| 01 November 2004 | Monday | 17 Ramazan 1425 |
EU: another milestone
Passport delays & hassles
No other US presidential election perhaps has been dominated by a single foreign policy issue as the Bush-Kerry contest, now reaching a denouement. And no foreign policy issue has become so intertwined with domestic American concerns as the 'war on terror'. The entire debate seems to have boiled down to which person the average American voter would feel more secure with - John Kerry or George Bush.
It is ironic that the world's only superpower should have been reduced to this vulnerable state and to be learning the truth that military power alone does not ensure political supremacy or acceptance. It is not just one incident, the 9/11 attack, that has created this sense of vulnerability and insecurity. It is the Bush administration's reckless response to that incident that has really stirred the present deadly terrorist brew: instead of seeking to isolate the perpetrators of 9/11, it has created pockets of terrorism and militancy around the world and led not merely America, but all of us, down a dangerous road.
It has failed to address one of the most fundamental reasons for the increasing anger against the US, the Palestine question, and turned American support for Israel into almost an ideological imperative. It colluded with Israel in keeping Yasser Arafat confined to his compound in Ramallah and in humiliating this symbol of Palestinian aspirations. The world now stands to lose a voice of secularism and moderation in the Middle East and to watch the initiative slipping wholly into the hands of the militants.
Mr Kerry's Democratic constituency may have concerns other than security as part of its electoral considerations. Tax cuts, job losses and strengthening of the corporate health sector as against the average citizen's health needs have all figured in Mr Kerry's campaign speeches. But America's right-wing establishment has given no sign that it now considers Mr Bush a liability and is prepared to dump him to protect its interests. Split 47-47 per cent in a dead heat, it will be the undecided three per cent who will determine the outcome of the November 2 election (as they have in most close-call elections).
But even if Mr Kerry manages to win, the establishment pressure on him will be relentless, and indeed he might find that the policies he has inherited leave little room for an early change. It should not be forgotten that as senator, he supported the Congressional authorization of war on Iraq and while he now believes the decision was wrong, he has not clearly said how he would get out of the mess.
The Europeans appear to be backing Mr Kerry, but some of this is undoubtedly due to the fact that, having once opposed the attack on Iraq, they cannot, without a volte-face, get into the region to share the pickings from reconstruction contracts if Mr Bush remains president. Mr Kerry's election might provide an opportunity to establish a European presence in Iraq - which Mr Kerry too should welcome as a bail-out from the existing situation. For the rest of the world also the election outcome is important.
No drastic change in policy is expected, but the result will signal whether the aggressive, unilateralist role America has adopted in the past four years is going to continue or be scaled down. The difference in the end may be reflected only in nuances. American Muslims are reported to be behind Mr Kerry, but they too may be in for a disappointment, either way. What ultimately marks out this election is that it has created greater international interest than any preceding US presidential election in recent history.
EU: another milestone
Ending more than two years of debate and divisions, EU leaders signed on Friday a treaty establishing the union's first constitution that seeks to broaden and consolidate a united approach to common European concerns, and to streamline internal processes towards this end. While it is still far from certain whether all 25 member-states of the European Union will ratify the treaty - a single negative vote can render it ineffective - the signing ceremony in Rome marked yet another step that has brought Europe closer to integration.
It underscored the distance travelled by the European community since 1951 when the Treaty of Paris established the European Steel and Coal Community, founded by six member-states. Since then, EU members, whose ranks continue to swell, have embarked on a successful common trade and monetary policy, and have cooperated in a number of joint efforts towards progress in the continent and abroad, indicating that in the long run, this form of institutionalized interdependence is paying off.
Nevertheless, fears have been expressed that this strengthening of ties among the Europeans could jeopardize the interests of individual member-states. There is no doubt that there are new provisions in the constitution that may not be acceptable all around. This can be seen in the introduction of qualified majority voting, and the creation of the posts of foreign minister and president, the latter of whom will hold office for two and a half years as against the current system of a six monthly rotating presidency. But far from actively undermining the sovereign rights of nations, the document aims at striking a balance between these and broader European concerns.
For instance, even though it urges a common foreign policy, individual members will retain the right of veto. Perhaps the greatest achievement of the constitution, if and when it goes into force, is that it would create a common platform for member-states to direct individual action. By committing them to uphold the values of human dignity and democracy, the constitution would enable the community of European nations, with political backgrounds that range from the repressive to the liberal, to endorse a set of principles to become the defining standard of governance.
Passport delays & hassles
The introduction of machine-readable passports will lend greater authenticity to travel documents, hopefully making overseas travel a less harrowing experience for Pakistanis. Begun initially in phases in major cities, passports from now on will contain the biometric identifiers of their holders. Fingerprints and other information will be stored and contained in a database for ready access and verification by immigration authorities.
The new passports should gain ready acceptance overseas since they will be harder to forge or duplicate. Another plus point is that the role of the ubiquitous agents, found outside every passport office, will hopefully be eliminated since all applicants will have to appear in person for their application particulars to be filled and processed.
However, as is to be expected of such a gigantic exercise, several problems have arisen so far. One has to do with the fact that so far there are too few offices offering the new passports, with the result that applicants have to wait for long hours before their application is processed. Another point of concern is that close to a third of applicants are finding that their applications for the machine-readable passports are being rejected.
In the past, when passports were issued manually, the passport office staff were notorious for coming up with all kinds of frivolous and unnecessary objections. Since the new system relies on the applicant being there in person along with his computerized national ID card, one hopes that objections of trivial nature will not be raised and issuance of passports unnecessarily delayed.