|
US PRESIDENTIAL POLL
Texas, Ohio primaries: Make or mar situation for Senator Clinton
Barrister Harun ur Rashid
For the first time her usually optimistic husband former President Clinton admitted that if Hillary does not win Texas and Ohio on March 4, she most likely will not win the nomination.
“You probably like it that this election has come down to Texas and Ohio,” he told a rally in Beaumont on 20th February. “If she wins in Texas and Ohio I think she will be the nominee; if you don’t deliver for her, then I don’t think she can be. It’s all on you.”
Later he honed the message: “The Democratic primary in Texas is the only place where you can vote twice without risking jail,” he joked with his audience.
The quirks of the Texas primary system are unfolding daily: 65 per cent of delegates from the state will be chosen in the primary election, by a system that is unique to Texas and which aims to spread the delegates across regions based on the voter turnout in 2004 when John Kerry ran for president.
The remaining 35 per cent will be awarded via a caucus vote, a series of town meetings that will be held for 15 minutes after the polls close at 7pm. This is designed to give the party diehards a say.
Obama ahead of Hillary
According to a tally by the RealClearPolitics website, the contest might not be so clear cut. Senator Obama has 1356 total delegates to Senator Clinton’s 1267, the website calculated. The winning line for the nomination is 2025.
A new Washington Post-ABC News poll underscored the challenges facing Senator Clinton over the next week-and-a-half as she attempts to break an 11-straight winning streak from Senator Obama in the past two weeks.
But with Senator Obama having shown that he is far superior at organising supporters to attend caucuses, the Clinton camp needs to quickly spread the message to its people.
On 20 February, the Obama campaign scored another coup: the endorsement of the Teamsters union, which covers 1.2 million transport workers.
Senator Obama’s campaign manager, David Plouffe, told reporters that Senator Clinton would need to win massive, double-digit victories in the upcoming primary contests to catch Senator Obama’s lead, which he put at 154 delegates.
The Illinois senator Obama learned of his 11th victory on 22nd February when the Dems Abroad - expatriate Democratic voters living overseas - voted for Senator Obama by a now familiar wide margin of 66 per cent to Senator Clinton’s 33 per cent.
Debate in Texas
With Texas shaping as her Alamo - a victory or death struggle - Hillary Clinton grabbed the last word in the latest CNN debate held in the Lone Star state.
For the first time in weeks the audience 21st February night glimpsed the real Hillary Clinton: a determined, feisty, woman, who has the toughness to be president.
The question that prompted it: “What’s the biggest crisis you’ve faced?”
“Oh,” said Senator Clinton, looking heavenward, as the audience suddenly straightened in their seats. “Well, I think everybody here knows I’ve lived through some crises and some challenging moments in my life.”
She was interrupted by applause. “People often ask me, ‘How do you do it? You know, how do you keep going?’ And I just have to shake my head in wonderment, because with all of the challenges that I’ve had, they are nothing compared to what I see happening in the lives of Americans every single day.”
After that she might have laid it on a bit thick. She talked of injured veterans she had visited in a rehabilitation centre in Texas. And how her faith had called her to serve the American people.
But she had trumped her opponent, Barack Obama, who had just answered the same question, but did not light up the audience. Senator Obama has learnt the hard way that people do not expect an honest answer to questions like these in debates - they want emotion.
He said there had been a number of hard moments in his life, and then retold the story of his childhood: of a mixed race boy brought up by a single mum and his grandparents. Most people in America know this story already.
That’s not to say Senator Obama did badly. He achieved his objective which was to explain to the voters of Texas, and Ohio, who vote on March 4 that he really does have detailed policies, the experience and more importantly, judgment, to be president.
But 20 minutes on the intricacies of their health policies did not make riveting television. The sharpest moment came when the moderator asked about allegations of plagiarism that had been levelled against Senator Obama.
And in the only pointed personal attack in last night’s debate, Senator Clinton also raised Senator Obama’s use in his campaign speeches of words first uttered by his friend Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick.
“If your candidacy is going to be about words then they should be your own words,” she said. “Lifting whole passages from someone else’s speeches is not change you can believe in, it’s change you can Xerox.” But the line fell flat and the audience booed.
