| November 4, 2003 | Tuesday | Ramazan 8, 1424 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
Retreat on meat
Help for addicts
AT LEAST 15 American soldiers were killed and 21 injured in Iraq when their helicopter was attacked by a missile on Sunday, a day on which two US civilian contractors and another US soldier were also killed in separate incidents. US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld admitted it was a “bad day”, but added: “There are going to be days [when] large numbers are killed.... That’s what war is about.” But wasn’t the war officially declared to be over by President George Bush on May 2, standing proudly on the decks of the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln? He had said: “In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country.” There has been neither security nor reconstruction in the past six months. The lack of security can be seen in the daily instances of defiance such as suicide bombings and rocket attacks and acts of sabotage by the Iraqis. Reconstruction is a respectable euphemism for repairing the damage inflicted on the country’s infrastructure by the US-led war. Iraq was a fairly stable, functioning country; it is now in chaos. So is Afghanistan. So what are we really talking about? The Afghanistan and Iraq operations undertaken by the Bush administration have made the world a far more unsafe place than it was.
No one can underestimate the shock suffered by America from the 9/11 terrorist attacks. It was a tremendous tragedy for the American people, and a desire to hit at the perpetrators of the attacks on New York and Washington was only to be expected. Since it was assumed that Al Qaeda was behind the attacks and since Al Qaeda was being sheltered by the Taliban, Americans could argue that there was some justification for action against Afghanistan and cite a direct threat to American security. But Iraq posed no such threat to the US. It was attacked as part of a new doctrine of force meant to subjugate vital economic resources and liquidate political opposition to US policies. The cost of this policy is now being paid by the American people in terms both of lives lost and the money needed to sustain it — some $87 billion. The actual battle for control of Iraq, when the US had employed all its military might against the Saddam regime, had lasted far longer than was expected by the Bush administration, despite the almost overnight disappearance of the Iraqi army. The resistance encountered to the US occupation has been even more unanticipated. It will probably be overcome in time, given the uneven balance of forces. But there must be some accounting for the damage done in the name of liberation and democracy.
No one else can do this except the people of America and, since the Tony Blair government was equally involved, the people of Britain. The rest of us can shout and criticize and question, but ultimately we are powerless to force a change in the Bush-Blair agenda. It is only their own people who can call them to accountability. Mr Bush’s opinion poll ratings have already been drastically affected: the American electorate is split almost down the middle on the issue of a continued US presence in Iraq. Mr Blair is in similar trouble. It can only be hoped that the consequences of rash military adventurism now unfolding in Iraq, the Middle East as a whole — with Israel on the rampage — and in Afghanistan will create a groundswell for peace as the only way to freedom, democracy and progress.
THE Karachi city government’s handling of the meat crisis has left a lot to be desired. As a result of its buckling under pressure to accept the demand of the meat-sellers, consumers will now have to pay twenty rupees per kilogramme more than the controlled price that the city government had set for Ramazan. The meat merchants had struck indefinitely last week in protest against a freeze in meat prices proposed by the city government. Their plea was that the officially fixed price was unrealistically low given shortage of supplies caused mainly by smuggling of cattle to Afghanistan and of meat to some Gulf countries and increased demand during Ramazan. Initially, it seemed as if the administration was resolved to hold out against the striking meat traders. Knowing the pre-Ramazan price hike affecting a large number of commodities, this was a good position to adopt — one that was broadly in tune with the public feeling on the issue. Indeed, consumers in the limited income group were becoming fed up with the black-mailing tactics of the meat sellers. However, the city government’s sudden and inexplicable U-turn has robbed consumers of whatever moral high ground they had in the matter. Why did the authorities initially refuse to budge on the issue in spite of the meat sellers’ strike? What was the point in promising to bring in their own supply of meat to defeat the strike?
In this context, the reasons for the quick change of stance seem unclear, rather perplexing. Not only have the meat traders got what they wanted; whatever consumer resistance that the strike had created over the issue was allowed to peter out. It is not often that the people in this country rally together behind consumer issues; so the fact that this was beginning to happen was an encouraging sign of civil society for once getting its bearings right. As for the justification given by the meat sellers that prices cannot be kept constant because of the increasing shortage of cattle as a consequence of smuggling of meat and animals, this should also be looked into since curbing this practice would help reduce the pressure on prices to rise. At the same time, the authorities must see to it that the meat traders at least stick to the agreed prices.
DOCTORS reportedly estimate that 80 per cent of all drug addicts are abandoned by their families once they get into a hospital for treatment. This is a disturbing statistic because family support is cited as a key factor in the successful rehabilitation of addicts. Given that drug addiction has assumed major proportions in Pakistani society, with around seven million addicts, the number of hospital beds available for their treatment is woefully inadequate. The few who do get into hospital find their recovery slowed by the absence of family support; in some cases, this may create new psychological problems.
Part of the reason that drug addicts are sometimes abandoned by their own families has to do with the rough time suffered by the latter. The other factor, especially in a society like ours, relates to the shame and dishonour a family will experience when it has to acknowledge that one of its members is an addict. That is why once an addict is admitted to a hospital, the family usually proceeds to absolve itself of any further responsibility in dealing with him or her. It is in everyone’s interest that the addict be weaned away from his source of addiction and rehabilitated towards becoming a normal and productive part of society. The health and narcotics control ministries must work towards persuading public and private-sector hospitals to increase the number of beds for addiction cases. At the same time, a public awareness campaign must be initiated to convince families of drug addicts that their continued support is essential for the rehabilitation of their loved ones.