Fighting AIDS

President Bush has not minced words about the global toll of AIDS and last June said its devastation “staggers the imagination and shocks the conscience.” But urgent words do not amount to U.S. funding and action, the absence of which has repeatedly been criticized by international health officials.

Here are three principles that can help the administration formulate a cohesive AIDS strategy before President Bush sets out Jan. 13 on a trip to sub-Saharan Africa, the epicenter of the epidemic:

Don’t abandon people who live in countries that have less-than-model governments. If mishandled, the development account could end up as little more than a cynical end run around the Global Fund, the international private-public partnership that works with nongovernmental groups like Doctors Without Borders to help fight AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria in the regions that need help the most, whether or not their governments epitomize modern democratic ideals. Significantly increase funding targeted at global AIDS.— The Washington Post

Implications of wholesale privatization: Higher education: a retrograde step — II

THE claim that the reforms will lead to higher research productivity is unconvincing. Good research is deeply intertwined with the context of the conditions it is carried out in. In order to be valuable, research should ideally examine problems that are important to the researcher’s surroundings.

The Higher Education Commission’s equating good research with publications in journals of international repute is rather strange. American journals are concerned with theoretical and empirical problems that are relevant to American society or America’s interest in the world.

Try publishing an article on the negative effect of IMF conditionalities on the local economy in the Journal of Finance. International journals have evolved over time, as have the problems that they like to examine. This process of evolution is critical to the healthy development of a society.

Doing research so that it can be published in American journals will only alienate our educational institutions from society in which they reside. Institutions of higher learning are created to provide intellectual leadership to their countries. They are in turn sustained by the reality of their environment. Institutions like MIT have evolved in a recursive relationship with their environment. Route 128 in Massachusetts, as well as several leading technological giants such as Kodak or Ford owe much to what is carried out at MIT. These corporations, in turn, have consistently confronted the university with novel problems that they are unable to solve and funded it generously to help solve them. Similarly, the highly respected Indian Institute of Technology has evolved in sync with the Tatas and the Birlas.

MIT has also enjoyed this type of relationship with the government of the United States. Technological research is prompted by the problems that arise in the economy and other fields. In order to be made useful, research must be linked with the local economy, not driven by foreign journals.

The main reason why our engineering universities do not produce much research is lack of opportunities for application of the results within the country. Research is fuelled by novel problems, which is why we see greater research in vibrant economies, while a stagnant economy has little interest in research and innovation. As for journals, if anything, local ones need to be encouraged to carry more of research related articles. In any case, by abolishing tenure or service in universities, in favour of contract service, the Higher Education Commission has effectively eliminated all possibilities of there being any useful research. Research is a long-term business. It is not carried out by contract employees anywhere in the world. Tenure is not only a guarantee of continuity and academic freedom, but also serves to reduce the risk associated with exploratory work, routinely undertaken by academics. The commission better recognize that universities are not corporations. Their missions are fundamentally different, as are their strategies for managing personnel and their affairs generally.

In the final analysis, it would be naive to consider the commission as the sole progenitor of reforms. As a writer pointed out in a recent article in Dawn (November 17), these are a logical extension of the larger privatization agenda that is operative in the country at the instance of the IMF and the World Bank. As evidence, there were not only meetings between the Higher Education Commission and World Bank officials, but also the imprint of the World Bank/IMF doctrine under which all “subsidies” to health and education are being dutifully withdrawn.

Subsidies to health and education are not just that: they are an aid to development and progress in a poor country. Previous privatization escapades of the Bank and the Fund are illustrative in this regard. As the researcher Mark Lynas has shown, the World Bank’s “reforms” of the health sector in Zambia are directly responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of Zambian people. While it all started in the name of efficiency, most people cannot afford to buy the medicines they need, dying of easily treatable diseases. Partly as a result, infant mortality in Zambia has risen by 25 per cent since 1980, while life expectancy has fallen from 54 to 40. The government of Zambia has similarly been forced to slash its spending on education, with the result that enrolment has fallen from 96 per cent in the mid-1980s to 77 per cent today.

A predictable outcome of the policies of the World Bank, which claims to be the champion of female education, is that since schooling throughout much of sub-Saharan Africa is now available only to those who can pay, the girls are virtually excluded. That this outcome is entirely likely also in Pakistan is shown by the fact that in Karachi University female students tend to be from higher income families than the males. This inevitably leads to the conclusion that women’s education only becomes an option when the family has enough disposable income. If the parents are pushed to chose between their male and female children in the face of rising costs of education, they will choose to invest on their sons.

