|
| April 23, 2008 | Wednesday | Rabi-us-Sani 16, 1429 |
A seminal agreement?
The plight of fisherfolk
OTHER VOICES - European Press
Super-rich face a backlash
THE ‘American dream’ of unashamed wealth and the opportunity for all to acquire it has reached a crisis point before: in the Depression, the oil shock, in the ‘greed is good’ Eighties and the madness of the dotcom bubble.
BALOCHISTAN has mercifully been lifted from the backburner and placed on the government’s agenda. On Monday Chief Minister Raisani announced the withdrawal of all cases registered against BNP leader Akhtar Mengal that should help somewhat ease tension in the province. A day earlier the People’s Party co-chairman had announced that he will convene an all-party conference on Balochistan within ten days. The aim of the moot is said to be to “address the grievances” of the Baloch and “bring them into the national mainstream”. Given the turmoil in Pakistan’s largest province since 2004 and the popular unrest that has kept Balochistan in an unsettled state for several decades, an attempt to hold a dialogue is most timely and should be welcome. Therefore one hopes that all political parties and other stakeholders in the Balochistan question will respond positively to Mr Asif Ali Zardari’s initiative.
In this context, it is encouraging that the PML-Q has held out the assurance that it will welcome the APC which can succeed only if all parties participate and agreement on various issues is reached with their consensus. One may recall that recognising the importance of peace in Balochistan the PML-Q had set up a parliamentary committee in 2005 that had visited the province, talked to various leaders and prepared a report listing its recommendations. The failure to implement them — they could only be done with the cooperation of the army — led to the collapse of this initiative. One only hopes that the political leadership that is wisely attempting to bring peace to this conflict-stricken region will this time take the army on board. At present, some of the major grievances of the Baloch — mysterious disappearances of political activists and increasing level of militarisation — can be effectively resolved only if the army which is more or less in control in the province also cooperates and goes along with the decisions taken by the APC. There may be initially some hurdles given the hard line taken by the Baloch nationalists. The olive branch notwithstanding, in the weeks following the February elections the number of incidents of violence and sabotage has not declined. The nationalists have now made their participation in the APC conditional on the halting of military operations and the return of the armed forces to their barracks. One hopes that the nationalists will give the new political leadership a chance and reciprocate its gesture.
The long-term underlying cause of the unrest in Balochistan is of a political and economic nature and has equally grave implications. Excluding a section of the people from the decision-making process is a sure way of sidelining and alienating it. We should have learnt this from our experience in East Pakistan. It is not unexpected that the Baloch feel discriminated against and deprived of the benefits of their own resources. The differences can be easily sorted out at the negotiating table, given goodwill and integrity. Some constitutional changes envisaging greater provincial autonomy would also be called for. These should now be taken seriously if the hearts and minds of the Baloch are to be won and Pakistan is to survive as a vibrant federation.
OPTIMISM about the possible spin-off of Monday’s agreement between the Frontier government and Maulana Sufi Mohammad would be premature, but it certainly shows the way. Whether the agreement is part of a deal with the kidnappers of Ambassador Tariq Azizuddin is not clear. But on the face of it, if there are no hidden provisions and the accord is implemented in full, it will be welcomed and other militant groups should be encouraged to follow Maulana Sufi’s example. There is denunciation of terrorism and violence in categorical terms. Suicide bombings are unequivocally condemned. The chief of the banned Tehrik-i-Nifaz-i-Shariat-i-Muhammadi has also condemned ‘elements’ that attack state institutions and security personnel. The six-point accord concedes ‘the right of every Muslim’ to struggle for the enforcement of Sharia peacefully, and the TNSM makes it clear that it ‘respects the government of Pakistan and state institutions’. Maulana Soofi hopes that the agreement will help establish peace in the NWFP. Whether it will or not will have to be seen. In return for the maulana’s pledge, the government has agreed to drop all charges against him and commute the remainng part of his 10-year jail term.
Given the extent of militancy in Fata and parts of the Frontier, the agreement would appear to be of a limited nature in terms of the area involved. But it has significance in more ways than one. First, a major militant figure who had waged a rebellion against the state has conceded that it was a mistake to take up arms. He has been under arrest since 2001, but the remnants of his militia, led by Maulana Fazlullah, have staged a revolt against the state. Second, the agreement makes it clear that the state reserves the right to take action when someone resorts to violence. By ‘taming’ the hardened militant leader, the ANP-led provincial government has proved how tact, coupled with the state’s right to enforce its writ, can pay off. But will the agreement influence the other militants such as Maulana Fazlullah whose men suffered reverses in the military operations last winter, but he is still capable of mischief. It remains to be seen how Baitullah Mehsud and other Taliban hardliners react to Monday’s agreement. The federal and provincial governments should continue to probe all possibilities of seeking peace without compromising on their right to come down hard on rebels.
