Nafaa describes this scene as competing conflict of interests between the revolution and the state, putting the country in an uncomfortable situation.

While many see this situation as offering protection for both the state and the revolution, others describe it as catastrophic to both.

Nafaa assesses this dilemma as a critical stage of transition, necessitating extreme wisdom and cooperation from both parties, until the achievement of the revolution’s objectives.

Hassan

Ammar Ali Hassan
Al-Watan News

Ammar Ali Hassan recalls when, two years ago, he left his house toward Al-Faraen channel to appear in ‘Egypt Today’ programme with Tawfik Okasha, after he phoned him numerous times to discuss the issue of the Muslim Brotherhood and the state.

Hassan found Al-Faraen channel’s car waiting for him in front of his house, and immediately sat next to the driver.

After approximately one kilometer, he felt the presence of Mohamed Morsi in the back seat. After both Morsi and Hassan made their appearance on the show, Hassan requested from the driver to drop off the elder Morsi first, but Morsi requested the opposite since Hassan lived farther away.

Hassan recalls these memories, and compares them to the current situation, where Morsi is the president of the republic and Okasha is staunchly attacking him.

In the past, Al-Faraen channel was in its early days, trying to secure itself a spot in the middle of the rigorous competition between Arab satellite channels, Hassan notes.

Despite being linked with the National Democratic Party (NDP), Okasha used to invite iconic opposition figures to his talk show, and discuss with them issues such as corruption, the future of the presidency, and the performance of the executive and legislative authorities. On the other hand, opposition activists were desperately searching for a podium to express their resistance to the former regime.

It was in this context that Morsi appeared on Al-Faraen channel to slam Mubarak’s regime and to rebut allegations of the Muslim Brotherhood collusion with the NDP in the parliamentary elections of 2005.

Now things have changed, and Morsi has become the president fiercely criticised by Al-Faraen channel.

Hassan predicts the relationship between Al-Faraen and the brotherhood cannot be predicted, and that the foes of today, can all be the friends of tomorrow.

Hussein

Emad Al-Din Hussein
Al-Shorouk News

Emad Al-Din Hussein examined President Mohamed Morsi’s statements before the commanders of the Supreme Council of Armed Forces (SCAF) last Saturday, in the Hike Step military compound.

Morsi praised the SCAF and vowed to safeguard the army and its personnel.

While Hussein’s assessment is that Morsi made such statements out of his attempt to cease hostilities with the junta, he reiterates that comprehensively, Morsi was politically smart.

While nobody believed SCAF would organise true presidential elections, the opposite happened.

The SCAF did not impose Omar Suleiman on the populace, and even Ahmed Shafiq, who many believed was a SCAF favorite, lost to the
Muslim Brotherhood.

After the rise of Morsi to power, many were expecting the SCAF to cancel the election’s results and take control of the country.

However, the proceedings of last Saturday put an end to these speculations, when the SCAF officially handed over power to the elected president.

Hussein considered this as a qualitative success for the revolution, which succeeded in imposing its candidate.

Though, still, many revolutionaires believe Morsi is neither a revolutionary or a leader seeking to dramatically alter the political landscape.

In addition, the author lauded Morsi’s speech before the nation’s representatives in the main hall of Cairo University as a rebirth of the Egyptian civilisation.

Despite the necessity to pay tribute to the SCAF, Hussein pinpoints some of the major errors committed by the military junta with regards to their poor management of the transitional period, which ended with Egyptians unwilling to vote for either Morsi or Shafiq in the presidential elections run-off.

In conclusion, Hussein regarded last Saturday as the first step on a long road toward a real democratic, civil, and modern state.

Morsi’s scales of justice

As millions of Egyptians sat glued to TV screens listening to their new civilian president’s inaugural speech on Saturday, a wide array of public representatives were among the audience in Cairo University’s hall.

One day before he was sworn in at the Supreme Constitutional Court, Mohamed Morsi had already addressed a huge crowd at Tahrir Square saying: “I’m standing before you, Egyptian people, those who voted for me, those who opposed me… I am yours.”

In his public speeches, Morsi endeavours to make real his intentions to please everyone- and by that I mean revolutionaries, minorities and the Supreme Council for Armed Forces (SCAF).

Morsi seems to be willing to address almost all demands requested by revolutionary Egyptians.

For them Morsi represents the revolution and its objectives. Is he up to this? The new president might face obstacles when he figures out that some revolutionary demands will upset the SCAF.

On Sunday, demonstrators led a march to the presidential palace with a petition demanding the release of all detainees facing military trials.

The move came after Morsi had promised to meet the families of activists currently facing military detention and examine their cases.

The question is: how will SCAF officials react if Morsi deliberately contradicts military rule, especially amid claims that he struck a power-sharing deal to win the presidency?

Another puzzling dilemma is how Morsi will fulfill his promises to safeguard the rights of the Coptic minority, and maintain the support of the Salafist bloc that aspires to establish pure Islamist rule.