We in Pakistan are well on our way to that fate. As it is, the government currently supports only about 30 per cent of the education sector and roughly the same of the health sector; the rest has already been privatized. This 30 per cent of the overall health and education facilities has to support around 60 per cent of our population that lives on or below the poverty line and another 20-30 per cent that is marginally above it. There are already privatized schools, colleges, universities, and hospitals that provide services to the upper middle class onwards. Nearly 70 per cent of our health and education facilities already cater to the less than 10 per cent of Pakistan’s population that constitutes the upper middle class and beyond. Privatizing the remaining facilities will mean nothing to these upper classes but it will mean further privations and suffering for those below.

It is in recognition of the consequence of the wholesale privatization of health and education and of the imposition of corporate rule leading to further sharp divisions in society, that agitation by the teachers, doctors and lawyers in Pakistan has taken on the dimensions of a political movement. It may well become part of the growing tide of anti-globalization movement across the world. People, especially the young, are becoming increasingly involved in the larger issues concerning the world.

The continued strength of the anti-globalization movement bears testimony to that. An important reason for this renewed engagement is a growing threat to the basic rights of citizens in civilized society such as in reference to health and education.

The fact is that the problems highlighted by the Shams Lakha steering committee on higher education which forms the basis for all these reforms in question, are not related to public vs. private spending on education but to the suffocating hierarchy that is present in all our institutions. The Model University Ordinance further consolidates this hold by concentrating all power at the top, in addition to privatizing education. The key to useful change is to not hand over government responsibility to boards of governors but to divert more resources to health and education.

There is no doubt that there are numerous problems in the public education system as it exists now. However, the fact that the institutions within the system are able to deliver any quality at all in spite niggardly funding, is a testament to the dedication of many within these institutions. After all, these institutions were able to deliver quality education only a couple of generations ago back under public funding, and why can’t they do so now? Universities and hospitals in societies with minimal social and economic divisions — Sweden for one — continue to be publicly funded. In European countries where some hospital functions or university departments were privatized, there are strong movements underway to reverse the changes because their adverse results are now evident to the people.

Concluded

Democratic contender in US

WITH his first step toward a formal announcement of a run for the presidency, Massachusetts Sen. John F. Kerry joins a fellow New Englander, Gov. Howard Dean of Vermont, in officially exploring a bid for the 2004 Democratic nomination.

Both candidates have labored in the shadows of higher-profile politicians from their respective states, and they can soon expect to share the field with Democratic contenders who may start with greater name recognition and broader bases of voter support.

But John Kerry’s formation of an exploratory committee is not to be taken lightly. His entry gives Democrats a candidate well-grounded in issues much on the minds of many Americans, such as national and economic security, education and health care. He has a strong record of service, both in uniform and in public office.

Over the next several months Mr. Kerry will need to show enough voter support to raise the enormous amounts of money required to fuel a national campaign. While the Kerry name is not exactly a household word among rank-and-file Democrats, he garnered 18 percent in a recent Los Angeles Times poll of 312 of the 388 Democratic National Committee members, only one point behind former Vice President Al Gore, who was at the top. But Mr. Kerry lost in the survey to “no preference”, which got 46 percent.

That result, along with a recent Washington Post poll showing Mr. Kerry tied with Mr. Daschle but trailing Mr. Gore and Mr. Lieberman, suggests that the race for the Democratic nomination will be more competitive than it was four years ago, when Mr. Gore had to dispatch only former Sen. Bill Bradley in the early primaries to clear the way to the nomination. It also argues for contenders to file early; with the primaries front-loaded this time around, the race for the nomination could be over early in 2004.

A decorated Vietnam War veteran, former prosecutor, lieutenant governor and now senator, re-elected without major opposition last month to a fourth term, John Kerry offers a sharp contrast to President Bush on foreign policy and economic issues. Unlike some of his fellow liberal Democrats, Mr. Kerry has not been cowed into silence on the administration’s foreign policy. He spoke out against unilateral action in Iraq while ultimately voting for the resolution authorizing it. The Silver Star winner and recipient of three Purple Hearts has not hesitated to question the president’s prosecution of the war against al-Qaida and terrorism. And, again unlike some of his fellow Democrats, Mr. Kerry found his voice on tax cuts: He would roll back the planned reductions, preferring instead to cut the payroll tax.

To be sure, Mr. Kerry has his work cut out for him, hailing as he does from a state that produced Democratic disappointments in 1980 (Ted Kennedy), 1988 (Michael Dukakis) and 1992 (Paul Tsongas). In fact, a Democratic Northerner has not been elected president since another Bay Stater, John Kennedy, won 42 years ago.— The Washington Post

An unlikely role for Putin

IN VIEW of his abrasive and undiplomatic observations about the safety of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons programme, Russian President Putin’s stated desire to play the role of a peacemaker between India and Pakistan cannot but be viewed with a measure of scepticism.

