Free trade is not fair

INTERNATIONAL trade necessitates the lowering/ removal of trade barriers and, most importantly, the willingness of the nations to trade, which would result in some form of negotiation leading to bilateral or multilateral treaties.

The US followed the same policies as its former colonial masters by imposing its version of “free” trade by force on Korea, Central and South America (Declaration by the Monroe Doctrine, Spanish-American War), Pacific and elsewhere. “Free” trade has often meant imposing the trade by the barrel of the gun. Unlike the more cunning and deceitful former European colonizers, the American culture is relatively frank and, hence, former US president Woodrow Wilson said:

“Since trade ignores national boundaries and the manufacturer insists on having the world as a market, the flag of his nation must follow him, and the doors of the nations which are closed against him must be battered down. Concessions obtained by financiers must be safeguarded by ministers of state, even if the sovereignty of unwilling nations be outraged in the process.”

So, the nations seeking trade liberalization under the frenzy of globalization went to the recent WTO meeting at the Mexican resort of Cancun, seeking to establish a consensus that could have led to a multilateral agreement among its 146 members. However, few considered the main stumbling-block, i.e. the basic human nature of greed — the rich and powerful want to get richer even if it means making the rest of the world poorer. A human trait that is not regulated but is rather let loose within the capitalist paradigm, it forms one of the basic pillars of the “free market” fundamentalism (capitalism).

Hence we witness the belligerence of the “freedom” fanatic fundamentalists. Do we not hear all the time from Bush and his cohorts mentioning “free” this and “free” that, how the terrorist hate “freedom”? Even a cursory glance will tell you that it is “freedom” for the US, its multinationals and financiers, and not the freedom that is applicable to all human beings and nations.

Nevertheless, the member-states hoped everyone would see the mutual benefit, and some form of compromise would be reached on that basis. The summit was, however, a failure as nations walked out, unable to reach any agreement. However, many viewed it as a turning-point, because for the first time the poorer nations put up collective resistance against the three economic giants, the US, Europe and Japan. This resistance led some to declare it as a form of victory for the poorer nations.

The most contentious issue was that of agricultural subsides provided by the wealthy US and Europe to their farmers, creating a glut in the market, lowering prices, with excess being dumped on the Third World market eventually. Such practices are costing the poor countries in terms of millions in the losses of export revenue and may even ruin their own domestic market if subjected to dumping policies of the powerful nations.

Another area of contention was that of cotton; even the US admits it is by far the biggest offender in subsidizing the industry. India and Pakistan, with other African states, are again its primary victim.

To compound the problem, all these poor nations have huge debt-servicing burdens to the IMF and World Bank. Far from conceding to the reduction of export subsidies to allow the poor countries a chance to develop and grow, they (the US, EU, and Japan) went on the offensive asking for the adoption of “Singapore issues” (originally proposed in Singapore back in 1996), which would facilitate greater market penetration by the multinationals and big corporations.

Naturally there is reservation from all the developing and least-developed countries. People often forget that free does not necessarily mean fair. Countries with greater expertise and resources are able to outmanoeuvre the poorer countries. Foreign investment can undermine a nation’s fiscal policy (sovereignty) as India and Malaysia voiced their opposition. The latter learnt how the currency traders were about to destabilize the entire economy during the Southeast Asian market crash not too long ago.

In essence such a formula would prepare the local industries to be controlled by the multinationals and, thereby, the colonizing of the countries effectively. “Free trade” is not so free after all.

As for the poorer nations, they must have the will power to act in a collective manner in opposing the domination led by the US and EU, which are interested in getting richer at all costs. The poor must resist the seduction of short-term gains by forming bilateral treaties.

The market shares of world trade for the poorer countries are continuously decreasing and the gap between the rich and the poor are ever increasing; the current model is not viable for securing their own interests. Hence the poor nations should collectively strive to create an alternative and, perhaps, attempt to entice the oil-rich Arab countries, which are at present suffering under US-led brutality, with long-term visions rather than short-term pragmatism.

