Sanctioning Syria?

THE move by President Bush to drop his opposition to a draft bill that would impose sanctions on Syria is quite intriguing, to say the least. This will pave the way for the adoption of a law that the White House had obstructed for two years. Why this sudden change of heart? No new development would seem to warrant an American warning to Damascus, which the bill seems to give by threatening imposition of sanctions if Syria does not renounce extremist groups and end unconventional arms programmes. Syria claims to have already compelled extremist Palestinian groups to close their offices in the capital. It is plain that Mr Bush’s decision on this matter has more to do with America’s travails in the Middle East and the presidential elections in the coming year. It is no coincidence that all this links up neatly with Israel’s own troubles with the Palestinians. It is significant that earlier this week, Israel launched an air raid on a Syrian village — the first such attack in several years. This was perceived by many as a message to Washington, which was seen as soft-pedalling on Syria in recent months. The White House has promptly responded and demonstrated its solidarity with the bellicose Israeli government.

The Americans’ problems in the Middle East have been multiplying since they embarked on their military adventure in Iraq. With Israel already under siege from Palestinian suicide bombers, the US army in Iraq is also feeling the heat as guerrilla fighters have been carrying on a volley of attacks. Immediately after the invasion of Iraq, it was feared that Syria would be the next target, but this apprehension proved unfounded. At one stage Syria even offered to send troops to Iraq if America set a deadline for its withdrawal. Obviously, Washington has now hardened its attitude towards Damascus and decided to act tough. There is no other explanation one can make of this sudden about-face on the sanctions resolution.

It is time the United States did a serious re-evaluation of its Middle East policy — though it seems to be a tall order at a time when the president is more concerned about his falling popularity ratings on the eve of election year. It is time he realized that the escalation of American-Israeli militancy in the Middle East is bound to backfire. If political pundits are to be believed, a majority of Americans do not want Mr Bush back in the White House. This is a reaction to the war in Iraq and the nosedive of the American economy. Extending the Iraqi mess to neighbouring countries will hardly help Mr Bush in his race for re-election. That would explain the element of ambiguity that still remains — the administration has said it wants to study the language of the bill on Syria.

Modern vs the traditional

PARTICIPANTS at a recent seminar in Karachi stressed the need for the scientific documentation of properties and side-effects of herbal medicines. They pointed out that on account of lack of awareness about the properties of these ‘natural medicines’, synthetic substitutes were the preferred medication even in Third World countries. The speakers called on the government to play its due role and not allow traditional medicine to be popularized until it was standardized. There was, however, one dissenting voice, from an expert of pharmacology who has been championing the cause of integrating alternative medicine with the mainstream medical system in vogue in most countries of the world. He was of the opinion that the government should ensure good quality by providing for the scientific production of natural medicines.

From what was reported of the seminar, it seems the discussions reflected the long-standing confrontation between the modern allopathic system and the traditional systems. This is regrettable in view of the fact that the trend worldwide has been for modern medicine to accommodate traditional medicine which has been practised for centuries in every society. Of course, the wonders of modern medicine are countless as it is based on research and funded heavily by the pharmaceutical companies which now dominate this sector. But that does not mean that the traditional systems — homeopathy from Germany, Ayurvedic from India, acupuncture from China and so on — have no merits. If that had been the case, the world would not be spending $80 billion on alternative medicine today, with the amount projected to rise to five trillion dollars in 50 years.

The fact is that the orthodox system has failed to keep pace with the health needs of people all over the world. Even in the developed countries where facilities are so advanced and the social security net much wider, there are large sections of populations which prefer traditional systems. In the Third World where the health delivery system is generally poor, the dependence on alternative medicine is even greater. That is because traditional systems are more accessible, affordable, less radical, based on natural substances, non-invasive and are designed to stimulate the body’s own natural healing responses.

The sensible approach would be to integrate the traditional systems which are popular in the country with mainstream medicine. If the alternative systems have been working for centuries, they should not be thrown out now. It is, however, important that the purity and quality of natural medicines be ensured and the knowledge and expertise of the practitioner be improved. If anything, it is allopathic medicine that has had a negative impact on the traditional system. For instance, homeopathy didn’t invent steroids which are now being used by some so-called homeopaths.

Still on the drawing board

THE Karachi city government and Pakistan Railways have signed an agreement to form a board that will formulate policy guidelines for the revival of the Karachi Circular Railway. This is not the first time that a board or a committee has been formed to oversee the project which has remained suspended since December 1999. A similar committee was formed in July, but it has yet to make its report public. The KCR has been a clear victim of bureaucratic wrangling, with the city government, the Sindh government and the railways laying claims and counter-claims over its land and other assets but with no one ready to take responsibility for reviving and managing the KCR. It seems that last week’s meeting, at which the Sindh governor, PR officials and the city nazim yet again agreed to revive the project, was, for all practical purposes, another exercise in paying lip service to the KCR. The impression is strengthened by the fact that the all but forgotten Karachi Mass Transit Project also came up for discussion and similar promises were made to revive that too. The KMTP has existed in files for over 15 years now.

The debate about the revival of the KCR began anew after President Pervez Musharraf took up the matter with the local authorities two years ago during a visit to Karachi. There have been a number of feasibility reports on the proposal since then, at least by foreign experts. The stumbling block has been the provision of the five billion rupees needed to get the project back on track. The federal government promised to partially fund the project but then nothing came of it because of a tussle between the city government and the PR, with both claiming ownership of KCR land. If the city nazim’s assertion that the PR has now finally agreed to hand over the management of the land in question is indeed true, then the board being formed should not take too long to get the project off the ground. Failing this, the KCR, like the KMTP, will only remain a mirage to tantalize Karachi’s hapless people.