|
| November 14, 2007 | Wednesday | Ziqa’ad 03, 1428 |
In Clinton’s footsteps?
Conservation needs a rethink
OTHER VOICES - American Press
ALTHOUGH many question Pakistan’s membership of an organisation which has little of material value to offer and that is perceived by them as a bloc of former British colonies, the truth is that suspension from the Commonwealth will mean a loss of prestige for the country. Ties with the 53-member body have hardly been smooth. Pakistan, which joined the Commonwealth in 1947, walked out of the organisation in 1972 when Bangladesh’s membership became imminent. It rejoined in 1989 only to be suspended a decade later after the Nawaz Sharif government was ousted by Gen Musharraf. Pakistan was readmitted in 2004 after the Commonwealth noted that progress had been made on restoring democracy, although it was pointed out that other issues, including the one concerning a uniformed president, were pending.
This softened stance had much to do with Pakistan’s playing a leading role in the war on terror. However, while it is still a factor that appears to weigh heavily with some Commonwealth states opposed to suspending Pakistan’s membership once again, the issue of the curtailment of democratic rights has assumed urgency. On Monday, a group of Commonwealth foreign ministers issued an ultimatum in London for Gen Musharraf to end the emergency or else face suspension when it meets next on Nov 22 in Uganda. The group also demanded that Gen Musharraf relinquish his army post, release political detainees and activists and lift media curbs.
Over the years, the Commonwealth has sought to redefine its image by associating itself with socio-political issues and promoting democracy and good governance. It is Pakistan’s repeated violations of the organisation’s tenets that has jeopardised its membership once again. While there is no doubt that the democratic record of many other member states is not without blemish, they have made steady progress. Unfortunately, Pakistan, despite occupying a pivotal position on so many fronts, has regressed to the point where it has put curbs on the fundamental freedoms of its people. To be censured in this manner and be threatened with suspension is a reaffirmation of the loss of its democratic credentials in the eyes of international observers. But it is not just for the sake of retaining its Commonwealth membership that measures must be taken to mend its image. The heavens would not fall if Pakistan felt that there was not much point in continuing as a member. However, neither would leaving the Commonwealth justify the regime’s arbitrary rule. Suspension or not, it is for Pakistan’s own good to end the emergency, release political detainees and activists, lift the curbs on the media and hold elections. Only these measures can send out a positive message to the rest of the world and strengthen true democracy at home.
WILL President George Bush succeed where Bill Clinton failed? In his last years at the White House, Clinton was obsessed with the idea of leaving a name for himself in history by achieving a final peace settlement in the Middle East. He failed at Camp David in July 2000. Now his Republican counterpart, advised and surrounded by neo-cons more Zionist than the Zionists, hopes to achieve that at Annapolis. What are President Bush’s credentials for effecting peace in the Middle East? All along, his administration has kowtowed to Israel unabashedly. In 2002, he watched silently as Ariel Sharon invaded the West Bank and Gaza, ordered the destruction of Yasser Arafat’s Ramallah headquarters and carried out another massacre — this time at Jenin. The Bush administration did nothing. In April 2003, Bush unveiled a roadmap to peace, visualising the emergence of a sovereign Palestinian state by 2005. Later, Bush sabotaged his own plan by two announcements that stunned the Arab world — 2005 was an unrealistic date for a Palestinian state to come into being; two, even after Israel withdrew from the West Bank it would continue to keep ‘some’ areas under its control. A peace plan announced solemnly to the world and with the full backing of other members of the Quartet was dead.
The peace process was then frozen by the Republican administration on the pretext that peace was not possible so long as Arafat was alive. He died three years ago, but worthwhile peace negotiations have not begun. What came in handy to Washington was the Hamas victory in elections last year. An extremist party no doubt, Hamas had come to power through a landslide victory. However, the US and Israel went about wrecking the Hamas government by cutting off all non-humanitarian assistance, and asking western banks not to transfer to the Palestinian Authority money which Arab governments, Iran and Russia had offered to the PA. Whatever Washington and Tel Aviv left unfinished was completed by the Hamas-Fatah fratricide. The dismissal of Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniye has turned the West Bank and Gaza into two cantons, neither of which enjoys autonomy as stipulated by the Oslo accords.