Dumping the dollar for the euro and, in particular, withdrawing the “petro-dollar” from US banks and then converting it to the euro, diverting those funds would be an excellent start: it would dent the greedy US capitalists, and the shady evil neo-con fascists in their ability to wage war for profit.

Boycotting US-based goods and services in favour of the less belligerent members of the EU and other developing nations would also be another positive step. The US should also be classified as a greedy rogue state that needs to be reformed, preferably a regime change from the current regime of “freedom” fundamentalists, only then it should be considered for membership of the real international community which has the majority of the world’s population.

YAMIN ZAKARIA

London, UK

The wounds are too deep to heal

OF late a “school” of crocodiles from America’s seas has been descending over Iraq’s desert. First, it was Likud’s man in Washington, Paul Wolfowitz, with the gonzo Jim Hoagland in tow, cheerleading and composing paeans in his praise. After him came the badmouth Rummy of “Old Europe” fame. And, finally, the superb actor, Colin Powell, who, by his sheer acting, made the farrago of lies in his historic “presentation” against Saddam Hussein in the Security Council, look like gospel truth. So marvellous was his delivery that William Safire went totally off his rocker, to extol it as “irrefutable, undeniable” in his New York Times column.

All visited one or the other of the many sites of mass graves of people whom Saddam had killed with chemical weapons. They wept for the dead; they recalled the horrid memories of the past and reassured the people that, under Crusader George Bush, there will now be peace for them and prosperity for the American contractors.

Colin Powell selected Halabja for his pilgrimage. The place is inhabited by Kurds. The Kurds are pro-America. In 1988, during the Iran-Iraq war, (in which the US had actively supported Iraq), Saddam had massacred about 5,000 Kurds there, with chemical weapons and Daddy Bush did not raise a finger.

However, the crocodiles had not a drop of tear for the half a million Iraqi children, who died for want of medication owing to American sanctions. The congenital hypocrites had no word of remorse for the “more than 200,000 Iraqi men, women and children who were killed or who died as a result of the US-led attack” on Iraq in 1991. These figures were cited in a study released before Christmas 1991 by the Medical Educational Trust and quoted by John Pilger in the Independent, April 20, 2003. Nor was there any sign of angst for at least 10,000 innocent Iraqi civilians mowed down mercilessly during the current war of naked aggression.

Colin Powell’s crocodile tears at Halabja should be seen in the backdrop of another story from John Pilger story (Independent, Aug 24, 2003): “In Washington the other day, I asked John Bolton, Under-Secretary for International Security at the State Department, the most outspoken of the “neo-conservatives” around President Bush, about civilian deaths in Iraq. I referred to the study that estimated up to 10,000 casualties. He replied: ‘Well, I think it’s quite low if you look at the size of the military operation that was undertaken.’ Puzzled that he should be subjected to such a line of questioning, he said with a laugh: “You must be a member of the Communist Party.”

The wounds are too deep to heal by tears.

S. G. JILANEE

Karachi

The ‘crime’ of being raped

THIS refers to Ms Arshia Azhar’s letter “Need for changing Hudood laws” (Sept 14). I agree with her views. The government should repeal the Hudood Ordinance which punishes rape victims and put them in jail for ‘their crime’ of being raped.

The Hudood Ordinance was introduced under the military regime of Gen Ziaul Haq in 1979 and has since been opposed by all human and women’s rights advocates. The law bans all kinds of extramarital sexual contacts, and is used specially for the suppression of women. Women are nearly invariably taken as guilty party, even if, as in Zafran Bibi’s case, they are victims of rape. The Hudood law does not make any difference between consensual and forced sexual contacts. Thousands of women in Pakistan are accused of zina (adultery) every year and many of them are kept in prison for 10 to 15 years.

