|
| June 22, 2006 | Thursday | Jumadi-ul-Awwal 25, 1427 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
Balochistan budget
Another bus service
Has Europe lost its way?
Positive thinking
SUDDENLY, it all seems to be going wrong. Just a few years ago, the European Union was aspiring to bigger and better things: a new constitution, more member states, a revamped economy and global power status to rival the United States.
THERE is considerable food for thought for the military-led government in the decision announced by the opposition on Tuesday to launch a mass movement against it. The presence of the leaders of the ARD, MMA, Ponam and Tehrik-i-Insaf shows a unanimity of views among virtually all mainstream opposition parties, on one point — putting an end to the military’s role in politics. In specific terms, they would oppose Gen Pervez Musharraf’s re-election as president and work to ensure a free and fair election. As Maulana Fazlur Rahman told the media, the opposition did not think that a free and fair general election was possible under “the current political situation in the country”. He did not give details about the proposed movement: the way it will be launched, its mode and the way it will be conducted. But there is no doubt that the opposition is determined to take the generals head on, push the military back to barracks and free the country’s politics of its pervasive presence. The opposition seems finally convinced a workable democracy is only possible with the military out of politics.
Under the system we now have, the military not only calls the shots; its role has been institutionalised through a series of expedient innovations and improvisations of questionable legal and constitutional validity. Thanks to the 17th Amendment, virtually the entire Legal Framework Order has become part of the Basic Law and contains some clauses that are wholly inconsistent with basic norms and principles — like Article 58-2b. Under this Article, the president can sack an elected government and dissolve the National Assembly if he is convinced that “a situation has arisen in which the government of the federation cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and an appeal to the electorate is necessary”. However, as four examples show — Ziaul Haq’s dismissal of the Junejo government, Mr Ghulam Ishaq Khan’s sacking of the Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif governments and Mr Leghari’s action against the second Benazir government — the presidential decisions were motivated by political considerations, and in at least two cases the courts side aside the president’s action. Doing away with this Clause is, thus, as important as ending the anomaly that exists in the form of the army chief also becoming the president. President Musharraf went back on his word and did not shed his uniform as he had promised, and there are feelers now that he may seek a re-election by the existing assemblies before the general election next year. No wonder, the opposition should think in terms of launching a movement to prevent that.
What precise method the opposition will adopt is not clear, but going by what happened in the past it appears as if our opposition leaders have often gone for the immediate goal without bothering about the long-term implications of their mass movements, which previously were violent in nature. The movements against Ayub Khan (1968-69) and Z. A. Bhutto (1977) were successful in the sense that the two were ousted from power, but the beneficiary in each case was a general. With only a year left for the general election, the opposition’s emphasis should be on ensuring a fair and free electoral exercise organised by a truly independent election commission under a caretaker government. It appears that some opposition leaders with a record of collusion with the army, especially the ISI, have examined their past and realised the serious harm they did to democracy by appealing to the army every now and then “to do its duty” and dislodge a government they were up against.
As expected, Balochistan has unveiled a deficit budget for the fourth year running. The shortfall this time is Rs10.96 billion — a staggering sum for the cash-strapped provincial government which hopes to bridge the gap through “austerity measures, local resource generation and federal grants.” The official document presented on Tuesday put the size of the budget at Rs59.69 billion, a puzzling figure given that total expenditure added up to no more than Rs48.27 billion. The error was, however, rectified the following day. But on one count at least there was no confusion whatsoever: Balochistan’s fiscal health continues to deteriorate with each passing year. The severity of the financial crunch facing the province can be gauged from the fact that there is no provision in the budget for new development-related investment, with the Rs10.82 billion outlay for this sector earmarked exclusively for the completion or implementation of the existing projects. Even this allocation may be unrealistic. The province’s contribution to development spending is projected at roughly 65 per cent but how this money will be generated is anybody’s guess.
Balochistan is currently reeling under a debt burden of Rs62 billion, including some Rs17 billion owed to the State Bank of Pakistan. From all accounts, the province is caught in a serious debt trap with no hope in sight of self-sufficiency. As such, a substantial loan write-off is an option that ought to be considered by the federal government whose own coffers receive a huge annual fillip, estimated at Rs78 billion, courtesy the products of Balochistan’s gas fields. At the same time, there has been no movement on addressing the province’s long-standing demand that it be given its due share of past revenues generated by gas-fuelled industrialisation. Instead, the centre is quick to deduct Balochistan’s current dues at source, even from foreign-funded development grants. Also pending is the no small matter of the Rs9 billion said to be owed by Sindh under the head of Hub river water. Such inequitable treatment is further fuelling resentment in an already politically volatile province.