The president has repeatedly pledged to offer Christians their full rights and personal freedoms, especially after that segment of Egyptian society has been beset with an atmosphere of perplexity and fear following the victory of the Islamist candidate.

On the other side, the President has been supported by the Salafist bloc, and has met with figureheads from the Salafist front, who are all clinging to the hope that Morsi will apply Islamic law literally rather than working more loosely from the general principles of the religion.

All plights are in addition to concerns already related to Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood.

Will he lead the country independently, shying away from any advice or consultation stemming from the Muslim Brotherhood’s general guidance bureau?

This –probably- will lead to Morsi pleasing one side at the expense of the other.

Morsi’s first 100 days have started on Saturday. And in only two days, all eyes are already wide open to examine the new president’s performance.

Egyptians have heightened their monitoring and assessment of Morsi’s moves and actions.

Cynically, the president’s competence is being measured on the online ‘Morsi Meter,’ a portal that evaluates what deliverables have been achieved and which are outstanding. Many Egyptians regard the president as a new employee in his ‘probation’ period.

With predicaments at every turn, the president is in a tight spot. He does have to weigh his options and learn to truly manifest his justice-scale presidential symbol.

Will Morsi manage to walk road less traveled without stepping on any one’s foot? Good luck Mr. President!

EDITORIAL : THE ASHARQ ALAWSAT, SAUDI ARABIA published in London

Are the Friends of Syria part of the problem?

In Saturday’s edition of Asharq Al-Awsat, Syrian dissident Mr. Fayez Sara wrote an op-ed entitled “Foreign interventions in Syria”, in which he talked about those who are supporting the regime, and those who are supporting the Syrian revolution. The crux of his article was that it is the regime that has benefitted from these foreign interventions, not the revolution.

The aforementioned op-ed may prove to be highly provocative, especially the part where Sara said: “The stance of the international and regional bloc that supports the popular movement in Syria is weak, hesitant and incoherent. At times, this is dominated by the media, propaganda and inherent contradictions; this fails to provide any form of serious and tangible assistance [to the revolution]”. Mr. Sara was drawing a comparison between those who support the revolution and those who support the regime, and we find that Iran and Russia are actually supporting the al-Assad regime with weapons, funding and political stances, whilst those sympathetic with the Syrian revolution do not have particularly influential or concrete stances. The truth is that what Mr. Sara argued in his article is very important and warrants much debate. I am prompted to say this after seeing some of the recent episodes of the hugely significant televised political debates being hosted by the famous American media figure Charlie Rose, such as the recent interview he conducted with current US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton and former US Secretary of State James Baker. In this interview, it was surprising that Baker – a friend to many of the countries sympathetic to the Syrian revolution –said that the US should not get involved in arming the Syrian uprising and that it may be more useful to instead call for early elections in Syria. Baker added that al-Assad should be allowed to participate in these elections, which should also take place under strict international monitoring in order to prevent any election fraud. Baker argued that should al-Assad win these elections then so be it, whilst if he were to lose then he would leave power and a new president would come in!

Of course, this is an alarming oversimplification, what about the 14,000 people killed at the hands of the tyrant al-Assad? What about international laws? It is also frightening that Secretary of State Clinton says that the problem of unifying the Syrian opposition still persists. I say this is frightening because we know how America – and its allies – united the Iraqi opposition against Saddam Hussein in London, and how France and others, including some Arab states, united the Libyan opposition against Gaddafi. We also remember how France previously gave Ahmad Shah Massoud a hero’s welcome in Paris! Hence, what Mr. Sara said is important and deserves reflection because it is clear that those who are sympathizing with the Syrian opposition, whether Arab or Westerners, have failed to even convince their closest allies and influential friends in America’s decision-making circles, for example, of the importance of al-Assad’s ouster. This is something that would relieve the Syrian people’s suffering and ensuring that the region as a whole avoids an imminent threat. If this is not the case, how do we explain a politician of James Baker’s stature – a friend to the Gulf – believing that there should be no foreign intervention in Syria to support the revolutionaries, but instead calling for early elections, despite all the well-known lies of the al-Assad regime? How can we still find Hillary Clinton talking about the unification of the Syrian opposition?

Certainly there is something wrong here, and the blame lies with those who sympathize with the Syrian revolution, because there is something wrong in the way they are dealing with the tyrant of Damascus. The most prominent mistake is the lack of leadership and the failure to take responsibility in a clear manner, particularly as we are all well aware of the danger posed by the survival of the al-Assad regime or the collapse of the situation in Syria, and that this is something that will impact upon everyone without exception.