Irrespective of the Hamas-Fatah animosity, as seen in the bloodbath on Arafat’s death anniversary, peace can still be achieved in the holy land if, towards the fag end of his political career marked by disasters in Iraq and Afghanistan, Bush focuses on the one issue without which peace will not be possible in the region — Israel’s complete withdrawal from the occupied territories. Without a categorical pledge by Israel at the scheduled Annapolis summit, it is unlikely that the chances of Bush’s success will be any brighter than those of his Democratic predecessor.
REPORTS citing the contravention of conservation laws are fast becoming an irksome part of our lives. Every other day there is some individual or institution found committing some irregularity or indiscretion in this regard. From old havelis in Lahore to pre-Partition structures in Karachi, almost everything seems to have an uncertain future in store. It is quite apparent that the whole issue of conservation needs a rethink so that we may ensure a continuing link with the past. As they stand today, conservation laws put the entire onus of maintenance and upkeep of these protected buildings on the owners, be they individuals or institutions. In many cases, individuals who own a protected building find it difficult to invest in the maintenance of their property when they have no hope of getting matching returns.
On the part of institutions that are owners, money is not a factor. It is more a matter of showing respect not just for conservation and tradition, but also for the word of law. The State Bank of Pakistan, Rangers, Pakistan Customs, NED University and several other institutions have been under the spotlight for committing some irregularity or the other in the buildings that house them. Having said that, one has to keep in mind that the government itself has not been setting high standards when it comes to maintaining sites and structures that it owns. From Moenjodaro to Wazir Mansion and from the Lahore Fort to the Makli graveyard, it is a sorry tale of the administration’s own lack of commitment and careless attitude towards preservation of national heritage. This surely is no encouragement for either the individuals or the institutions to keep their focus. If anything, it is discouraging. As part of the suggested rethink, the government has to set its own house in order first to lead the effort in this vital area.
Political heat, global warming
Why did the White House cut by half the congressional testimony on global warming drafted by Dr Julie Gerberding, director of the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention? Six of the 12 pages were deleted from Ms Gerberding’s draft because they did not “comport with the science”, Dana Perino, the president’s press secretary, said recently. There was no censoring, she said; the changes were necessary to match the science in a U.N. report on global warming.
If that is so, the White House should not object to releasing the full draft submitted by Ms Gerberding for its vetting. Let the public and the experts then assess the importance of the deletions. Besides, you cannot keep a secret in Washington. Portions of the original text have already been leaked.
Despite the deletions, Ms Gerberding said she was “absolutely happy” with her testimony and insisted she does not “let people put words in my mouth, and I stand for science.”
Releasing the uncut Gerberding statement would restore a measure of the government’s credibility and serve the public’s right to know their public servants’ thoughts about global warming. (Nov 12)
Millennium’s full; spread art citywide
We love art — really, we do. Moreover, we love to see new pieces of art in outdoor spaces, where people can stroll by and admire them without having to pay admission to a museum or stroll through a gallery. No doubt we will also welcome the Popsicle, the colourful and ever-changing ice sculpture that is coming to Millennium Park this winter.
And yet we wonder how more art can be crammed into the few square acres of Millennium Park, itself a $475 million piece of art, and various plazas in the Loop.
Chicago’s downtown is a tourist attraction and its outdoor art only adds to its curb appeal. But Millennium Park has enough major attractions.
We love art, so let’s have more, and spread it around, as proposed by Nathan Mason, curator of special projects at the Chicago Cultural Affairs Department.
The Chicago city clerk’s office already sponsors an annual contest for high school students to design city vehicle stickers — why not expand it to include three-dimensional art that could be installed permanently at cul-de-sacs and traffic circles, as in New York City? Art comes in many shapes and forms. Let’s make it come to many plazas and street corners, too. (Nov 12)