THE fortnightly Rawalakot-Poonch bus service launched on Tuesday is another milestone in the journey towards greater intra-Kashmir contacts. The state already has the Muzaffarabad-Srinagar bus service linking the two parts since April 2005 and the new service will offer greater opportunities to the people who wish to travel across the LoC. Hence the words of welcome that came from both sides when the buses were flagged off. What the prime minister of Azad Kashmir said on the occasion was significant. He asked for the easing of travel restrictions if the borders are to be made really soft. At present the record of the Muzaffarabad-Srinagar service has shown that there are not as many passengers using it as was expected. This is because of the complex procedures and documentation involved for would-be visitors. Until this problem is resolved, it is unlikely that the new service will attract a substantial number of passengers.
Sardar Sikandar Hayat Khan, the Azad Kashmir prime minister, also pointed out that the bus service helped reunite divided families but it should not be considered to be the final goal of the peace process. A day earlier the foreign minister of Pakistan had also expressed regrets that even after two years of the composite dialogue, India and Pakistan had failed to resolve any of their disputes. While the need to expedite the resolution of the substantive issues cannot be denied, it is also significant that CBMs play a very important role in improving the atmosphere between the two adversaries. This may facilitate an agreement on controversial issues. In the case of Kashmir it is also important that the two sides are allowed to meet at the popular level so that a consensus can emerge on the political solution that would be acceptable to the majority of the Kashmiris.
Fast-forward to the EU summit which ended in Brussels last week (June 17) and it is clear that leaders of the 25-nation bloc are in total disarray over the entire ambitious enterprise. Europe, to put it bluntly, has lost its way. And chances of a rapid revival of the bloc’s flagging fortunes appear increasingly bleak.
Recognising the long haul effort ahead, EU policymakers admit there can be no miraculous quick fix solution to Europe’s malaise. Instead the talk in Brussels and other EU capitals is of a slow, step-by-step effort to break the current deadlock.
The EU summit — described as the bloc’s dullest in recently history — decided, not unsurprisingly, to put the crippled European constitution on ice following its rejection by French and Dutch voters last year.
Leaders said they would only decide whether to revive — or bury — the already defeated treaty in 2008 at the latest. “Nobody felt that a rapid solution is in sight,” admitted Austrian Chancellor Wolfgang Schuessel whose country holds the rotating EU presidency.
Differences on the text range from German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who wants to save as much of the constitution as possible, to the Netherlands which says the whole project must be radically slashed back and slimmed down.
The big decision at the summit was a non-decision: to continue a year of “reflection” on what to do about the mess. This means EU leaders are likely to spend almost a decade squabbling over the constitutional process which was launched with great fanfare in 2001.
The EU’s constitution had been meant to streamline decision-making in an enlarged bloc. But two years after the EU’s “big bang” expansion in 2004, when the bloc took in 10 new mainly east European members, the noble enterprise of bringing peace and prosperity to the mainly former communist countries is also not doing too well.
While the newcomers complain about being treated as second-class citizens, countries like Germany are expressing anger over what they see as new member Poland’s constant grumbling. “Some of the people who are making a lot of noise these days are not those who pay the bills but rather those who get EU money,” said a top EU official speaking on condition of anonymity. Leaders at the summit duly toughened terms for admitting further members after a public backlash to enlargement fuelled by their own failure to explain the strategic and economic benefits of a bigger EU. Raising a new hurdle to EU applicants, leaders agreed that the pace of enlargement would now also be dictated by the ability of present members to “absorb” the mainly poorer states knocking at the EU gates. This refers to fears of the high cost of enlargement to the creaking EU budget and fears in old member states like France and Germany of an army of cheap labour flooding in from the east.
The tough talk is especially directed at Turkey which is pursuing its bid to join the EU despite increasingly negative signals being emitted by the likes of Jose Manuel Barroso, the European Commission president, who has cast doubt on Turkey’s prospects of EU membership.
Barroso has said that getting Turkey into the EU will be “very difficult” and added that many in Europe see the 70 million-strong, mainly Muslim nation as “culturally different”.