EDITORIAL : THE NIGERIAN TRIBUNE, NIGERIA

PUBLIC DECLARATION OF ASSETS

AMONG other topical issues on which President Goodluck Jonathan answered questions during the presidential media chat of Sunday June 24, 2012, was the usually–contentious question of declaration of assets by public office holders. To him, it was not an issue and his reason was that he declared his assets publicly as Vice-President only two years before he became president. “The issue of public declaration (of assets) I think is playing to the gallery. You don’t need to publicly declare any asset…I don’t give a damn about it, if you want to criticise me from here to heaven,” he said. Jonathan told his interviewers that he counselled the late President Umaru Yar’ Adua against the idea because they (he and Yar’Adua) could be playing into some people’s hands by so doing . He further said that he publicly declared his assets while serving under Yar’ Adua not because he wanted to do it but because it was becoming an issue after his boss had publicly done so.

THERE have, as expected, been reactions to the President’s views from various quarters. The Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN) sees Jonathan’s position as an evidence of his administration’s lack of commitment to the crusade against corruption . The party holds the view that the president’s display of aversion to a public declaration of assets has given the green light to his cabinet members and other government officials to downplay the fight against corruption and eschew transparency. Another opposition party, the Congress for Progressive Change (CPC) has equally criticised the president’s position on the issue.

THE establishment of the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) and the anti-corruption agencies was informed by a fervent desire to check all forms of abuse in public office. The CCB in particular has been put in place to serve as a constant reminder to public office holders that they could be called upon to explain the sources of their wealth or belongings after their period of service. It is unfortunate that the bureau has glaring inadequacies which have seriously vitiated its capacity to serve the purpose for which it was established. It is apparent that there are problems with both the enabling law and its mode of operation. While individuals or groups can take exception to the manner in which the president expressed his disapproval of public declaration of assets, the fact remains that he is squarely within the ambit of the law. In this particular situation, what should be of utmost concern and a subject of public debate is the law that created the CCB and its mode of operation.

THE CCB is widely perceived as an ineffectual organisation which has not made any noticeable impact in checking abuses by people entrusted with positions of responsibility. There have always been reports about public office holders who failed to declare their assets either on their assumption of office or at the end of their period of service. There have also been reports about others who in other ways, ran foul of the law setting up the bureau. What the public is yet to know are the sanctions against such violators. The weaknesses in the existing structures of the bureau have made it impossible for it to function in response to needs of the country. There is thus an urgent need to strengthen the organisation in every material particular so that it can effectively fulfil the purpose it is meant to serve.

NOT a few Nigerians must have been astounded when one of the former Chairmen of the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) spoke about what he called “anticipatory declaration of assets” in which criminally-minded public office holders declare what they do not have on assumption of office. By so doing, such people have been putting what they hope to acquire by fair and foul means on their list of assets at their point of entry into public office. The number of people who have got away with property acquired through such criminal ingenuity can only be a matter for conjecture. The CCB has on its part been accepting such fraudulent declarations as the gospel truth. Our expectation is that claims on assets declaration forms should be quietly and diligently verified. There should in addition be an insistence on evidence of tax payment on assets claimed on declaration forms. Established cases of false declaration should lead to an immediate end to the official’s career and the beginning of a new life behind bars.

THERE are many dimensions to the war against corruption and a code of conduct for public office holders is one of such dimensions. One major objective of the Freedom of Information Law championed by civil society organisations, the media and some professional associations is to check corruption. There is now the need for them to coalesce again in fighting for a conscientiously reworked code of conduct that will make public assets declaration mandatory and ensure that violators are condignly punished. The law that is currently in force simply requires that assets be declared. The element of compulsion is not part of it. Whoever chooses to make his\her assets declaration public under the present law is doing so voluntarily. That the rampant corruption in Nigeria is responsible for the pervasive poverty and state of anomie cannot be a subject of debate. It is therefore necessary for all well-meaning groups, associations and individuals to come together again to push for a strengthened Code of Conduct Bureau that will contribute its own quota to the efforts to kill corruption before it kills Nigeria.

EDITORIAL : THE OUTLOOK AFGANISTAN, AFGANISTAN

Save Children from Being Recruited as Suicide Attackers

There is no doubt that everyone knows about the evil nature of the Taliban. They have a destructive ideology that eliminates others. The Taliban do not believe in a dialogue among different political, social and cultural groups. They believe that all those who are unlike them must be eliminated. This ideology has manifested itself in the Taliban's involvement in massacres, and destruction of Buddha statutes during their rule, suicide attacks they have been carrying out over the last ten years.

The Taliban do not accept any role for women in the society, and even oppose girls' education. Due to this strict view, they have been burning schools and poisoning schoolchildren. The Taliban are against any manifestations of modern lifestyle. The militants employ any tactic and any means to achieve their goal. They employ women and children to carry out suicide attacks against Afghan government and international forces.

In a recent case, Afghan police in southern province of Kandahar arrested three children and teenagers while they were carrying explosives and hand-made grenades. UNICEF has expressed serious concerns over child recruitment as military forces.