In an interview to an Indian daily, on the eve of his three- day visit to New Delhi which began on Tuesday, Mr Putin expressed serious doubts whether Pakistan’s nuclear weapons were in safe and responsible hands. He said that Russia was worried that the weapons of mass destruction (WMD) could “fall into the hands of bandits and terrorists”, stressing that the international community needed” to have a clear picture of where these weapons are, in what status, in what condition they are and what will happen to them in future.”

The Russian president also feared that the WMD could fall into the wrong hands and “irresponsible elements” could obtain information concerning the production techniques (of nuclear weapons),” adding that despite assurances given by President Pervez Musharraf, “anxiety persists.” However, he admitted that Moscow had no specific information to support its fears. He also had not come across any evidence to support the reports that Pakistan had transferred nuclear technology to North Korea or any other country (as reported in a section of the American press).

Obviously, Mr Putin’s concern in the matter has been prompted by speculative reports in a section of the US press. For the head of a major state to air his fears merely on the basis of such reports is indeed surprising. The normal practice in such cases is for an interested foreign government to cross-check such reports with other responsible sources or through diplomatic channels before adopting a public position. To make them the basis of a public statement and that too on a highly sensitive subject is to disregard the accepted norms.

Not surprisingly the foreign office summoned the Russian ambassador posted in Islamabad and lodged a strong protest. The ambassador’s attention was also drawn to Russia’s own system of ensuring the security of its nuclear arsenal. He was reminded that there had been as many as 200 cases of alleged smuggling of the nuclear technology and material out of Russia.

With regard to President Putin’s wish to work for peace and normalization between India and Pakistan, it may be recalled that Islamabad has repeatedly sought the help the international community and of the United Nations in trying to overcome India’s intransigence in the matter of resumption of bilateral talks. However, India has firmly stuck to its negative stance on all such moves. Moscow, of course, does not need to be reminded that Pakistanis generally do not have much faith in Moscow playing an honest broker’s role for promoting peace and normalization between India and Pakistan. On the contrary, Russia is widely remembered for its partisan role, diplomatically and materially, in helping India dismember Pakistan in 1971. The Russian help was a crucial factor in the developments leading to the separation of East Pakistan.

The timing of President Putin’s statement about Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal also betrays a lack of concern for the ground realities. The visit coincided with a raging campaign by India to malign Pakistan, accusing it of involvement in acts of terrorism in that country, including occupied Kashmir.

India’s prime minister Atal Behari Vajpayee has himself referred to Pakistan as a terrorist state, hoping that the US-led war against international terrorism will somehow be extended to Pakistan. He feels frustrated that it has not happened yet. In utter disregard of the logic of probability, New Delhi also believes that Pakistan’s ISI is using Bangladesh as a staging post for sponsoring violence and subversion in India.

The Russian president arrived in India when the communally disturbed state of Gujarat was about to go to the polls. Being Mahatma Gandhiji’s birth place and having his Sabarmati Ashram located in it, Gujarat could have been an abode of communal peace and harmony. Instead, it has turned out to be one of India’s most communally polarized places, with the flag-bearers of Hindutva vigorously campaigning to build up an anti-Muslim hysteria and frenzy there.

Some 2,000 people, mostly Muslims, were killed in the communal violence which erupted in Gujarat in February last and continues to manifest itself in frequent incidents rioting. Rabid Hindu leaders, including India’s deputy prime minister, Lal Krishna Advani, and the state chief minister, Narendra Modi, have been in the vanguard of the election campaign, spewing hate and venom against the Muslims. It is now established beyond any shadow of doubt that the anti-Muslim violence which began with a communal outburst was in fact part of a state-sponsored pogrom against Gujarat’s Muslim population.

The past few weeks have seen electioneering in Gujarat with an anti-Muslim tilt being carried on by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) which is in power in the state and which is trying to retain its control of the state in the face of stiff opposition from the Congress.

It is unfortunate that President Putin should be visiting India at a time when New Delhi’s anti-Pakistan propaganda is at its most virulent. During their visit in India, the Russian president and his aides were also negotiating the sale of some of the most lethal military hardware to India to bolster its offensive capacity. The talks for the sale of an aircraft carrier and a number of Russian nuclear submarines for the Indian navy had been in progress for some time and were expected to be concluded before the Russian president left India. Russia will also supply military aircraft to the Indian air force under the deal now being negotiated.

The beefing up of the Indian armed forces, evoking the disturbing memory of the military hardware supplied by the former Soviet Union to India to 1971 under a 20-year treaty of friendship and cooperation will inevitably lead to an acceleration of the arms race in South Asia. In the circumstances, President Putin, despite his professed desire to mediate for peace between Indian and Pakistan can hardly be seen as an honest broker.