| July 8, 2005 | Friday | Jumadi-ul-Awwal 30, 1426 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
Benefit for small savers
Is Karachi that unsafe?
THE US now has a broader definition of terrorism. The abandonment of the former, narrower concept has enabled Washington to raise statistically the number of terror attacks and of those killed and taken hostage worldwide in 2004. Releasing the figures at a press briefing on Tuesday, the US National Counter-terrorism Centre (NCTC) said that there were 3,192 terror attacks in 2004. These left 6,060 people dead and 16,091 wounded. The earlier figures for 2004, based on the narrower definition, were 651 attacks with 1,097 and 6,704 dead and injured respectively. The figures for 2004 are much higher than those for 2003, because lower figures were meant to prove that the Bush administration was winning the war on terror. The new definition of terrorism enables the NCTC to include international as well as national attacks. The low figures for 2003, the revised statistics for 2004 and the need for redefining terrorism go to show the lack of clarity in America’s war on terror since 9/11.
What terrorism is has not yet been clearly defined by the UN committee that has been struggling with the task for more than three decades. The US may define and redefine terrorism, but the change in nuances seems to have made no difference to the way the Bush administration is conducting its war on terror. The biggest war launched by the US after 9/11 was not on Afghanistan but on Iraq. That war had nothing to do with terrorism, for President Saddam Hussein was no friend of Osama bin Laden’s. The war on Iraq was launched — on the pretext of destroying Iraq’s stockpile of weapons of mass destruction — for advancing America’s geopolitical interests in the Middle East. To be specific, the success of the war would mean the elimination of the Saddam regime, which Israel considered its principal enemy. It would mean the end of the Arab world’s only regime hostile to the US. Dominated by energy tycoons, the Bush administration would also reap benefits from a monopoly of Iraqi oil. Today, oil prices have rocketed to $61 per barrel to fill the coffers of oil companies. It matters little, if in the process 1,700 American soldiers lost their lives. And this is not the end of the story, for President George Bush has repeatedly declined to give a date for the withdrawal of American troops. This will only mean more body bags reaching America.
Another issue related to the definition of terrorism concerns the people fighting for freedom and resisting foreign occupation. In this category fall the people of Palestine and Kashmir. In the wake of 9/11, both Israel and India have exploited the US- led war on terrorism to make a case for their continued occupation of Palestine and Kashmir in violation of UN resolutions. Both have tried to de-legitimize the Palestinian and Kashmiri peoples’ struggles by branding freedom fighters terrorists. America has evidently acquiesced in this perverted definition of terrorism and ignored a more heinous form of it — state terrorism. Both Israel and India have used their armed might to crush the freedom movements and have, in that process, been guilty of abuses of human rights. Yet America, with rare exception, has not bothered to criticize Tel Aviv and New Delhi for human rights violations. This indirect support to state terrorism serves to scuttle the moral basis of America’s war on terror and strengthens oppression, tyranny and forcible occupation.
THE federal government’s promise to raise the interest rate on all savings schemes to a minimum of 12 per cent should be welcome news for savers. First, it will provide a much-needed opportunity to pensioners, senior citizens, widows and those from the middle class in general to receive a reasonable rate of return on the money they put in savings schemes. During the last couple of years, rising inflation, coupled with a lowering of the interest rate offered on savings schemes, have badly hurt small savers. In fact, with inflation currently running in double digits, those wishing to put their life savings into such schemes were actually receiving a negative rate of return in real terms.
Other than benefiting small and medium-scale investors, increasing the interest rate on savings schemes will spur savings which is crucial in financing domestic investment. However, as is the case with most economic policies, there is a trade-off here. A rise in interest rates on government-sponsored savings schemes will translate into a higher level of government debt in the future. Since increased indebtedness and the interest payments needed to finance a higher debt have often eaten into the country’s development budget, the government will have to be prepared to deal with this situation as and when it arises. The primary motivation behind the proposal in question is probably to control the rise in inflation which has the potential to wipe out any gains from the economy’s growth rate of 8.4 per cent in 2004-05. Interest rates on savings schemes were lowered in the past few years as part of an expansionary monetary policy to boost the economy and spur spending and now they are being raised. However, Pakistan’s financial managers should have known that such a process is inflationary and measures such as ensuring ample supplies of essential food items should have been instituted in advance, something that was done very late. Policies other than raising or lowering interest rates on savings schemes should be used generally to control inflation since millions of savers can be affected. Hopefully, this time the raise will not be followed by a reduction in case the economy goes into recession.
IF England’s refusal to play a Test match in Karachi when they tour Pakistan from October to December for a three-Test and five-one-day-international match series is disappointing, the Pakistan Cricket Board’s failure to defend Karachi as a Test venue is perplexing. Is there not a single person on the board to plead the case of the country’s largest city which is home to millions of avid cricket fans despite all odds against them? There was no justification for the PCB to readily offer England the substitute of playing two ODIs in the city instead of a Test without contesting the judgment of the England and Wales Cricket Board. The reason given by the ECB for its decision is far too vague for it to be taken seriously. Admitting that there was no direct threat to the tourists, the ECB did not wish to see its team being “caught in the crossfire of violence”. The erstwhile City Nazim’s statement that he expected mayhem in Karachi during the forthcoming local body elections did not help matters at a time when the ECB officials were visiting the city.
It is simply shocking that Karachi should continue to be marked in red on the world cricketing map when violence at Test centres elsewhere has even seen visiting cricketers as its target. Two Pakistani players were assaulted in Johannesburg while touring South Africa in 1998. Last April miscreants in Ranchi (India) attacked the touring Pakistan team’s bus. Also, when Jamaica’s notorious gang wars and Sri Lanka’s civil war do not act as a damper on their credentials as cricket destinations, it is incomprehensible why Karachi should be singled out as an unsafe place. The blame for this must rest equally with the PCB and the government for their lack of will to defend the city as a safe Test venue.