Polls in Texas, Ohio
The polls are narrowing between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in the critical states of Texas and Ohio in further grim news for the former first lady, who needs to win the states by wide margins to keep her presidential campaign alive.
The March 4 primaries are emerging as a make-or-break moment for Senator Clinton, but the momentum is with Senator Obama, who is now deadlocked with his rival in Texas and closing fast in the blue-collar state of Ohio, once considered Clinton country given her appeal to lower-income groups.
In Ohio, Senator Clinton leads Senator Obama in the new poll by 50 per cent to 43per cent but it is a narrowing of the margin in a state that gave her an average lead across all polls of more than 25 points just last month.
In Texas, the race is even. The Washington Post-ABC poll put Senator Clinton at 48 per cent and Senator Obama at 47per cent.
Senator Clinton now must win the remaining 16 contests by a margin of about 58 to 41, an improbable task given the size of the victories Senator Obama has scored in the past fortnight.
In a debate on 22nd February in Austin, Texas, Senator Obama said the “reason this campaign has done so well is because people understand that it’s not just a matter of putting forward policy positions. If we can’t inspire people to get involved in their government” and get beyond racial, regional and religious divisions there would continue to be gridlock in Washington.
In the final moment in the debate on 22nd February, analysts say that Senator Clinton offered an intriguing comment that drew a standing ovation but also had the echo of a valedictory statement.
“No matter what happens in this contest, I am honoured to be here with Barack Obama,” she said. “Whatever happens, we’re going to be fine. I just hope that we’ll be able to say the same thing about the American people.”
The author is former Bangladesh Ambassador
to the UN, Geneva.
 ^ TOP OF THIS PAGE ^ MAIN PAGE
NEWS NOTES FROM NEW YORK
Fazle Rashid
FAO on global food crisis
FAO has warned that there will be a severe food shortage all over the world mainly due to galloping price of oil. FAO DG made this observation while talking to BBC. This was telecast by BBC on Monday in its evening news bulletin in the United States. The first to feel the pinch surprisingly is Saudi Arabia.
Even as it enriches Arab rulers, the recent oil price boom is helping to fuel an extraordinary rise in the cost of food and other basic goods that is squeezing this region’s (Middle East) middle class and setting off strikes, demonstrations and riots from Morocco to Persian Gulf, The New York Times reported.
Saudi Arabia, which has not experienced any inflation during the past one decade, has recorded a 7 per cent inflation this year. Many fear that it would prompt theft, cheating, robbery and chasm between the rich and the poor.
Inflation has many causes from rising global demand for commodities like rice and wheat to the monetary constraints of currencies.
Flawed Elections
Several countries have had elections in recent past but the outcome is not being put into effect. All of them have been categorised as flawed. The governments in power have rigged and abused the elections to predetermine the results.
The opposition in Armenia has rejected the results of the presidential election saying it was massively rigged. International observers however said that the election was ‘relatively’ free and fair. International election observers said that the elections in Pakistan had not met the international standard mainly because of the flawed pre-election environment. Belgium’s political parties agreed on new reforms setting aside differences that have prevented Dutch and French speaking areas from forming a government almost nine months after the polls. The protracted political crisis many feared will lead to the split of the country.
Thousands of protestors took to the streets in Manila demanding immediate ouster of President Gloria Macapagal. Gloria Arroyo has survived three impeachment and four coups attempt. She has been accused of amassing wealth by corrupt means. She still enjoys the support of the army. The other countries which are facing political instability are Kenya and Nigeria despite holding elections which were reportedly flawed.
Communist Party leader in Cyprus, Demetris Christofias won the presidential election and promised to unify the country joining hands with island’s breakaway Turkish Cypriot. Turkish Cypriot President Mehmet Ali Called Christofias to congratulate him.
China’s submarine fleet
China is rapidly expanding its submarine fleet that would be useful in a conflict with the US over Taiwan. American and European analysts say that China has more than 30 advanced stealthy submarines. By the end of the decade the analysts predict China will have more submarines than the US.
The Talebans have demanded that all cell phone companies operating in Afghanistan must stop functioning after sunset or face attacks.
European countries will offer incentives to Iran if it abandons its nuclear programme. Iran has said it would defy UN sanctions.