THE Pakistan Fisherfolk Forum has done well to highlight the plight of its members who have been barred by the Defence Housing Authority from coming close to the Gizri coast. The fishermen have been fishing in this area for generations. DHA has imposed the ban ostensibly to protect its beach projects. It is a pity that misery is being heaped on the poor folks to facilitate the acquisition of mega bucks by the rich in the name of development. This is the fourth time in the last three decades that fishermen have been evicted from a jetty by the DHA. The latest move is all the more deplorable because it has been executed notwithstanding a written agreement between the two parties that had allowed fishing activities in the area from 6am to 6pm.
This is just one aspect of the development that is taking place at the cost of human living. There is the larger context of waterfront projects and beach development activities that were initiated by the previous government. This it had done despite serious reservations that were voiced by all concerned — fishermen, technocrats, civil society and politicians — for being a clear violation of Common Land regulations that allow all citizens easy and free access to public areas such as sea beaches. By handing over 84,000 acres of coastal land to foreign investors, the authorities allowed by a single but fateful stroke of pen, among other things, displacement of population, deprivation from natural source of income, depletion of mangroves and heightened marine pollution. The only ray of hope in this rather grim situation is the stand that was adopted by all the major political parties that happened to be in the opposition at the time. Now that every one of them is part of the grand coalition, there is reason to hope that things will change for the better and that the ruling partners will not get swayed by the not-so-invisible compulsions.
Another one to run STV
Slovak Spectator
SLOVAKIA’S public service television has a new general director. …. [T]he monolithic headquarters of Slovak Television (STV) had seen 13 general directors pass through its doors since the fall of communism in 1989. With Stefan Niznansky’s appointment on April 16 the number climbed to 14.
One might fairly ask: what is notable about the appointment of yet another boss for the public service TV broadcaster other than the startling frequency with which this seems to occur? In fact, it is precisely the instability of the post which makes the event both newsworthy and troubling. That so few media positions are as precarious as the chair of STV’s boss suggests that something has gone badly wrong in public service television. It has become a sad routine that STV is blessed with new leadership whenever governments change in Slovakia: in fact, directors have been changing even when governments did not…. Those with abundant cynicism might suggest that the country turns the appointment of STV’s boss into a kind of annual festivity…. However, there is another reason…: he is a former star anchor of socialist news broadcasting who is now returning to public television. Niznansky’s comeback is in fact a reminder not just for those who are actually able to recall his ‘performances’ … but everyone who recoils when watching people associated with the communist regime….
At the time of his television glory, Niznansky was in his early thirties and joined the Communist Party. Many who did so at that time say it was the only staircase to ‘top’ journalistic jobs. ….One thing is sure: anyone with such baggage needs very strong ambition and extraordinary confidence to aspire to such a top job. Yet Niznansky’s arrival at STV is hardly a victory march, and the job that he faces is not exactly enviable…. His appointment comes at a time when the media environment is in uproar and the prime minister and his ruling coalition have just ‘blessed’ journalists with a controversial press code, roundly condemned at home and abroad for limiting media freedom. Those who look at Niznansky’s election with a jaded eye, arguing that it is pretty much all the same whoever is chosen to run STV, might have a point.
Yet Niznansky has already stated that he will keep news reporting free of any political pressure, while at the same time nourishing national values. Commendable ambitions indeed. ….[T]hey overlook the fact that public television is financially dependent on the state, and … a government which sees no harm in passing a press code designed to discipline the media…. — (April 21)
But America’s relationship with wealth — uncomfortable as it has sometimes been — has always been built on the same foundation. Even as charted in the salutary tales of Fitzgerald, Steinbeck or Wolfe over the decades, or in the endless fascination with Howard Hughes and the fictional Ewings of Dallas, the aspiring masses never quite lost their admiration for blatant enrichment, nor the elite their pride in it. Now, however, all that appears to be changing.
