| 31 July 2004 | Saturday | 13 Jamadi-us-Saani 1425 |
Peace process in danger
A monstrous deed
With Senator John Kerry having won the Democratic nomination at Boston on Thursday, America has entered the crucial phase of a presidential race whose result is likely to be as close as the one four years ago.
The Democratic candidate's biggest surprise is his choice of Senator John Edwards as his running mate. A relative newcomer to politics, Senator Edwards lacks national stature and failed in the primaries.
In contrast, the Bush team is star-studded, including as it does such old-timers as Mr Dick Cheney, a deputy assistant to President Ford and defence secretary under President George Bush Sr; Mr Donald Rumsfeld, defence secretary to President Ford and at the Pentagon now for the second time; and a cool-headed general-turned-diplomat, Mr Colin Powell. While Mr George Bush may be vulnerable on many counts, the Republican camp can point to their president's military triumphs.
Yet the military successes have come at a price, for Afghanistan is far from being stabilized while the Bush policy on Iraq is in a mess. The points the Kerry camp hopes to exploit the most concern 9/11, especially the failure to heed intelligence warnings.
The report of the 9/11 commission and its recommendations have also come in handy to the Democrats, for Senator Kerry wants immediate implementation of the recommendations and has attacked the Bush administration for poor coordination with the intelligence agencies of America's friends and allies.
The Bush team, however, points out that the warnings were vague, and that the 9/11 tragedy has already led to unprecedented cooperation among the world's intelligence outfits.
In the realm of foreign policy, there is little difference between them, for Senator Kerry, too, voted for the war on Iraq and declared that he believed Baghdad possessed weapons of mass destruction.
However, analysts say that, if elected, Mr Kerry would start his term without the "Iraq baggage" and be in a better position to deal with the Middle East. Also, he is likely to shun President Bush's unilateralist approach and take Europe along in dealing with the rest of the world.
On the question of non-proliferation, he may not have much success with North Korea, but those who have watched him closely say that he may listen to Britain, France and Germany on Iran.
The three European powers are engaged in negotiations with Tehran over the nuclear question, but they want a guarantee from the US that it will not attack Iran. On such other issues as the Kyoto protocol, the International Criminal Court, arms cut talks with Russia, and the production of cluster bombs also, Senator Kerry is likely to act on the basis of greater consensus.
Where Bush and Kerry policies seem to show little difference is over the Arab-Israeli conflict, for the Democratic candidate is as committed to Israel as President Bush. It was Senator Kerry who was co-sponsor of the Syrian Accountability Act, which threatened military action against Damascus, and accused it of supporting terrorism.
His support to Israel on the controversial barrier and on its annexionist policies is total, and he calls Mr Ariel Sharon a man "who can take steps for peace." His election may mean changes in some domestic policies, but so far as the world, especially the Middle East is concerned, one should expect little change in America's global outlook.
Peace process in danger
Renewed violence could once again upset Sri Lanka's tenuous two-year ceasefire if immediate steps are not taken by the government and the main rebels - the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam - to defuse the escalating tensions between them.
Two major incidents in July - a suicide bomb attack and the killing of eight renegade rebels - underscore this point. Even peace-broker Norway appears discouraged by the current state of affairs as it admitted recently that there had been no success in reopening talks with the rebels who suspended negotiations last year after accusing the government of not honouring its commitments.
The Tamils have also been angered by what they perceive to be the Sri Lankan military's support for a breakaway faction under Colonel Karuna, a former LTTE commander, who defected in April this year. The military has denied the rebels' charge, although some in the government have indicated that this allegation may not be entirely unfounded.
While it is not easy to resist the temptation of taking full advantage of a split in rebel ranks, the Sri Lankan government would do well to tread carefully at this crucial stage of the island's political history.
Aiding a certain group or playing off one against the other is not the right way to handle a delicate situation involving the peace aspirations of a war-weary population and the participation of external actors who have been unstinting in their support for peace.
One false move could turn back the clock to the days of a two-decade civil war that has killed some 60,000 people and displaced a million. The administration's best course at the moment would be to persuade the Tamil Tigers to restart the peace dialogue.
Indeed, the Sri Lankan government, alarmed by the threat of renewed violence, has shown itself ready for further negotiations. More effort is needed to translate this sentiment into action in order to prove that Sri Lanka's rulers are sincere about effecting a reconciliation between the majority Sinhalese and the minority Tamil communities, and that they are not about to interfere in the internecine rivalries among the rebels.
A monstrous deed
The murder of two minor girls, aged four and two, by their father in Lahore on Wednesday points yet again to the primitive notion and values that colour the outlook and action of many in society.
The school teacher carried out the horrendous deed while his wife was asleep. She was woken up by the girls' cries and gathered the neighbours who caught the father red-handed. The man readily confessed to the crime before the police, citing his bad financial situation and suspicions about his wife's fidelity as the reasons for the gruesome act.
He said he didn't want his daughters to be raised by an unfaithful mother because he feared that they too would grow up to bring shame to the family. His wife, however, alleged that the couple's failure to have a male issue was the real motive behind the crime.
Thus, several factors that mark our society appear to have come together in this heinous crime - primitive concept of honour, contempt for the girl-child, economic frustration and sheer brutality.
It is clear from the explanation given by the school teacher that he had no remorse for his action. This is because there is no dearth of defenders of many such concepts.
Only a couple of days ago a Baloch politician-cum-tribal leader went on record to say that efforts being made to introduce legislation against honour killing were at the behest of the West and had nothing to do with our culture which teaches us to uphold family honour at all costs.
While this kind of obscurantism cannot be justified under any religious, social or cultural code, it cannot be corrected by legislation alone. The intelligentsia and the mainstream political parties must step forward to raise social awareness and aggressively tackle such social evils.