2008 Oscars
The Oscar ceremony which was facing a disruption due to strike by the script writers finally took place at the appointed hour. Following are the winners.
Best picture award
Best Director Joel Coen and Ethan Coen for No Country for Old Men. Best Actor Daniel Day Lewis for There Will be Blood. Best Actress Marion Cotillard for La Vie en Rose Foreign Language Film The Counterfeiters (Austria)
Arabs & Israel
Arab governments are likely to rescind their offer of full diplomatic ties with Israel in exchange of a total withdrawal of occupying Israeli forces. The Arab League in its meeting in Syria next month would announce a reassessment of its proposal unless Israel responds positively. The initiative promised Israel normalisation of its ties with 22 Arab nations. Arabs are saying that they will look for other options. Many Arab nations never warmly embraced the idea because of their distaste for Israel. There is a growing sentiment in Arab states that the principle at the core of the peace process—two state solution has no future. Even Egyptians and Jordanians, the two state with ties with Israel, say that the way events have evolved there is no likelihood of that a real Palestinian state will be formed.
^ TOP OF THIS PAGE ^ MAIN PAGE
BANGLADESH'S MODEL
It offers an alternative for countries immersed in conflict
Robert I. Rotberg
With Pakistan on edge of parliamentary elections and opponents vowing to oust beleaguered President General Pervez Musharraf, this is a good time to look at how, Bangladesh, another nearby predominantly Muslim country is faring under a Caretaker Government backed by the Army.
Bangladesh and its nearly 150 million people have remained stable and largely peaceful under a very differently focused strongman, Gen. Moeen U. Ahmed.
Under Moeen’s direction, the military intervention in Bangladesh has been largely measured. His approach offers a potential alternative path for developing countries immersed in interminable political conflict and infected by rampant corruption.
Bangladesh has been a sovereign nation for less than four decades. It wrenched itself from the heavy grip of post-partition Pakistan only in 1971, after a short but bloody war.
Since then, however, Bangladesh has been convulsed by its own internal battles. Many have occurred between civilians, and some between soldiers and civilians. But almost all have been about control and the spoils of Bangladesh. Few of the differences among the various contenders, whether in uniform or civilian dress, have been about ideology.
Chief among the civilians have been the dynastic political oligarchies of the Awami League and the Bangladesh National Party (BNP). The Awami League has been somewhat closer to India. India’s size, interests and relative economic power have greatly affected Bangladesh. But otherwise, there is little to separate the BNP from the Awami League.
What the two have most in common is a striving for power, a power that has provided access to great wealth. Transparency International has rated Bangladesh either the most corrupt country in the world, or nearly so, consistently since 1995.
American-trained Moeen appeared on the scene in January 2007 after Bangladeshis, prompted by the Awami League, rioted in the streets of Dhaka, the capital.
The protests were aimed at the corrupt rule of the Bangladesh National Party and the prospects of unfair elections that would perpetuate BNP power.
Moeen expressed shock at television images, broadcast around the world, of Bangladeshis killing each other and destroying Dhaka.
The army had to separate the politicians, according to Moeen, and intervene to prevent bloodshed. Indeed, at the time and since, Bangladeshi public opinion has broadly supported the intervention.
The Awami League and the BNP had been feuding, with occasional bloodshed, since 1991, when civilians-led by Khaleda Zia of the BNP replaced a previous military rule of Gen. Ershad.
Moeen’s intervention, unlike Musharraf’s coup in Pakistan in 1999, led not to direct military rule, but to the installation of a caretaker government (CG) of civilians. Moeen and the military act as the behind-the-scenes backbone of a largely technocratic government.
The head of the CG is styled as “chief adviser.” The various Cabinet ministers are called “advisers” as well, such as “foreign affairs adviser,” and so on.
Though Moeen and his fellow generals hold the ultimate reins of power, they largely try to stay in the background. Moeen “consults” with the chief adviser only a few times a week, according to officials. And he refrains from issuing “orders.”
That makes Moeen’s approach unusual, and conceivably more effective than the common, hands-on approach of soldiers in the developing world.
Moeen frequently reiterates that, as promised, full civilian rule will resume and elections will be held in December. Indeed, Moeen asserts that the dangers of soldiers staying on too long are greater than the risks posed, should politicians reassert control and further corrupt the country.
