| 26 September 2004 | Sunday | 10 Shaban 1425 |
EU: Turkey's prospects
Banning plastic bags
The meeting between President Musharraf and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in New York should provide a fillip to the ongoing Pakistan-India composite dialogue. The two leaders met in an atmosphere of goodwill and cordiality which speaks volumes about their commitment to a political settlement of their disputes. Missing were the barbs and the rancour that normally characterize such encounters between the two countries. Equally significant were the gestures and the body language of the two leaders.
Dr Singh described the summit as "historic" while President Musharraf said the talks "augured well for the future of Pakistan and India". But those who were expecting a breakthrough in terms of an agreement on a formula on Kashmir will no doubt be disappointed for no such advance is recorded in the joint statement issued.
What is, however, of immense importance is the absence of the usual rhetoric on Kashmir and the affirmation by both sides to make a fresh start on the dispute by exploring "all possible options for a peaceful settlement".
In his press conference preceding the summit, President Musharraf was quite categorical when he said that it was time to set aside a "hackneyed approach" on Kashmir. Mercifully, the two leaders have already started on this road and one wishes that the hawks in both countries would stop needling them on this shift in their stance.
Pakistan has stopped demanding a settlement on the basis of the UNCIP resolutions which are now outdated and cannot be implemented to the advantage of Pakistan and the Kashmiris. India on its part has stopped harping on its earlier refrain of Kashmir being an "integral part" of India and has shown the courage to recognize Kashmir as a dispute between the two countries that has to be resolved.
As the two governments embark on this new course in diplomacy, there are certain compulsions they must recognize and some rules of the game they must observe. First of all, there is the need to be discreet and keep the dialogue in a low key. This would mean that not everyone in a position of power should be harping on Kashmir. This makes it inevitable that some contradictions emerge. Moreover, the few who are authorized to speak should also evade tricky questions that are put to them only to embarrass them or to weaken their position.
Finally, it is time the two governments started to educate the people in their countries on the need for a change in approach to Kashmir since it has failed to produce any positive results over a period of 56 years. By enlisting the support of the various political parties and mobilizing public opinion to look at the other dimensions of the Kashmir issue, the two leaders can take their people as well as the Kashmiris along in exploring new avenues of peace. After all, didn't Mr Junejo do it in 1988 when Pakistan changed its stance on Afghanistan to accept the Geneva accord? As for the various parties, it is time they stopped exploiting the Kashmir dispute for their political ends.
Another important consideration is the participation of the representatives of the Kashmiris at some stage in the talks. After all, they should find a solution acceptable to them so that they can sell it to their people. All this is essential for the "welfare", "prosperity" and "well-being" of the people of South Asia which have been emphasized in the joint statement issued in New York.
EU: Turkey's prospects
The European Union's enlargement commissioner has finally given Turkey a clean chit, saying he is satisfied with the constitutional and political reforms Ankara has carried out to strengthen its bid for joining the EU.
Mr Gunter Verheugen said on Thursday that there now remained "no obstacles" to his recommending Turkey for EU membership when he formally reports to the commission next month. Earlier in July, assuming the rotating EU presidency, Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkemende had urged member states not to be deterred by Islamophobia among certain segments of Europeans - with France leading the chorus - when reviewing Turkey's case.
Warning against adding new criteria to the existing ones just to thwart Ankara's entry, Mr Balkemende had said: "Raising barriers to any particular religion does not fit in with Europe's shared values." This echoed the sentiment expressed by Greece, Turkey's longtime adversary, earlier in May when the Turkish prime minister visited Athens on the first such visit in 16 years.
Ankara's bid for joining Europe dates back to the creation of the European Community, the predecessor of the EU, in 1963. Its first success came as late as 1999, when the EU officially recognized its candidature, formally requiring Ankara to undertake wide-ranging economic, political and constitutional reforms aimed at meeting the union's democratic and human rights criteria.
The current ruling Justice and Development Party led by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has made giant strides towards realizing that goal. Among the reforms undertaken in the last two years are: abolition of the death penalty, imposition of limits on the role of the army in politics, recognition of the Kurdish and Armenian minorities and their languages, and abolition of torture in prisons.
The only thing now apparently holding Turkey back from acceptance as an EU member is the vociferous negative opinion held by the Christian right in some EU countries. The Dutch prime minister was thus right in reminding fellow politicians that they should not pander to parochial elements and their narrow-minded view of an expanded EU when they sit down to review Turkey's case in December.
Banning plastic bags
The proposal to completely ban the manufacture and use of plastic shopper bags is a long overdue step towards reducing pollution. Under the proposed National Environment Policy, these bags will be classified as an environmental hazard and their production and use disallowed throughout the country.
Plastic bags are not biodegradable and release harmful dioxins into the air. They are also notorious for clogging drains and sewage lines. People who work in factories that produce these bags are at a greater risk of cancer and other diseases.
In the rural areas, these bags decrease the productivity of arable land because they do not rot or turn into compost. The most dangerous are black bags which are made of recycled plastic which increases their toxic content. These bags were banned years ago by the government and they have been out of circulation in Pakistan for some time now.
The same strategy needs to be employed for other plastic bags too. However, for the ban to be effective, a number of issues need to be tackled. For one, alternatives - whether they are paper, cloth or jute bags - must be made readily available. Such environment-friendly bags should be made from recycled material so that the price is kept at a low level.
Incentives should also be provided to plastic bag manufacturers to switch over to making their products from these materials so that they do not have to go out of business altogether.
Finally, strict monitoring would be needed in the initial stages to ensure that shopkeepers are adhering to the new rules. All this, however, would only be possible if there is awareness among the people about the dangers posed by the plastic bags. In this, NGOs must play a useful role in creating public awareness and building up strong consumer resistance to polythene bags.