According to the officials from UNICEF in Afghanistan, in 2011, 316 children under the age of 18 were employed as soldiers or as those who provide assistance in the battlefield. The arrested children in Kandahar wanted to blow up a police station.

Last week, the Taliban killed five members of a family in the Northern Province of Faryab when they refused to accommodate the militants. The victims included three women and two men. Taliban are now hated by Afghan people.

Grown tired of the Taliban's restrictions, people in Ghazni have revolted against the militants because they did not want to keep their children deprived of education, and their healthcare centers and bazaars to be closed. Those who have risen against the Taliban do not accept President Karzai's government.

This shows that President Karzai's government has failed to provide support and protection to the people against the Taliban. Instead, the government has tried to humanize the Taliban's brutality by calling them as unhappy brothers.

In order to save Afghan children from being recruited as suicide attackers by the Taliban, President Karzai must launch an anti-Taliban discourse and mobilize the people against them. The President must choose between his unhappy brothers and saving Afghan people, in particular the children.

Afghan Refugees’ Problem Needs UrgentSolution

Pakistan has generously hosted huge number of Afghan refugees in the last three decades. Afghans and Pakistanis have a great number of commonalities such as, religion, culture, language and tradition. Meanwhile, Afghanistan's longest border is with Pakistan stretching to 2430 km. Such facts have allowed the Afghan people to comfortably live with their Pakistani counterpart over a long term. Nonetheless, it seems like the Pakistani government is now running out of patience.

Some 400,000 unregistered Afghan refugees are facing possible deportation from Pakistan after a deadline for them to register expired on June 30. In Pakistan's Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, Afghans are being arrested for court appearance and deportation. Being an Afghan refugee has never been easy.

The current move by Pakistani authorities is to add to the anguish of Afghan refugees in that country. Pakistan is home to saome 1.7 million registered Afghan refugees. The Pakistani officials say they can no longer carry the burden of an additional 400,000 undocumented Afghans in the northwestern province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.

Majorityof the Afghan refugees in Pakistan and Iran think they would not be able to earn a livelihood in their own country due to high rate of unemployment. The bad security is also keeping them away from their homeland. Over the last decade, the government of Afghanistan has failed to resolve the grave challenges facing the Afghan refugees.

Although since early 2002, more than 5 million Afghans have been repatriated through the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) from both Pakistan and Iran back to their native country; their number has gone decreasing over the last few years.

UNHCR, the Afghan Ministry of Refugees and Repatriation and Pakistan government must come together and find a more appropriate solution to the problem of unregistered Afghan refugees living in Pakistan. It would be almost impossible for the Afghan government to manage for food, shelter and health services if large numbers of refugees are sent back to Afghanistan all at once.

Meanwhile, the Afghan government has to take such issues serious and work not only to encourage Afghan refugees return home but also provide them with employment opportunities so that they can stand on their own feet and are not compelled to leave their own homeland.

Civilian Bloodbath by Taliban

The bloodthirsty butchers of innocent Afghans continued terror on Saturday June 30, 2012, killing 16 civilians and 8 policemen across the country. Massacre of civilians by Taliban have increased in recent months. With the bloodshed and atrocities, Taliban want to give a message to the people of Afghanistan that the forces of darkness want to impose their ideology of terrorism.

Saturday was the last bloodiest day of last month. Taliban have started increasingly targeting civilian places to spread fear among ordinary people. They have no respect for the lives of civilians. The bloodbath of Saturday shows Taliban is a terror group that wants to impose itself on people by gun, and it must be defeated militarily. The Government has been wasting its time with the policy of accommodating terrorists.

Four civilians including two children were killed on Saturday in Helmand when their bike hit a roadside bomb. On their way from Washir to Nad Ali, they became victim of a mine planted by Taliban. All four were killed on spot. Another civilian, a student, was killed in Logar province when a villager motorbike rider was hit by a bomb blast in Yawrak area. In both incidents, the roads are frequently used by Afghan troops. Taliban plant roadside mines and explosive devices to target Afghan or International troops but mostly innocent civilians become the victim.

Four other children were killed in Panjwai district of Kandahar when a mortar shell went off. The children were playing on ground, unknowingly with the mortar shell, when it blasted, killing all four on spot.

Similarly, two policemen were killed and 10 civilians injured when a bomb planted with a motorcycle went off in front of a crowded market in Paktia province.

Elsewhere in Nuristan, 14 people including 6 policemen and 8 civilians were killed by insurgents on Saturday. Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid claimed responsibility for the attack.

The US and NATO condemned the suicide attack and torching of civilian houses by Taliban in Nuristan province. The US Embassy said this reprehensible attack further illustrates that the Taliban and other insurgents have no respect for the lives of innocent Afghan civilians.

They expressed condolence to the family members of victims saying the United States mourns the loss of life in Kamdesh, and remains steadfast partner of the Afghan people against the scourge of international terrorism. 