In Pakistan, today it can be safely said that “rape” per se cannot be legally “proven” in a court of law in the vast majority of cases, and not because it did not in fact occur. Generally, rapists are not so obliging as to provide four witnesses who both first observe the act, and are then willing to testify to their crime. A women gets raped in Pakistan an average of every two minutes. However, the state has created an absurd legal situation which punishes the victim by using her testimony against her to prosecute her on a charge of ‘unlawful sex’ after the rape charge are dropped as unproven, as they usually are because rape cannot be legally proven in nine out of 10 genuine cases, thanks to the law.

The law of evidence used in rape cases needs to be modernized. While technological progress in the past century has made positive DNA and semen identification possible, with a highly reliable evidentiary value, greater even than an eyewitness testimony, this method is not used in the courts and is not widely available.

If the president has the law repealed, I am sure the nation would always remember him for this bold step of setting free the women of this country from the injustices perpetrated against them in the name of Shariat, Islam and the holy Quran.

ZULFIQAR ALI DOMKI

Karachi

What about Muslims in Pakistan?

WITH reference to the article by Mr Anwer Syed on the status of Indian Muslims, I would like to suggest that as Pakistanis we should be more concerned about our own people first. I have great sympathy for the plight of Indian Muslims, specially after the Gujarat atrocities, but I am more worried about the status of certain Muslims within Pakistan.

We have to face our own sectarian demons, the recent carnage in Quetta being a prime example. Would Mr Anwer Syed express the same indignation at our current government which allowed a prominent sectarian terrorist leader to become an MNA even with murder cases against him? What about the attacks on doctors and intellectuals that are routinely blamed on RAW when everyone knows the groups that kill are known to all law-enforcement agencies? What about the forceful imposition of sectarian ideology in the Northern Areas through biased school textbooks?

As Pakistanis, we must first address the injustices to our own Muslims before pointing the finger at other countries.

NADEEM AFZAL

Columbus, OH, USA

Of cricket and commentators

IN the short period for which I have watched cricket, I have seen the sport fall gradually into the abyss of professionalism. Gone are the days when batsmen walked, when the umpire was respected and when the game was played to honour timeless tradition. Today, the best side in the world is also the most hostile outfit ever seen.

Commentating, not so long ago, was a privilege reserved for the literate. The most seasoned columnists and enthusiasts took up the honour of narration, and were every broadcaster’s pride. Today, however, we feel the effects of commercialization and unhealthy competition between production houses when we find that commentators can be bought for a penny a pound and everyone of them remains contracted to the broadcaster who owns their rights of speech. This has resulted in the most valued voices turning away from the microphone. The viewers are the ones who lose out on quality in the end, as in the ongoing series between Bangladesh and Pakistan I heard a comment on a bowler who was consistently pitching off target. The commentator remarked that the bowler was ‘repeatedly widing’!

This, for me, was the icing on a cake baked from the pulp of a game which once belonged to gentlemen.

MOIZ JAFERI

Karachi

Condition of Mauripur roads

THE roads leading to the Hawkesbay and Sandspit beaches are in a dilapidated condition. This is an understatement. The purpose of going to the beach is to unwind, relax and get away from the problems and worries of daily life, but the roads of Mauripur make sure that this purpose is thoroughly defeated.

These roads cause accidents, not to mention the harm caused to the cars which are driven on them. There is a regular traffic of heavy vehicles on these roads which carry large shipping containers. With conditions such as these, it is surprising how they survive, anymore, major accidents that they already have.

Whoever is responsible for the repair of the roads should take some sort of action to urgently improve driving conditions in the area.

SYED HARIS HASSAN

Karachi

NED policy for admission

I would like to bring to the notice of the relevant authorities a problem being faced by many A level students.

Admission to the NED Engineering University is on merit — based on the results of the admission test and certain percentage of marks obtained in the HSC and SSC examinations. This is quite logical and has worked fine so far.