Moeen has not invented a mechanism for vaccinating Bangladesh against a resumption of the feud between the Awami League and the Bangladesh National Party. Nor will he. The army also refuses to intervene in the court cases now under way to determine whether former political rulers should be convicted of corruption, and thus of misrule.
Ready or not, the generals in Bangladesh will let civilians retake power in less than a year, in December.
Conceivably, a new national security council could be installed constitutionally to give the soldiers some continuing oversight of the country’s political direction. That would be innovative, and it would provide another lesson for Pakistan and troubled developing countries everywhere.
Moeen and his colleagues are attempting to craft a new trajectory for a troubled Muslim country, a nation with its own potential for Islamic extremism. So far, the generals have succeeded in at least charting a new path between corrupt, inefficient civilians and heavy-handed military tyranny without arousing civil discontent or demonstrations.
Their quasi-democratic instincts could plot a path for others, even Pakistan, to follow.
Courtesy: Chicago Tribune
Robert I. Rotberg directs Harvard University's Kennedy School programme on intrastate conflict and is president of the World Peace Foundation. He recently returned from Dhaka, Bangladesh.
^ TOP OF THIS PAGE ^ MAIN PAGE
Pakistan: Will democracy survive?
M. Masum Billahz
General Pervez Musharraf and his Pakistan Muslim League-Q (PMLQ) met a humiliating defeat in the general elections giving a sizable victory to two moderate mainstream parties to combine with several other smaller allies to form a government with a two-thirds majority in the National Assembly.
Before and after the elections there were killings; 15 persons were killed in poll violence; ahead of the polls, 21 people were killed on the last day of vote campaign. To make matters worse for Musharraf and his allies, the PPP has won control of the provincial assembly in the key southern province of Sindh, and Sharif’s PML-N of the provincial assembly in Punajb. High-profile politicians who lost their seats included party president Chudhury Shujaat Hussain and almost all of Mushrraf’ former cabinet ministers and close presidential ally Sheikh Rahdi.
With votes counted in 258 out of 272 constituencies the Pakistan People’s Party and Shrif’s Muslim League-N party had a combined total of 153 seats, and Musharaf’s party a distant third with 38 seats. Religious parties also saw a crushing defeat with only three seats as opposed to 56 in 2002.
US President George Bush described Pakistan’s elections as “a significant victory” for democracy and said he hoped the new government would be friends of the United States. “We view Pakistan as an important ally. We’ve got common interests. We’ve got interest in dealing with radicals who killed Bnnazir. We‘ve got the interest in helping make sure there no safe haven for those people who can plot and plan attack on the United States of America and Pakistan.”
Not only America but all Western allies anxiously eye Pakistan’s new political set-up for signs of backsliding in the war on terror but a democratic government will likely help their cause, analysts say. This poor but nuclear-armed nation’s voters on Monday handed a massive electoral defeat to parliamentary allies of president Pervez Mushrraf, Washington’s trusted bulwark against al-Qaeda and Taliban rebels since 2001.
“We will have to carry on the war against terrorism because it is in our own national interest. All the political parties understand this.” Jamshed Aya, head of the Islamabad-based Institute of Regional Studies, told AFP. This is the fight for survival of Pakistan. “I am optimistic that they will join hands to fight the menace together,” he said.
China also expressed its satisfaction over the smooth completion of Pakistan’s election. Foreign ministry spokesman Lu Jianchao said in a statement, “Pakistan is China’s friendly neighbour and we hope Pakistan will continue to maintain stability, development, democracy and harmony after the establishment of the new government.”
Nawaz Sahrif has already asked Musharraf to quit and Asif Zardari also says he would not work with those who will maintain contact with Musharraf. Whereas Musharraf declined to resign which sparked questions. A top diplomat in Islamabad said “The USA invested more than 10 billion dollars in Mushrarraf, they will not allow anyone to destroy this huge investment.” It is learnt that the Bush administration needs Musharraf to stay in power not only for the war against terror but also for implementing a new Kashmir plan before the presidential election in the USA this year. Bush’s appreciation for Musharraf amply proves the fact. His comments regarding Musharraf go in this way, “I appreciate the fact that President Musharraf has done exactly that which he said he was going to do. He said he would hold elections, he said he would get rid of his emergency.”