We urge the international troops to do more for safety of Afghan civilians and target Taliban insurgents in their strongholds.

EDITORIAL : THE NEW ZELAND HERALD, NEW ZELAND

Confidence in Key survives run of errors

Our latest political poll has found the country's mood to be remarkably stable. National has 47.5 per cent of those surveyed, Labour 34 per cent, the Greens 9.1 per cent, NZ First 4.4 per cent, Mana 1.7, Maori 1.3, Act, Conservative and United Future 0.5 each. In all cases the party's support is within one percentage point of where it was in our previous poll two months ago.

Yet those two months have brought National's backdown on school class sizes, the passage of asset sale legislation, embarrassments at the ACC and continuing publicity for problems caused by the sort of gambling that SkyCity casino wants to expand under a deal inspired by the Prime Minister to give Auckland an international convention centre.

Clearly, none of those issues has struck at the heart of the country's confidence in John Key and his Government. He remains the preferred Prime Minister of 63.5 per cent and 49.7 per cent think the Government is moving in the right direction. Again, those figures are within a percentage point of April's poll.

The endorsement of the Government's direction is perhaps the most remarkable since it reflects the state of the economy and the Government's response.

A fourth year of sluggish economic activity, aggravated by the euro stalemate, is putting great pressure on governments elsewhere.

The United States economy is the main threat to President Obama's prospect of winning a second term. Opposition to "austerity" has put the Socialist Party in power in France, Britain's Conservatives trail Labour in polls and (relatively) hard times in Australia are contributing to the problems of the Gillard Government.

New Zealanders are no less aware of the eurozone debt crisis and its possible consequences for their economy. More than three-quarters of the latest DigiPoll survey sample said they were somewhat worried (64.4 per cent) or very worried (15.7 per cent). Yet they endorse, by a five-point margin, a direction Opposition parties call austere.

It is a programme that aims to contain the public sector's growth until the Budget returns to balance, which could be in 2015 if nothing worse happens to the world economy before then. But the Government is doing nothing to force the pace, neither cutting expenses now or stimulating activity with new public projects. It is placing its hopes on an export-led recovery, and may get one if 1.1 per cent growth in the first three months of the year was sustained in the second quarter just ended.

The first quarter's growth was mainly in farm production stimulated by an unusually wet summer. It has been followed by a severely cold autumn, which makes the latest poll even more surprising. Dismal wintry weather is not usually good for the political mood. All things considered, the Government has come through its hardest six months in surprisingly good shape.

It has got its most unpopular policy - asset sales - through Parliament and still has 18 months to get the share issues organised before the beginning of the next election year. National is looking every bit as stable as the last Labour Government at a similar stage and looks capable of lasting as long.

A second three-term government would be good for the country, restoring the stability and continuity the nation enjoyed before the political upheaval accompanying rapid economic reform. No country can endure for too long the stress and resentment New Zealand suffered in the last quarter of the 20th century.

If Helen Clark did nothing else, she restored the country's trust in its government and John Key has been careful to maintain it. Long may it last.

EDITORIAL : TODAY'S ZAMAN, TURKEY

A banking union baby step

BRUSSELS – At the beginning of the financial crisis, it was said that banks were, in Charles Goodhart's crisp phrase, “international in life, but national in death.” At the time (2008-2009), large international banks had to be rescued by their home countries' governments when they ran into trouble. But the problem now in Europe is the opposite: banks are “national in life, but European in death.”

In Spain, for example, local savings banks (cajas) financed an outsize real-estate boom. As the boom turned to bust, the losses threatened to overwhelm the capacity of the Spanish state, and the problem became European, because it threatened the very survival of the euro.

The Spanish case is symptomatic of a larger problem. National supervisors always tend to minimize problems at home. Their instinct (and their bureaucratic interest) is to defend their countries' “national champion” bank(s) abroad.

But their resistance to recognizing problems at home runs even deeper. Until recently, the Spanish authorities maintained that the problems in their country's real-estate sector were temporary. To acknowledge the truth would have meant admitting that for years they had overlooked the build-up of an unsustainable construction boom that now threatens to bankrupt the entire country.

In the case of Ireland, the situation was initially not much different. When problems started to surface, the finance minister at the time initially claimed that the country would carry out “the cheapest bank rescue ever.”

Given national supervisors' predictable tendency not to recognize problems at home, it seemed natural that the cost of cleaning up insolvent banks should also be borne at the national level. It thus seemed to make sense that even in the eurozone, banking supervision remained largely national. The recently created European Banking Authority has only limited powers over national supervisors, whose daily work is guided mainly by national considerations.

But reality has shown that this approach is not tenable. Problems might originate at the national level, but, owing to monetary union, they quickly threaten the stability of the entire eurozone banking system.

At their June summit, Europe's leaders finally recognized the need to rectify this situation, transferring responsibility for banking supervision in the eurozone to the European Central Bank. Given that financial integration is particularly strong within the monetary union, putting the ECB in charge was an obvious choice.