I, however, would like to point out that more and more children of middle/upper-middle class families are opting for A level examinations. They have to study one year extra but their parents have the satisfaction that their children are getting better education, which alone is not based on rote learning. These students are domiciled in Karachi and have studied in local schools. Their parents are generally from the salaried class who pay huge income-tax to the government every month.

Unfortunately, in return they are being discriminated against. They have been restricted to compete only for two per cent of the seats. The remaining seats are for HSC students. Taxpayers should get preference in admissions of their children and not vice versa. Equal opportunity should be given to A level and HSC students of this city to compete with each other and admissions should be given purely on merit.

If parity cannot be given immediately, then at least the quota of seats for A level students should be increased to 20 per cent of the total seats. I would request the authorities to look into the matter.

ZAHID HUSSAIN

Karachi

US visa staff

THIS refers to the debate going on in the newspaper about the denial of US visas to Pakistanis. I too had a chance to visit the American visa section on May 3. I personally felt that the visa counsellor officers were not only particularly polite but also cool-headed. One of the gentlemen even spoke Urdu to some elderly citizens.

These visa issuing officers are not mind readers; I guess they use their experience and theory to analyse the applicants. Standing in the queue of like 12-16 people I personally felt they were extremely fair. Those who were rejected lacked evidence and support for their claims to visit the US.

CH. OMER FAROOQ

Lahore

Recognizing Israel

PAKISTAN Foreign Minister Khurshid Mehmood Kasuri’s warning, in an interview to Reuters in Colombo (Dawn: Sept 15), that Pakistan would do whatever was needed to match any advanced weapon system that Israel may sell to India is timely and justified. Pakistan’s success in developing its own atomic bombs and missiles shows that it has the technology, weapons and personnel to counter India’s military ambitions.

Pakistan’s rulers should stop begging India for talks; India’s present extremist rulers have no sincere desire for friendship with Pakistan. With an eye on winning the Hindu votes in the upcoming elections in certain important states in India, India’s Hindutva-preaching rulers seem to believe that feuding with Pakistan and bashing the Indian Muslims will get them more Hindu votes in the polls.

The Ariel Sharon junket in India, organized under the personal direction of Mr L. K. Advani, India’s all-powerful Home Minister, was meant to win the extremist Hindu voters in those states where polls are due in the next few months. In the 150-member troupe Sharon brought with him to India were some well-known members of the American Jewish communities and the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee, kingpin of the Israeli lobby in the US, and scores of Mossad secret service agents.

The glee with which the BJP-led government feasted and feted Sharon should open the eyes of those Arabs who naively expect fair play from India in their lawful battle for an independent Palestinian state.

The many weapons of mass destruction which Israel has pledged to give India are meant to kill Muslims and to promote India’s hegemonic ambitions. Sharon, the killer of some 3,000 Arabs in the refugee camps of Shatilla and Sabra, refused to visit the Muslim-built Taj Mahal in Delhi. Those Pakistanis who advocate recognition of Israel by Pakistan seem to live in a fool’s paradise.

If Pakistan allows Israel to open an embassy in Islamabad, it will be a new nest of spies working in collaboration with RAW to destroy Pakistan’s nuclear assets. A person who has the intelligence of even a cockroach and has read the notorious Islamic Bomb by two Jewish authors about Israel’s 1981 destruction of the Iraqi nuclear research centre of Osirak can deduce that Israel will go to any extent to hit a Muslim country with a nuclear capability.

In 1979, I had personal knowledge of it when President Zia sent me to Richard Nixon following the appearance of a leaked story in the New York Times of Israel’s diabolic plan to bomb Kahuta.

I also then met President Carter. Because of Pakistan’s support to the US in opposing the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the US State Department refused to espouse the Israeli plan to bomb Kahuta.

Pakistan should not consider recognizing Israel until the OIC allows its member-states to do so.

QUTUBUDDIN AZIZ

Karachi