This election has given the scope to Pakistan to complete its transition to democracy after eight years of military rule by Mushrraf who resorted every means to weaken the backbone of democracy figuring him as the most unpopular man in Pakistan. But through the blessings and military tricks he managed to hold the position of the president.
US, India favour Gen. Musharraf
In the White House and the ruling elite of India he seems to be the most popular Pakistani. India also made no secret in many international media before the election that they like Mushrraf more than any other leader of Pakistan. India being the largest democracy in the world favours military ruler Musharraf which bears ill omen for this region.
But the people of Pakistan have given verdict against all those political decisions that Musharraf took on the pressure of White House. In a state television speech Musharraf said, “The result of the election will be the voice of the nation, and whosoever wins we should accept it —- that includes myself. I will do it in the greater interest of the nation.”
Whatever degree of backings he receives from US, he has accepted the people’s verdict which led him to soften his language and express to work with any coalition government.
Revival of democracy in Pakistan is welcome as the trouble-torn nation craved for democracy for long.
^ TOP OF THIS PAGE ^ MAIN PAGE
CUBA WITHOUT FIDEL CASTRO
On going nationwide debate to shape changes in Cuba
Tom Fawthrop
Western pundits have long assumed that without Fidel Castro at the helm, Cuba’s economic woes would soon force his successors to capitulate to the dictates of Washington, wealthy Cuban exiles based in Miami, and their neo-liberal vision of the world.
Or it has been assumed the only alternative would be to blindly copy the Chinese model of economic reforms and adopt an increasingly pro-market model of development.
However, the great debate launched by defence minister and acting president Raul Castro about future directions increasingly points to none of the above. One Cuban commentator reflected: “We have made big mistakes in the past. Before the revolution, we had copied US policy with disastrous results. After the revolution we copied the Soviet Union - another big mistake.” Ricardo Alarcon, President of the Cuban National Assembly and a leading policy-maker, told one interviewer: “When people ask us [whether we will] copy China, the answer is no. We will find our own Cuban model and not copy anyone.”
Since undergoing major intestinal surgery in 2006, 81-year-old Fidel Castro has been forced into retirement from the political stage. Still convalescing, he has reinvented himself as an editorial writer. It is his younger brother Raul who now governs as acting president, presiding over an inner cabinet of seven senior ministers who have been carrying out a smooth transition.
Mayly, a 26-year-old architect sips her drink in a Matantzas coffee shop with her co-architect friend 22-year-old Brenda. They are frustrated by their salary of only US$20 a month and their working conditions in the nearby booming beach resort of Varadero. “There’s gold fever in Varadero,’ they tell this writer, commenting on the hotel construction boom. ‘The trouble is we don’t get to see any gold.”
Like many Cubans they have a litany of gripes and grievances - low salaries, unaffordable prices, and lack of work motivation and incentives. Mayly tells me about one of the workplace meetings to debate the current situation. “I spoke out; I probably said too much...”
Frank debate
Raul Castro has urged everybody to speak frankly about the country’s problems, calling on citizens to also propose solutions. He has also directed all Communist Party officials and neighbourhood Committees for the Defence of the Revolution (CDR) to respect free debate and freedom of expression.
Cuba has never known a debate like this. The opinions of 400,000 citizens of Havana are currently being collated and passed on as raw data to the leadership, without the normal filtering process carried out by mid-level bureaucracy.
Rafael Hernandez, the editor of Temas, a lively and controversial journal, commented: “The Party must create a new consensus - we cannot rely on the old ... consensus. This debate is about building a new consensus, not just a free debate — the consequences and actions that flow from this debate are critical to Cuba’s future.”
Three dominant concerns have been: inadequate food production with Cuba’s very low agricultural productivity, a housing crisis and a major transportation problem.
But even while in the throes of debate Cuba is changing. Hundreds of brand-new buses imported from China have started to ease the transportation bottlenecks, making it easier to get to work.
Some newspapers and radio stations are breaking away from the sterility of being just mouthpieces of the government, carrying investigative reports and popular debates with readers and listeners. There is a sense of cautious glasnost in the air despite escalating threats from President Bush, who at the end of October called on all Western nations to back “regime change in Cuba” and propel the tiny group of dissidents backed by Washington into power.