Confronted by the revelation that Wall Street’s biggest earners are pulling down figures that the chancelleries of many small countries would be happy to have banked, and in the midst of an election cycle that has focused on the impoverishment of ordinary Americans, a cultural backlash is under way. It is not only from those impoverished US householders, or from the usual suspects on the left, either. Even those who might normally be considered filthy rich are declaring themselves offended by the obscene levels of remuneration of the country’s super-wealthy.
The latest backlash — which has seen even the Republican nominee for President John McCain (a man married to an heiress) weigh in — has been prompted by the news last week that Wall Street’s biggest ever pay packet topped $3.7bn in 2007 for one hedge fund manager for a fortune he made from gambling on the collapse in the mortgage market that has caused millions of Americans to lose their homes.
And as the financial crisis spawned in the US spreads globally, there is even unprecedented talk of ‘shame’ in the ranks of the super-rich. ‘There is something really obscene going on. This is an era of ridiculous excess. We have not seen the worst of it and there is going to be real anger,’ said David Rothkopf, author of a new book, Superclass.
The man with history’s biggest annual pay packet is hedge fund manager John Paulson of Paulson & Company. But he is not alone, as the ‘Alpha 25 list’ of the super-rich published by Alpha financial magazine last week made clear. Up with Paulson were global markets gambler George Soros and rival dealer James Simons, who made $3bn apiece. Meanwhile ordinary Americans are being squeezed harder by inflation and the credit crunch, a stagnant economy, falling house values and rising unemployment — and, in a tax system rigged against them by successive conservative administrations, often pay proportionately twice as much tax as Paulson, Soros and their cohorts.
The widening gap that these trends are producing in US society is shaking traditional values to their roots. There are growing signs that the majority are losing faith in the remains of the American dream, while the chief beneficiaries of it feel guilty as never before. ‘It’s unprecedented that the superwealthy would express so much shame in public’, said Robert Frank, author of a book which chronicles the rise of America’s new super-wealthy to a point where they live in a separate world of rarefied exclusivity. ‘It is not just people like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett standing up and saying “it’s not fair”. I spoke to 100 people earning over $10m who would not even admit to being rich — they feel ashamed about the inequality.’
When even the aptly named multi-billionaire money manager Bill Gross, known as ‘the Bond King’, pens a blog headlined ‘Enough is enough’, you know something has shifted. He was widely quoted as saying after Alpha published a list of last year’s top earner that ‘It’s not illegal, but it is ugly’. Even to rank in the top 50 of the Alpha list you had to have made more than $210m last year.
Meanwhile a recent survey by Pew Research found that between 1983 and 2004, the median net worth for upper-income US families — defined as those who earn 150 per cent of the national average — grew by 123 per cent, while the typical net worth for middle-income families grew by just 29 per cent. In addition, poverty increased and the collapse in the mortgage market caused two million homes to be repossessed in the US last year.
The financial crisis has certainly had its high-profile victims, such as Bear Stearns bank. But when multi-billionaires lose, they are rarely broke, or even poor.
Talk of the wealth gap is no longer confined to developing world dictatorships. ‘It is market fundamentalism and it’s nuts. Inequality has grown everywhere in the world as a result of this,’ said Rothkopf. Top earners such as Paulson and Soros often pay only 15 per cent in capital gains tax on their fortunes, while white-collar workers in the US pay 35 per cent. The last time America saw wealth inequality like this was 1928.
The now Democrat-led Congress in the US made noises about higher taxes on the most wealthy in recent months, reversing cuts made under President Bush, but then backed down. The issue will come up again in the autumn legislative round, but no one is expecting Congress, or even a Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama White House to decimate the fortunes of the uber-rich and spend it all on mortgage safety nets or public schooling for the masses.
But how does that square with the new age of conspicuous philanthropy, where tycoons such as Gates and Buffett make much of giving billions to good causes, in a tradition spawned by Scottish immigrant and steel magnate Andrew Carnegie? ‘Gates and Buffett are the exception. What they have done is truly wonderful but they are the truly aberrant,’ said Rothkopf. ‘Most of the super-rich don’t give much away at all and even then it is what we call “conspicuous conscience” ’.
It does not seem to have changed the inequality gap in America, nor taken away fears that the equality of opportunity that is the essence of the American dream is being fatally undermined. And a lot of the concern freshly expressed by the rich for the poor, the environment — even the less rich — stems from self-interest anyway, says Robert Frank. In the big picture of Rothkopf’s global ‘superclass’ and the Richistan that sustains the mega-billionaires in their excess, recession or no, Frank concludes: ‘It’s business as usual.’
—The Observer, London