Moreover, the ECB already bears de facto responsibility for the stability of the eurozone's banking system. But, until now, it had to lend massive amounts to banks without being able to judge their soundness, because all of that information was in the hands of national authorities who guarded it jealously and typically denied problems until it was too late.

Putting the ECB in charge should also help to stop the creeping disintegration process, which is not publicly visible, but is very real nonetheless. Just ask any of the large international banking groups headquartered in financially stressed eurozone countries.

Consider the case of a bank headquartered in Italy, but with an important subsidiary in Germany. The German operations naturally generate a surplus of funds (given that savings in Germany far exceed investment on average). The parent bank would like to use these funds to reinforce the group's liquidity. But the German supervisory authorities consider Italy at risk and thus oppose any transfer of funds there.

The supervisor of the home country (Italy) has the opposite interest. It would like to see the “internal capital market” operate as much as possible. Here, too, it makes sense to have the ECB in charge as a neutral arbiter with respect to these opposing interests.

But, while putting the ECB in charge of banking supervision solves one problem, it creates another: can national authorities still be held responsible for saving banks that they no longer supervise?

Economic (and political) logic requires that the eurozone will soon also need a common bank rescue fund. Officially, this has not yet been acknowledged. But that is often the way that European integration proceeds: an incomplete step in one area later requires further steps in related areas.

This incremental approach has worked well in the past; indeed, today's European Union resulted from it. But a financial crisis does not give policymakers the time that they once had to explain to voters why one step required another. The will have to walk much more quickly to save the euro.

EDITORIAL : THE KHALEEJ TIMES, UAE

Courting trouble

IS TENNIS a woman’s game? Apparently French tennis player Gilles Simon thinks not. And he’s not ashamed to admit it openly. The 27-year-old sportsman created an uproar amongst his peers with his allegedly sexist comments.

On Tuesday, Gilles asserted that male tennis players should actually get paid more than their female counterparts — rather than the current norm of an equal remuneration— for Grand Slams, because their game is more popular. To add fuel to fire, he said that men spend twice as much time on court than women and offer a ‘more attractive’ game to the audience. What ensued was a verbal backlash by female tennis veterans Maria Sharapova and Serena Williams. Sharapova hit back saying that women deserved every penny they get for a game, while Williams derided Simon by saying that a lot more people watch Sharapova play because ‘she’s more attractive than him’.

Let’s leave all the accusations of chauvinism aside and objectively analyse Simon’s words. His argument is overtly based on the simple principles of demand and input— since men’s game is more popular and they work harder, they should get paid more. But his rationale is shoddy at best. A Rafael Nadal or a Roger Federer match surely draws sports fanatics from all over the world. But it’s certainly not like people flip the TV channel when World No. 1 Sharapova — an iconic sportswoman for the past seven years— is playing. In fact, all eyes are excitedly fixed on sports celebrities like Sharapova and Ana Ivanovic as they face their opponents with confidence and grace. 

While it’s true that men spend more time on the ground — the first player to win three sets in a men’s game is declared the winner, as opposed to winning only two in a women’s game. This rule acknowledges a natural physical difference between the strength and endurance between men and women. But it should certainly not be taken to imply a woman’s disadvantage in putting up a more popular and effective performance on the field. In fact, Simon’s logic is used by many employers who pay women less than men because they think that their child-bearing and other familial responsibilities will be an impediment in their performance. But just because women can’t put in late hours at the work place because of they have to give time to their children, doesn’t make them less effective workers.

Participation in sports is actually a big achievement for women. It has shows that physical activity and strength is not the exclusive domain of men; women, too, can hit an ace, and receive a hearty applause for it. They have fought long and hard for equal pay and equal respect on the court, and for a male colleague to demean their effort is certainly disappointing for them and sports fans around the world.

Hello tomorrow

THE NEW Emirates Airline terminal to open at the Dubai International Airport in January is another testament to Dubai’s focus on investing in the future through infrastructure projects that will contribute to long-term growth and overall social and economic welfare.

The phenomenal growth of the Dubai International Airport has its add-on effect not only on the aviation sector of the Emirate but also across various other growth sectors including hospitality, retail and logistics.

These sectors, often described as the ‘traditional building blocks’ of the economy, have been a prime driver of Dubai’s growth, and have enabled the city to underline its growth credentials, despite the global financial challenges. The commendable growth achieved by the Dubai International Airport and Emirates Airline is indeed one of the most compelling success stories in the Gulf region. The airport is poised to become one of the world’s busiest airports, having already clocked about 51 million passengers in 2011.

Emirates Airline, likewise, has set industry benchmarks, adding new destinations, and strengthening its fleet, especially at a time when several established global players are facing an uncertain future.  The new terminal, developed at a cost of Dh12 billion, will further enhance the convenience of visitors to Dubai. With an annual capacity of 19 million passengers, the terminal will feature several advanced amenities including an Automated People Mover and a special Sky Train for vertical transportation system. The success of Emirates and the airport is a model for every enterprise in Dubai. Operating in a competitive environment and yet finding its definite niche calls for clear thought leadership and determination.