However, days after Bush’s hard line speech gratuitously linking brutal repression in Burma to Cuba, the world provided an emphatic response in the UN General Assembly. The international body overwhelmingly approved a resolution calling for the repeal of the US economic embargo against Cuba, by a vote of 184 to 4. Washington’s only support came from Israel, the Marshall Islands and Palau.
During the last year Washington tightened the screws further, with the US Treasury bullying 30 non-US banks including Barclays, HSBC and UBS Switzerland to terminate all dollar accounts with Cuba.
Empathy
Raul Castro has surprised many observers with his empathy with ordinary Cubans and their daily struggle to make ends meet with so many goods only sold in hard currency. Since the so-called “special period” from the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union, the economy was sent into a tailspin and only rescued by the introduction of a hard currency consumer sector in order to control a raging black market in currency.
Now Cubans are demanding that the gulf between the local peso economy and the hard currency economy be normalised, bridged or abolished, in the interests of restoring the pre-1990 equality.
Raul Castro has pledged that “everything that needs to be changed will be changed”, while adding the caveat that everything can be discussed other than Cuba’s commitment to a socialist solution. He has also directed that ministries and managers should be accountable to the public and the press.
Hernandez, the editor of Temas, explained that structural issues - management, control and ownership - all need to be overhauled and reformed. “The central bureaucracy running everything - this is stupid. It can’t run things efficiently.” The old legacy of the USSR is finally about to be shafted but unlike Eastern Europe, China and Vietnam, Cuba is not about to embrace the neo-liberal global economy.
Hernandez told this writer: “We need socialism with markets, not market socialism - more democracy in workplaces, more market mechanisms with social control, otherwise the market will swallow the system.”
Many Cubans are talking about reforms, not with the accent on capitalism but rather more socialism. “Social property involves people’s empowerment - workers gain control over the factory, the experience of rural co-ops needs to be expanded to other sectors — to restaurants, cafes and transport companies,” according to the editor of this widely respected monthly journal read by teachers, intellectuals and party leaders.
Brighter economic outlook
Experiments with workers councils and management have already taken root in some sectors of Argentina and Venezuela. Cuba’s economic prospects have also been enhanced by new bilateral agreements signed by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez in October, including aid to set up a petrochemical industry in Cuba for the first time.
For those pundits who have glibly prophesied that the Cuban revolution is doomed once its founder father Fidel Castro dies, the evidence points in the opposite direction.
The country has moved away from its one-time dependence on the sugar crop and selling Havana cigars, diversifying into tourism, mining, and an up-and-coming pharmaceutical and medical services sector. Although most of the economy is still mired in the Cold War past, its expanding medical sector is exporting to some 35 countries around the world and rates among the world’s best.
The current debates are critical, according to Hernandez. The Cold War era is over. Raul Castro understands the impatience of Cuban people waiting so long for an improvement in living standards to match the increasing macro indicators - an 8 per cent growth rate of the economy. The debate and the results of the debate will be the mandate for new policies and a process of socialist renewal.
But the editor of Temas warns that “the political cost of not delivering results is very high. I think the government knows they must produce changes.” If Cuba can find an appropriate development model, and Latin America continues its rejection of US free trade agreements, prospects have never been better for the mushrooming of economic alternatives to the global capitalist economy.
— Third World Network Features
^ TOP OF THIS PAGE ^ MAIN PAGE
Sri Lankan trouble vis-à-vis secessionist disputes
Jehan Perera in Colombo
In the international media headlines Sri Lanka was back again throughout the world. This was mainly on account of the Sri Lankan government’s eloquent condemnation of the unilateral declaration of independence by the breakaway state of Kosovo. The government said it could set an unmanageable precedent in the conduct of international relations and the established global order of sovereign states and could thus pose a grave threat to international peace and security.
Kosovo declared independence from Serbia on February 17 nine years after a NATO air campaign drove out Serbian forces. Moscow strongly opposed independence for the province on the grounds that it would set a bad international precedent for other secessionist disputes.
