| March 5, 2003 | Wednesday | Muharram 1, 1424 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
Clinton’s straight talk
Checking juvenile smoking
EVEN though war has not yet begun, Israel has already achieved one of its goals: the peace process has been finally buried. The world no more hears about it. Even the lip service that America used to pay to it has ceased. In fact, long before the Iraqi crisis reached its present spine-chilling level, the Arab-Israeli process had begun to be sidelined by American-Israeli diplomacy. The emphasis was no more on pushing the peace process forward but on a reform in the Palestinian Authority. Nothing made this deliberate shift in emphasis more apparent than President George Bush’s “peace initiative” last summer. His speech on the subject was singularly devoid of any reference to the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination. Instead, the focus was on giving the Palestinians a leadership “not compromised by terror.” It was delivered at a time when Israel had re-occupied the West Bank, there were demolitions and massacres, the PA offices had been destroyed, and Yasser Arafat was in virtual captivity in Ramallah — a state he is still in. On that occasion, when the world expected the US president to condemn Israel for its atrocities and for reducing the Oslo peace process to shreds, all that President Bush said was the PA needed reform. Once this was done, he said, the Palestinians could have “a provisional state.”
Apparently, there is no change in US policy on the issue even now when Washington is keen to secure Muslim support for the attack on Iraq, for Bush’s speech last week again was characterized by a blatantly pro-Israeli line and an utter disregard for the legitimate struggle of the Palestinian people for freedom. While the military and diplomatic situation about Iraq is moving towards a denouement, Israel has continued with its genocidal policies in the occupied territories. On Monday, Israeli troops murdered nine more Palestinians, destroyed more houses and, in the process, damaged a mosque. Apparently, such atrocities do not constitute a crime in Washington’s eyes, for Bush’s speech last week made no reference to these.
Instead, the US president said the end of the Iraq war would enable the Palestinians to choose “new leaders.” The only redeeming feature was his reference to the ultimate emergence of a Palestinian state. Beyond that there was no indication of how the peace process would be revived and how the Palestinians would have a state of their own. He made no promise to revive the Oslo process — something shocking, because America is its co-sponsor and the agreements laying down a time-table for Israeli withdrawals were signed on the lawns of the White House. This is the American attitude when the war against Iraq has not yet begun. One can well imagine how a victorious America would behave towards the Arabs in general and the Palestinians in particular. In such a setting, there will be no revival of the peace process, and Washington will in all likelihood help Israel force the Palestinian people to either live in their present sub-human conditions or abandon their homeland. This would help Tel Aviv achieve what the Iraqi war is really all about: annexing the occupied territories to realize Zionism’s age-old dream — a Greater Israel. In the eyes of history, America will be an accomplice in this crime.
IN a broadcast message to a conference held in New Delhi on Saturday, former US president Bill Clinton had a couple of candid — and timely — things to say to his audience. Referring to last year’s communal riots in Gujarat, and in an apparent reference to the ruling party stoking communal passions, he said: “To identify and categorize people based on faith will keep India from becoming the right kind of giant in the 21st century.” On the Kashmir issue, Mr Clinton did not mince his words either, and called it “the most dangerous place on earth.” This was exactly the kind of comment which had invited a public rebuke from the Indian leadership during Mr Clinton’s state visit to the subcontinent in 2000. This time round, taking advantage of his physical absence from the conference in question, he went on to advocate the need for India to reach a Northern Ireland-like settlement on the Kashmir dispute with Pakistan.
Mr Clinton, by his own admission, is a friend of India. His comments on two of India’s most pressing problems, namely the on-going freedom struggle in Kashmir and the recurring communal violence in Gujarat and elsewhere, should be food for thought for the Indian leadership. Urging India to start a dialogue with Pakistan, Mr Clinton observed: “Politicians on both sides of the Line (of Control) have more to gain in the short run by keeping problems festering than making them go away.” This, in all honesty, was a clear reference to Indian obduracy on the subject because Pakistan, for its part, has consistently called for a dialogue on all outstanding issues with India, including, and not restricted to, Kashmir. It is high time New Delhi listened to the sane counsel of its critics as well as well-wishers around the world and agreed to sit across the table with Pakistan to thrash out long-standing issues that have bedevilled the two countries’ relations since independence. India’s stubborn insistence that Kashmir and communal problems are its internal matters is a meaningless refrain in view of the legal, moral, political and wider human dimensions of these issues.
THE anti-juvenile smoking bill passed by the Punjab Assembly recently shows excessive reliance on legal means to check an unhealthy personal and social habit. Sale of tobacco to youth under 18 has been banned and even offering or attempting to sell tobacco to them have been made an offence. There is no denying that smoking by youth needs to be discouraged, but it is a moot point whether a punitive approach alone will prove effective in tackling the problem. The social and psychological impulsions behind juvenile smoking are far too deep-rooted to be curbed by legal means. Moreover, given the multi-faceted nature of the problem, it would be very difficult to enforce a law of this kind. Youth hooked on nicotine could become more sly and secretive in pursuing the habit. Similarly, given the profit involved, the purveyors of tobacco products are not likely to be deterred either. They will find ways of getting round the restrictions.
Keeping round-the-clock vigil on millions of cigarette kiosks and retail outlets would be next to impossible. But the biggest problem perhaps could arise from the possible misuse of the law in the hands of a corrupt and brutal police force. A more realistic approach would thus be to initiate a simultaneous educational campaign, with the help of the media, educational institutions, NGOs, health and welfare agencies, to make the youth more fully aware of the very many hazards and dangers of smoking and also telling them how to give up the habit and what to do and avoid doing to stay out of its crippling hold. With such a drive forming a part of it, the anti-smoking law will have a better chance of achieving its aim.