“This is a huge challenge,” said Barroso when asked if the EU was ready to accept Turkey as a member. Ironically, however, it was Barroso and Austrian Chancellor Schuessel who only a few months earlier were asking for Ankara’s help in easing Muslim anger over the publication of caricatures of Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) in several European newspapers.
Cyprus is for the moment playing the role of villain in spotlighting EU concerns about Turkey entry. A crisis in negotiations on Turkish membership was narrowly averted on June 12 after Cyprus insisted that Turkey must open up its ports to Cypriot-registered vessels.
This led Jean-Claude Juncker, the prime minister of Luxembourg, to warn: “If Turkey were not to implement this condition this year, my view is that the negotiations will have to be postponed.”
Matters are expected to come to a head in the autumn when Olli Rehn, the EU enlargement commissioner, issues his annual report on how Turkey’s membership talks are proceeding. Rehn has warned of the danger of a “train crash” in the negotiations, saying Turkey is not doing enough to promote political reforms and human rights. Rehn has also warned that Ankara must do more to normalise relations with Cyprus. But in an interesting turn of events, Turkey has declared it is prepared to abandon EU membership negotiations rather than open its ports and airports to Cyprus.
However, in one of his strongest statements to date, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Turkish prime minister, rejected demands from European leaders for it to open its borders to Greek-Cypriot shipping by the end of the year.
“It’s astonishing that the negotiations could stop. Look, I’m being very clear: if they stop, they stop ... we will never take a step backwards on the ports or the airports without a lifting of the isolation (of northern Cyprus),” said Erdogan.
The chilly mood on enlargement is also impacting on some of the 10 new members who joined in 2004. Although leaders have admitted model student Slovenia to the eurozone, there is widespread anger over the rejection of Lithuania due to its slightly overshooting inflation targets. New members angrily ask why countries such as Germany and France can get away with overshooting the single currency’s budget deficit year after year.
There is also rising frustration over continued labour-flow barriers which keep Polish and Czech workers out of countries like Germany. Adding to the EU blues, dreams of making the bloc into the world’s leading economic powerhouse have faltered.
While China and India have raced ahead over the past decade, the EU’s so-called Lisbon agenda of reforms launched in 2000 has failed to inspire governments to push through crucial economic and labour market reforms. No surprise then that the EU has formally buried the Lisbon agenda target of making the bloc “the most competitive economy in the world” by 2010.
On foreign affairs, while the EU is not rivalling the US as a great power, there are some rays of light as the bloc’s chief diplomat, Javier Solana, has patiently built up successful initiatives. The genial and indefatigable former Nato boss is currently leading high profile efforts to clinch a diplomatic deal to end the crisis over Iran’s nuclear programme.
He has also played a big role in engineering an EU military role in the Congo with the deployment of 1,700 EU troops to help secure the country’s upcoming elections. But even these successes come amid bureaucratic wrangles and turf battles between Solana’s increasingly powerful officials and the European Commission which is envious of his growing international status.
Such infighting prevents the EU from punching at its full weight on the global stage and saps ambitions for the long-held dream of great power status. The internal quarrels are especially detrimental when it comes to EU-US relations. For example, while several EU countries have been critical of US policies on such issues as the Guantanamo Bay military camps and allegations of secret CIA detention centres in Europe, European governments have so far been unable to forge a joint stance on these questions.
DESPITE what many may believe, depression is not a symptom of our modern consumer age. “A grief without a pang, void, dark, and drear,” wrote Samuel Taylor Coleridge in 1802, in his work, “Dejection: An Ode.”
“A stifled, drowsy, unimpassioned grief, which finds no natural outlet, no relief, in word, or sigh, or tear”. Even as great a philosopher as John Stuart Mill endured what he called “a crisis in my mental history”, describing the mood that came upon him: “I felt ... that mine was not an interesting, or in any way respectable distress.
There was nothing in it to attract sympathy. Advice, if I had known where to seek it, would have been most precious.” The state both writers outline is felt by the one in six of working-age adults in this country who suffer from depression and chronic anxiety. Yet only a quarter of them receive treatment. Most of the rest are, as Mill described, lost in a dark and hopeless world.
It need not be like that. Today a sensible and practical call for action is launched, led by London School of Economics Professor Richard Layard. In the Depression Report, Prof Layard and colleagues set out the scale of the mental health problem in this country and suggest that most people with mental illness should be offered the option of psychological therapy.
Few people would argue against that. But as is so often the case with health issues, the larger question is where the money is to come from.
—The Guardian, London