The factor that has caused anxiety in many countries affected by separatist conflicts is that UN assurances of state sovereignty notwithstanding, the precedent has been set in which a unilateral declaration of independence can attract support from powerful countries that make it a fait accompli. In the case of Kosovo, United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 placed Kosovo under the authority of the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo, with security provided by the NATO-led Kosovo Force, and legally reaffirmed Serbia’s sovereignty over the region.
Sri Lanka’s objections
Sri Lanka’s objections to Kosovo’s decision to claim independence from Serbia have been echoed by several other countries, including global giants Russia and China. One reason why Sri Lanka’s opinion was put on terms of equality with those of the global giants was the sense of reality on which the Sri Lankan statement was grounded. The Sri Lankan statement came from a bitter experience of prolonged warfare and international intervention, and not from mere theoretical possibilities.
Sri Lanka has already experienced a unilateral declaration of independence. On the other hand, about a month ago, the LTTE called on the UN and the international community to recognize the sovereignty of the Tamil nation. Although no such recognition was forthcoming, with a part of Sri Lankan territory still under rebel LTTE control, Sri Lanka is more vulnerable to a unilateral declaration of independence than most other countries.
Countries such as Russia and China, and also Spain and Indonesia, which joined the minority of countries that have objected to Kosovo’s declaration of independence, also face separatist problems. Spain is acutely sensitive to the demands of Basque and Catalan nationalists for a separate state. Cyprus is alarmed at any move that could imply that the breakaway Turkish Cypriot part of the island, which is not internationally recognized, could win diplomatic legitimacy. Chechan rebels in Russia, on the other hand, welcomed the declaration of independence by Kosovo and held out the hope of the same for themselves.
Oppressive solutions
The violence inflicted on the rebel populations within some of those countries has been worse than in Sri Lanka. The Russian campaign against separatism by Chechnya led to the literal flattening of its capital, Grozny. Despite its relatively better track record of observing human rights and respecting minorities in general, Sri Lanka remains more vulnerable to a possible break up of the country than either Russia or China. Apart from the fact that the LTTE continues to be in control over a part of the country, another reason is that Sri Lanka is a relatively small and poor country with much less resources to fend off a separatist challenge to its sovereignty. By way of contrast, both Russia and China have huge militaries and economies that no country would wish to confront.
The lesson from Serbia is that a country that lacks both military and economic clout to put fear into the rest of the world, needs at least to retain international goodwill to escape being divided. Initially, Serbia had the advantage, as the Western countries led by the United States were not in favour of Kosovo becoming a separate state. In fact the United States was particularly opposed to the Kosovo Liberation Army which it had even banned as a terrorist organisation. But there were two important considerations the Serbian government failed to bear in mind.
Serbia failed to demonstrate progress with regard to the restoration of autonomy to Kosovo that the far sighted Yugoslav leader President Tito had formulated, but which was taken away following his death. Constitutional reforms in 1974 that gave education, health and housing to the autonomous regions and provinces had also given Kosovo self-government in many areas of social life including police and the judiciary. The Serbian government under President Milosevic tried to keep Kosovo by centralising political power in the aftermath of the break up of Yugoslavia, withdrawing the autonomy it had, and by stationing its military in Kosovo.
Retaining support
At the present time the Sri Lankan government is giving its primary emphasis on using its military power to defeat the LTTE and to re-taking the territory under rebel control. The advance has been slower than anticipated and at heavy human and economic cost. Abductions and killings have terrorised the Tamil community. There has also been large scale displacement of people in the course of military operations. The premature departure of the International Independent Group of Eminent Persons who came to Sri Lanka to ensure that the Presidential Commission of Inquiry into Serious Human Rights Violations would conduct their inquiry in accordance with international standards is a further blow to the government’s human rights record.
The lesson from Serbia however is that gaining control over the ground is no guarantee of sovereignty. The more powerful Serbian army was able to go into Kosovo and retake territory, but when the cry of human rights abuses grew too much, the Western powers intervened to halt the progress of the Serb forces and eventually expelled them from Kosovo.
The recognition of Kosovo’s independence by many countries stems from the existence of other important principles of international law besides sovereignty; including those of self-determination, humanitarian intervention and the pragmatic one of ensuring stability in the region. This is the reason why the protection of human rights and the proposal of a just political solution need to be the two key elements in the government’s strategy to protect the sovereignty of Sri Lanka, rather than a one dimensional assertion of sovereignty and reliance on military victory over the LTTE.