As His Highness Shaikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Vice-President and Prime Minister of the UAE and Ruler of Dubai, observed, “Emirates airline is a development success story and a national accomplishment. It serves our children and the future generations.”

What lessons can enterprises draw from the success of Emirates? The first and most important insight is the need for enterprises — both in the public and private sector — to establish clear brand differentials, which are defined by service and quality.  The airline company has been investing in strengthening its fleet with the most-modern carriers; simultaneously, it has also upped the service standards to ensure that flying the airline is an experience than another journey.

The growth of Emirates and the airport is owed to the visionary guidance of Dubai’s leadership. Every investment made by Dubai for the future is an investment for the city’s future generations.

The infrastructure investment on the new terminal will further contribute to the passenger experience. As airports globally have learnt the hard way, passengers not only demand a comfortable airline, they also need on-ground service. The new terminal will mark the beginning of another new era of growth for Dubai’s aviation sector.

EDITORIAL : THE TEHRAN TIMES, IRAN

Economic sanctions show West's duplicity on Iran

As Iran refuses to bow down to the illegitimate demands of the United States, Israel and their European allies to abandon its peaceful nuclear program, the inhumane economic sanctions against Tehran are being intensified, putting an excessive and unjustifiable pressure on the ordinary Iranian citizens who are unquestionably the victims of the West's hostility and antagonism toward the Islamic Republic.

 

Since Iran ended its voluntary suspension of uranium enrichment in August 2005, the United States and its European allies have made several efforts to put huge economic and political pressure on Iran and force it into giving up its nuclear rights. Before August 2005, Iran for two years had temporarily suspended uranium enrichment as a confidence-building measure in return for assurances by the representatives of EU that it can keep up with its civilian nuclear program while the negotiations between the two sides were underway. But the EU three bloc members consisting of France, Germany and the UK retreated from their commitments and demanded that Iran should halt its uranium enrichment program permanently. In this juncture, Iran found out that the European negotiators have been insincere in their stance and that it should revise its cooperation with them.

 

Now, it has been more than seven years that Iran is under lethal international pressure to discard its nuclear program while no single page of evidence has been put forward indicating that Iran is after producing atomic weapons as the United States and EU members claim. Ironically, Israel, the sole possessor of nuclear weapons in the Middle East, has not been asked even once to open its doors to the inspectors of UN's nuclear watchdog and allow them to monitor its underground, illicit nuclear facilities.

 

During the course of past seven years, the United Nations Security Council passed seven anti-Iranian resolutions and imposed four rounds of economic sanctions on Iran under the intimidation and coercion of the United States and its cronies. These sanctions range from ban on the sales of "dual-use" technologies to travel restriction for hundreds of individuals who are involved in Iran's nuclear program. These sanctions also penalize banks which transfer monies needed for the progress of Tehran's nuclear program. Interestingly, some of these sanctions also include a ban on the sale of medial equipments and pharmaceutical products to Iran.

 

The fact that Iran should fall victim to the unfair sanctions of the West over its nuclear program portrays the duplicity and dishonesty of the United States and its European allies. They have stated that they need guarantees showing Iran will never deviate from the peaceful path of its nuclear program. Iran has provided them with these guarantees again and again, but they have never taken any positive step to build trust and ease the tensions. They have stepped up their pressure, doubled the sanctions and caused more troubles.

 

Albeit it should be kept in mind that Iranian people are not unfamiliar with the tough economic sanctions and hostilities of the West. Since the Islamic Revolution toppled the U.S.-installed Shah of Iran in 1979, a number of Western states imposed a set of multifaceted sanctions on Iran, directly affecting the lives of innocent citizens and deteriorating their living conditions. These immoral sanctions, for example, targeted Iran's aviation industry as the U.S. and European states refused to sell newly-produced civilian aircrafts to Iran and the country's fleet set about to age gradually. Now that Iran is unable to buy first-hand, safe aircrafts as a result of the sanctions, many Iranians die in painful air crashes of the country's outdated, obsolete airplanes.

 

Unfortunately, the international human rights activists have never spoken a single word in condemnation of the restrictions surrounding the sale of civilian aircrafts to Iran which is directly related to the safety and lives of thousands of Iranians who use Iranian airlines' fleet. Only recently, the dexterous Iranian pilot and peace activist Captain Hooshang Shahbazi delivered a speech before the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva and called on the international community to pay attention to the cause of Iranian people and persuade the U.S. President and other Western officials to end the ban of civilian aircrafts for Iran. "Unfortunately sanctions imposed by the Western countries on civilian airlines in Iran have caused a considerable number of plane crashes and led to the death of hundreds of passengers, which according to the aviation statistics is above the average death toll from such unfortunate accidents in the world... Civil aviation and people's lives have nothing to do with military issues. The principle of using equal air transportation facilities and services all around the world is undoubtedly a right. It isn't fair for ordinary people to be victims of political tensions and lose their lives to such issues," said Capt. Shahbazi in parts of his speech.

