| December 22, 2001 | Saturday | Shawwal 6, 1422 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
The dead & the forgotten
Health aid for the poorest
THE convergence of views reached “on all issues” during President Musharraf’s current visit to China should surprise no one, given the deep and abiding friendship that has characterized the two countries’ relationship for more than five decades. On all issues of the day — Kashmir, terrorism, Afghanistan, regional peace and the current state of Indo-Pakistan tension — the two sides pledged to follow “identical policies.” This unanimity of views was witnessed both during President Musharraf’s one-to-one talks with President Jiang and at the larger meeting between the two delegations. On Kashmir, the Chinese president supported Pakistan’s stand and expressed appreciation of Islamabad’s “endeavours for a peaceful settlement” of the conflict. Similarly, on Pakistan’s decision to align itself with the world coalition against terrorism, President Jiang said his country “understands and supports” Islamabad’s decision made “in the light of its national interests and the current situation.” On Afghanistan, too, there was total understanding, and President Jiang said the two countries would continue to maintain “close consultation and coordination” to facilitate a fair settlement of the Afghan issue.
President Musharraf’s visit to China comes against a background of some major regional and international developments. The foremost among them has been the formation of the US-led world coalition against terrorism following the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon on Sept 11. Pakistan decided, as a front-line state, to play its part in the fight against the Al-Qaeda network and the Taliban regime, which harboured them. As Afghanistan’s and Pakistan’s neighbour, China showed an understanding of Islamabad’s position and lent its full support to Pakistan’s active cooperation with the world coalition. In fact, when President Musharraf wanted to visit China immediately after Sept 11, Beijing realized that the general was needed at home in a moment of acute crisis and assured him of China’s total support for Pakistan’s policies.
The current visit to Beijing had been scheduled earlier, but, coincidentally, it came in the wake of the Dec 13 attack on the Indian parliament building. As is typical of India, it discovered Pakistan’s hand in the attack even before preliminary investigations had begun. It rejected Pakistan’s offer of a joint inquiry and even turned down America’s fair offer to associate the FBI with the investigation. Instead, New Delhi whipped up war hysteria, and threatened military action. For its part, Pakistan maintained its cool and refused to be drawn into a bellicose exchange. China noted this and said it was “seriously concerned” over developments in its neighbourhood. As a foreign ministry spokeswoman said, regional peace and stability were in the interest of the Pakistani people and that China would “consistently support” Pakistan’s efforts in this regard. The spokeswoman also called for a dialogue between the two countries to resolve their problems. Even this innocuous statement — the plea for a dialogue — is unpalatable to India, since New Delhi has set its face against a resumption of the Agra process and has, instead, returned to its old accusatory refrain of Pakistan encouraging “cross-border terrorism.”
Another outcome of the visit is the formal signing of no less than seven economic agreements, which had been previously agreed upon. They include the vital Saindak project, the 500 kv Muzaffargarh and Ghatti transmission lines, and the Jinnah hydropower project. These accords testify to China’s close involvement with Pakistan’s economic development. They underline China’s desire, as President Jiang put it, to bring the “comprehensive partnership between the two countries to a new height in the new century.”
THE bombing of Afghanistan has, according to one reliable estimate, led to more civilian deaths than the September 11 attacks. This estimate does not come from any official source since the Pentagon has not been very forthcoming about civilian deaths (the constant refrain being: ‘these cannot be independently confirmed’). It has been left to an American academic, Marc Herold of the University of New Hampshire, to compile a rough estimate of just how many innocent Afghans have died. After going through reports in the international print and electronic media, and gleaning information from aid agencies, the UN and eyewitnesses, he estimates that from October 7 to December 10 over 3,700 civilians were killed by US bombs. This is considerably higher than the 3,234 now thought to have been killed in New York and Washington.
Mr Herold’s estimate does not include those who died later of injuries, nor those who might have died from cold or hunger because of the interruption of aid or because they were forced to flee their homes. It also does not include military deaths, or those prisoners who were slaughtered in Mazar-i-Sharif, Qala-i-Jangi, Kandahar airport and elsewhere. Cynical as it might seem, there are some who would argue that civilian deaths are inevitable when bombs are dropped from the skies and that in war everyone, even the media, tends to take sides. However, what is even more regrettable is strong reluctance among the protagonists to even discuss this issue openly. The Pentagon as usual will deny this figure or dismiss it out of hand, while the mainstream US media will downplay it or look away from it. With the bombing now, hopefully, over, the safety of war prisoners must be ensured. The US-led coalition holds some 7,000 Taliban and Al Qaeda fighter prisoners and we would strongly urge the Afghan interim authority which takes office today to ensure that they are treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention. International rights organizations should also be let in to ascertain the real civilian toll and to assist in independent inquiries of the various massacres of war prisoners that have taken place.
IF THE rich nations are prepared to substantially increase spending on health aid, many of the world’s poorest countries can break out of the vicious cycle of disease and poverty. This is the conclusion of a report commissioned by the World Health Organization and drafted by some of the top international names in economics and public health. According to it, an annual increase of 38 million dollars in aid until 2015 could save as many as eight million lives a year and serve as a catalyst for speedy economic development. The other benefits of such an injection of funds would be improved health, greater life expectancy, and lower birth rates. This, in turn, could increase global political stability and security as well as promote higher productivity.
The report puts conventional theory on its head by arguing that improved health is a prerequisite for economic development rather than the other way round. Conventional wisdom on the subject generally sees development as automatically leading to better health. The report goes on to argue that poor countries are unable to break out of the poverty trap simply because they cannot afford to tackle pandemics — such as AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis — without substantial international assistance. As the chairman of the WHO Commission on Macroeconomics and Health puts it, “They are so poor that they cannot address the problems that are making them poor. They’re trapped.”
He adds confidently that “the ratio of the benefits to the cost is so outstanding that it is inevitable that we will go forward to do the things outlined in the report.” While specialists in the health field believe that the sums required to dramatically improve world health are small given their enormous benefits, the donor countries may not be so easily convinced. However, if the political will can be found among the developed world, the benefits can be enormous.