As stated by constitutional scholar Rohan Edrisinha in a recent interview with the Daily Mirror, “when a constitutional democracy has to combat terrorism or internal rebellion it has to do so subjected to certain civilized norms and restraints that have been placed on themselves by the virtue that they are an accountable, responsible state. It is not in line to say that we can resort to any mechanism to protect our territorial integrity. You have to even prosecute a war in accordance with certain basic humanitarian norms.” If the government gets involved in a military option which results in ethnic cleansing or changing of the demographic balance, and if this is coupled with an absence of any serious attempt at a political solution then there is a danger that Sri Lanka could lose the moral goodwill that is needed to retain the support of the international community.
In this context it is worth noting that the Sri Lankan government statement on Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of Independence also included the observation that it was “particularly regrettable, since all efforts at reaching a negotiated political settlement on the future status of Kosovo, as envisaged by the UN Security Council Resolution 1244, have not been exhausted.” In making this statement the government showed the path that needs to be followed if the international community’s support for Sri Lanka’s unity is to be assured. The theory must now be practised.
^ TOP OF THIS PAGE ^ MAIN PAGE
ISLAMABAD DIARY
Jonaid Iqbal
London-based Telegraph’s story about Musharraf’s leaving office soon is baseless. This was stated by the President’s press manager. This kind of thing should be expected as natural after US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice backed the Pakistan President to the hilt, certifying that her country acknowledged him as legally elected President, and would continue to do business with him.
Chairman, US Council on Foreign Relations, Joseph Biden, who came here, Feb.18, to observe the election, has also put in a word in favour, saying President Musharaf is willing to go into night if softly dealt with.
The electrifying news is that the Pakistan People’s Party has apologised to the people of Balochistan for all repression that has followed the province since the time of its first Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.
This action is unprecedented in the history of politics of this country, and the kind of thing which fits the policy of national reconciliation espoused by the slain former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto.
We may consider the most recent statement of former Railways Minister, Shaikh Rashid, who claims President Musharraf as his personal friend. He said five days ago, “The new Assembly would not last longer than six months.”
The new leaders need to ponder on his statement. They ought to bring in the winds of change in good governance that the new awakened electorate awaits.
Every one should know by this time that the election held in Pakistan was a disclaimer of all that stiffness that President Musharraf employed to put himself on the saddle, but the electorate disappointed him by saying ‘no’.
The three (PPP, PML-N and ANP) have decided to be the rulers, yet NS has decided that his party will not take cabinet posts.
However, as soon as the polls was over, surfaced the old cry of restoration of members of the former judiciary, dethroned by President Musharraf’s action of Nov. 3 (date of Proclamation of the Provisional Constitutional Order as well as Emergency) and the unseating of the President.
In the first flush of victory, Asif Zardari said his party was not interested merely in forming just the government but wanted real power of governance.
But there has been a climb down from all sides. AZ (Asif Zardari) is now willing to work with President Musharraf because he feels that the PPP, PML (N) and ANP combine do not have two-thirds majority needed to impeach Musharraf. NS was the first to raise the issue of old judges’ return to their former offices. He said he could not take back the demand for Musharraf’s impeachment because he had promised just that to the electorate. He is now willing to wait until the judiciary is restored and ready to deal with the question of Musharraf’s eligibility as Presidential candidate.
All this might have happened, probably, after the mighty High Commissioners and Ambassadors began to meet the winning leaders. Theirs should be courtesy calls, in the spirit of correct and proper diplomacy. However, many people conjecture that these meetings were held to convey messages on behalf of the governments of Western countries that the political parties need to leave well enough (meaning President Musharraf) alone.
Pretended as a dramatic move the losing party PML-Q has decided to sit on the opposition benches (What else could they do after losing?).
For all that, the very next day, former Tourism Minister Niloufer Bakhtiar formed a forward block within the party. She has six Senators with her. All these persons are saying they want to join the surge of democracy, and were in favour of restoration of judiciary and for full press freedom.
Pervez Musharraf, although promising to accept the result of the present election, may be thinking of ways of making a turn around.
^ TOP OF THIS PAGE ^ MAIN PAGE
|