 

At the end of his speech, Capt. Shahbazi addresses the U.S. President and challenged his sincerity in talking of friendship with the Iranian people: "Mr. Obama! How am I supposed to believe your sincerity when you send your message of fraternity and friendship to Iranian people during the Persian New Year, Nowrouz, yet the next day move to endanger the lives of my countrymen by extending the sanctions on selling civilian airplane spare parts?"

 

Now, after 33 years since the victory of Islamic Revolution, the sanctions remain in place and are even being strengthened. The foreign ministers of European Union have recently reached an agreement over imposing an inclusive oil embargo on Iran and cutting their imports from the country. They are also traveling to different Asian and African countries and lobbying to persuade the other trade partners of Iran such as Japan, India, South Korea and South Africa to join their sanctions regime. In their own calculation, they are intended to isolate Iran and convince the Iranian authorities that their nuclear program will be costly and damaging for them. However, they're most probably intentionally overlooking the fact that these sanctions and pressures first of all harm the very people for whom they express sympathy and toward whom they extend a fake hand of friendship.

 

They are the Iranian people who are facing trouble finding foreign medicine needed to cure their diseases as a result of the sanctions. They are the Iranian people who face discrimination and limitation in traveling to other countries as a result of the sanctions. They are the Iranian people who face problems in their industrial occupations and cannot import accouterments and devices needed for their work as a result of the sanctions. They are the Iranian people who should grapple with the inflation stemming from the sanctions which force the government to buy the goods and products with a tripled price from third parties.

 

The economic sanctions of the West against Iran clearly violate the principles of human rights and by no means can be justified. If the West is afraid of a nuclear Middle East, the disaster has already taken place. Israel possesses up to 200 nuclear warheads and can shoot them to wherever it wishes at any time. The problem with Iran, as Noam Chomsky once said, is that "Iran is too independent and disobedient."

EDITORIAL : THE BANGKOK POST, THAILAND

Confront these abuse charges

There is a serious, relentless campaign, driven by western activists, to paint Asia as the source of many ills covered by the label of human trafficking.

But just because the campaign is well organised and funded does not mean it is ill-informed. In recent months, non-government organisations have focused on claimed abuses of workers at the southern China factories which build and assemble Apple products. Apple executives have been forced to address, correct or justify the charges. There is plenty of evidence that Thai agriculture is becoming a major target, particularly the fishing industry.

Thailand is a world leader in the highly competitive seafood market. From canned tuna to frozen shrimp to fresh fish, Thailand exports a remarkable 570,000 tonnes of seafood and products. These bring in US$2.75 billion, or nearly 87 billion baht.

There are some extremely short-sighted businessmen and bureaucrats out there who believe they can protect and even enlarge this tremendous export market by ignoring or fighting the activists who criticise Thailand. The truth, however, is that nothing could be more harmful. Now is the time, as some better informed business leaders have already recognised, to confront the accusers, deal with their charges, and come up with solutions to what could turn into a public relations disaster that could snowball into severe damage to the economy.

This will take vision, patience and time. It will also take the raw guts to admit that some of the charges against the Thai seafood industry are valid, distressing and even, under current Thai law, illegal. But failure to consider the outsiders' complaints will only cause the campaigns to multiply in number, and increase in volume.

For a number of reasons, the most serious charge against the Thai seafood industry is evidence of human trafficking. Particularly in the deep-sea fishing business, evidence exists that foreign migrants have been seriously abused, to the point of being killed. There are existing accusations against some boat owners that they have recruited foreign crewmen, used them essentially as slaves, and then murdered them rather than pay the already pitiful, agreed salary.

It must be hoped that authorities will take such charges seriously. Some, published by foreign NGOs and widely reprinted including in this newspaper, include highly specific charges, with company and boat names.

Similar and well-known charges have accused Thai factories of abusing migrant workers. Supposedly, owners sometimes pay lower wages than the minimum wage, provide unsanitary room and board, punish any workers who complain. Occasionally, such as with the April workers' strike at a Songkhla seafood factory, allegations of illegal treatment of workers have surfaced.

Some activists are clearly sympathetic to workers and migrants. And some are just as obviously driven by agendas. There is a virtual NGO-driven industry against the huge, US-based Walmart chain. Thailand has been dragged into that, because it is the top supplier of frozen seafood to Walmart, whose customers love top-quality shrimp.

The motives of the attackers, however, will not matter in the end. Government officials and business leaders must do a better job of confronting the actual complaints, and must be as public and as proactive as those charging Thailand with such serious crimes.