Reaching out
Friday, 05 Jun, 2009
PRESIDENT Obama went to Cairo University yesterday to seek “a new beginning” between the US and the ‘Muslim world’. It wasn’t a speech one could imagine his predecessor delivering; indeed, the very idea of the speech was to change the perception of the US that had built up in Muslim lands during the Bush presidency. It is necessary here to recall the calamitous record of President Bush on relations with Muslim countries and people: early missteps after 9/11 suggested the ‘war on terror’ was a crusade, evoking a war between religions; the disastrous war against Iraq was premised on faulty intelligence and is viewed as an attempt to ‘reshape’ the Middle East; a commitment to promoting democracy in the world was sacrificed at the altar of expediency on security matters; the disastrous failure of nation-building in Afghanistan and Iraq; a legally convoluted position on torture that gave the world Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay and secret prisons — the list of failures is both grave and lengthy. Little wonder then that President Obama sought to recast relations with the Muslim world.
How did President Obama fare? The president began by reaching back into history, touching upon the contributions of Arabs to modern science, the early ties between the US and Muslim countries (Morocco was the first country to recognise the US in 1796, Mr Obama said), and the splendour of Muslim art, architecture and poetry. The president also thrice referred to passages from the Holy Quran, and flagged his family’s Muslim roots and his time spent on three continents engaging with Muslims. But such speeches are also about policy and for all the talk of common bonds and shared histories, what matters most to improving the US’s standing in the Muslim world is what it does going forward — a fact Mr Obama acknowledged frankly.
The president spelled out seven specific issues on which tension between the Muslim world and the US need to be addressed. The first, unsurprisingly, was the need to “confront violent extremism in all its forms”. The president was categorical and zeroed in on Al Qaeda as the pre-eminent threat (its activities “are not opinions to be debated; [they] are facts to be dealt with”) to American security. So, even while he spoke of his desire to see all Americans troops leave Iraq by 2012 and Afghanistan at the earliest and having no intention to seek military bases in either country, his message was clear: the US will do what is necessary to protect its security, though he acknowledged it involved more than just a military strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
If the first issue preoccupies the Americans more than the Muslim world, the reverse is true for the next issue President Obama touched upon: the Israeli-Palestinian issue. The effect the close bond between Israel and the US (termed “unbreakable” by Mr Obama) has on promoting militancy may be debatable, but there is little doubt that Israel’s occupation of Palestinian lands is a rallying cry for disaffected Muslims the world over. Mr Obama firmly backed the right of Palestinians to their own state and rejected the legitimacy of “continued Israeli settlements in the West Bank”, but his strong support for the Palestinians will not have gone down well with the hawkish Israeli government. Therein lies the problem: there is little leverage that the Americans have — or are willing to use — against a belligerent Israeli government. If the Israelis continue to try and expand the settlements, nothing will placate its Arab neighbours or the Muslim world — rendering Mr Obama’s words to them empty rhetoric.
The other issue that can undo Mr Obama’s effort to reach out to the Muslim world is Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons. No doubt few of Iran’s Muslim neighbours will be comfortable with it acquiring nuclear weapons. At the same time, however, the issue is mired in a deep sense of resentment and unfairness: the US has nuclear weapons but it doesn’t want other countries — read Muslim countries — to have the same capability goes the argument. How the Obama administration treads that tightrope will determine who wins the psychological battle for Muslim hearts and minds.
For the rest, President Obama tried to restate the US’s normative approach to relations with the Muslim world. Democracy will be supported, but it will not be “imposed”. Religious freedom, women’s rights and economic development will be promoted and defended by the Obama administration. Indeed, it was a sweeping message that tried to show a softer, gentler side of the US, one that emphasised similarities and opportunities and not divisions with the Muslim world. But as President Obama noted, “No single speech can eradicate years of mistrust.” At the very least though, the speech was yet more evidence that the US has put behind it the roughest edges of the Bush years.
************************************************** ********
Balochistan uplift
Friday, 05 Jun, 2009
BALOCHISTAN’S core problems stem from underdevelopment and denial of the province’s rights over its own resources. For decades it has seen its gas and precious metal deposits exploited by the centre with little or no benefit accruing to the people of Balochistan. Pakistan’s biggest province in terms of size should, by rights, also be the richest given its natural bounty. Yet Balochistan is the most backward region in the country. Little surprise then that its people have found allure over the decades in the message of nationalists and secessionists. And any sign of Baloch dissent has been countered with brute force by the centre, the most recent example being the military operation unleashed by Gen Musharraf.
Until very recently, when an insurgency raged in the province, Balochistan was caught in a catch-22 situation: the people’s resentment could be curbed only through development, and development work could not be carried out until the restoration of peace. Though the province is not entirely free of nationalist violence, the situation today is markedly different and not a day should be lost in implementing a fast-track development programme for the province. The people of Balochistan cannot live on meagre handouts in perpetuity. As the president of the Balochistan Economic Forum pointed out on Wednesday, the forthcoming budget should offer significant uplift measures that can help make the province less dependent on the federal divisible pool. He laid particular stress on direct foreign investment, which would create both revenues and job opportunities. For this to happen, Balochistan’s infrastructure will have to be developed to a level that can attract and support investor interest. If foreign investors do set up business there, it should be ensured that locals are given preference in the jobs for which they are qualified. Training courses for skilled positions could also help create a measure of equity.
The BEF president also fears that customs duty and sales tax waivers for the ship-breaking industry in Balochistan, which is witnessing a boom after many recessionary years, may be reintroduced in the new budget. It can only be hoped that any decision in this regard is reached after careful consultation with provincial stakeholders. Besides greater control over its own resources, Balochistan needs all the incentives and tax breaks that the centre can afford to concede in these trying times. Private investment and government support go hand in hand. Balochistan’s vast seafood potential, for instance, remains underutilised because of a lack of processing facilities that meet EU standards. These could be funded either by the federal government itself or by otherwise hesitant investors who might be lured by an extended tax holiday. A more prosperous Balochistan is in the interest of not just the Baloch but all Pakistanis.
************************************************** ********
OTHER VOICES - Bangladesh Press Right to travel
Friday, 05 Jun, 2009
WE have occasionally seen important dignitaries including political leaders and functionaries of the former government being prevented at the airport from travelling abroad in an arbitrary fashion without any legal basis. Some [had even] produced [a] clear court ruling allowing them to leave the country, and yet, they were attempt[s] to [bar them from doing so]. The latest case in point is Hasan Mahmud Tuku, a former state minister for power who had a court ruling allowing him to embark on a journey.
It is only upon a contempt petition filed with the High Court by the former state minister and as the concerned officials were due to appear before the court to explain their position that he was allowed to travel and his lawyer consequently withdrew the contempt petition. Better late than never; the issue has been settled but not without leaving a sordid message again.
What could be the rationale behind encroaching upon a very fundamental right of a citizen, that too in breach of [an] HC ruling, is incomprehensible to us. It is not merely [a] question of a dignitary not being allowed to leave the country — it is a reflection of a warped attitude [towards] a citizen’s freedom of movement. Such an arbitrary step by officials of an elected government can in effect bring democracy and the rule of law into disrepute.
Invariably nobody is held to account for such aberrations. It has to be found out under whose instructions the immigration officials acted the way they did in [the] case of the former state minister. Or did overzealous officials act on their own? It was none of their business to offload a man from the aircraft despite his showing an HC ruling in his favour.
What we notice, with a sense of consternation, is that no change is visible insofar as dealing with political adversaries is concerned. But change is something that this government promised so vociferously before the last general election. We feel that a change in political culture, which must include the norms and values guiding … relations between rival parties, should precede all other changes as a matter of principle.
The authorities concerned have to probe the whole thing and find out why there are blatant attempts to stop dignitaries from going abroad. [The] rule of law should not be a matter for interpretation, or misinterpretation, to be precise, by government functionaries. Violation of citizens’ rights in any form or context must come to an end. — (June 4)