|
| June 18, 2008 | Wednesday | Jamadi-us-Sani 13, 1429 |
Israeli hubris
An ill-timed change
Civil liberties: the turn of the tide
OTHER VOICES - European Press
TWO hundred and seventy people convicted of no crime languish in Guantanamo, and the British parliament has just voted to extend detention without trial to forty-two days. In both the United States and Britain, governments that attack civil liberties in the name of security still rule. But in the past week the tide has turned in both countries.
AS some parliamentarians pointed out in the National Assembly on Monday, urgent steps are required to boost agricultural output to cope with the food shortages facing the country. This can happen if the right policies are adopted. What is missing right now in the agricultural sector is innovation in terms of productivity as well as in management of arable land resources. On the latter count, it is encouraging to note that the federal, Sindh and Punjab budgets all include proposals to distribute cultivable state-owned holdings to landless peasants. If implemented without fear or favour, these measures can increase agricultural output and also help peasants break free from the vicious circle of servitude and extreme poverty that consumes generation after generation. Ultimately, however, the initiative should not be limited to the distribution of state land. Reform and redistribution of privately owned arable land is also of the essence, though this is perhaps asking too much of legislatures dominated by large landowners.
In terms of higher productivity, huge investment is required to improve yield in a country where existing farming practices are both inefficient and wasteful. There is a pressing need for greater mechanisation in the cultivation and harvesting processes, as well as the introduction of modern farming techniques that can increase yield per acre and save water at the same time. Land levelling, for instance, can significantly reduce water run-off, prevent soil erosion and improve moisture retention. Drip irrigation not only saves water but provides it at the root level where it is most needed. Nor do leaves and buds get wet, which makes crops less susceptible to waterborne pests and fungal infections. This in turn can boost yield and also improve the quality of the crop. Profligate farming methods aside, water — the backbone of agriculture — is also wasted on a massive scale in the wider irrigation network. Most canals and other waterways remain unlined and breaches too are common. Work on the National Programme for Improvement of Watercourses, which could save as much as eight million acre feet of water annually, is running at least two years behind schedule. At the same time, a faulty telemetry system means that discharges into the Indus water distribution network cannot be monitored effectively.
Needless to say, poor farmers are incapable on their own to embrace the modern cultivation methods discussed above. The state has to step in, set its priorities right and divert to agriculture some of the fat from non-productive areas such as government administration. Financial support and relevant training will have to be provided to farmers to help them make the switch to more efficient modes of cultivation. Access to agricultural credit needs to be made easier and additional research is required to develop crop varieties that are more productive and show greater resistance to disease. Agro-industry initiatives must also be facilitated as they add value to agricultural products while generating jobs in the rural areas. All this is achievable, even with our limited resources. What is needed is planning and the necessary will.
EVEN though the US media has called it ‘harsh’, Condoleezza Rice’s criticism of Israel’s plan to build 40,000 new housing units in occupied Jerusalem is rather mild. Reacting to the Israeli government’s approval of the housing plans for the next decade in the holy city’s occupied part, the US secretary of state said it would cast a shadow on the peace talks. In the first place, there are no peace talks in the accepted meaning of the term. They remain suspended with full American backing. Occasional meetings between President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and periodic visits to the region by American leaders cannot be called peace talks because well-structured and goal-oriented negotiations have remained frozen since 2001. The last roadmap for peace was unveiled by President Bush in 2003, but it was sabotaged by Israel, even though Ariel Sharon had initially accepted it. The 2003 roadmap had visualised the emergence of an independent Palestinian state by 2005, but President George Bush himself later said that the date was unrealistic. The roadmap fizzled out.
Hopes for peace were revived last year when the US, Israel and the Palestinian Authority signed the Annapolis document that called for an independent Palestinian state by the end of this year. Within a week of the signing of the agreement, Olmert declared that his government was not bound by the Annapolis timetable. In the meantime, Israel has continued its settlement activity in violation of the Annapolis accord. Rice, thus, admitted the obvious truth when she said Israel had increased the pace of housing activity in the occupied territory since the Annapolis summit last November. However, beyond this mild criticism, it is obvious the Republican administration is not going to annoy the powerful Zionist lobby in an election year. Israel’s greatest asset in the current situation is the polarisation of Palestinian politics and society. The hostility between Fatah and Hamas has turned the Gaza strip and the West Bank into two cantons, with both sides unable to resist Israeli attacks on Gaza every now and then. In fact, the Palestinian movement is passing through one of its worst lows. Without Palestinian unity it is difficult to see how Israel or America will get serious about the peace talks.
SHOCKING is too mild a word to describe the timing of the change effected at the Pakistan Hockey Federation (PHF). The decision can be contested on several grounds, but with the Olympic Games less than two months away, it is as weird as it gets. There were rumours doing the round for the last few days about the impending change, but one hoped that better sense would prevail; that if no one else, at least the PHF patron, the prime minister of Pakistan, would ensure continuity till the Beijing event. Apparently, the patron had more pressing issues to deal with and the sports minister could no longer resist the irrepressible urge to pave the way for the induction of his own set of people even if he had to violate certain legal stipulations. Lest it be misunderstood, the minister may have valid reasons for what he has done; it is the timing that has raised eyebrows, and rightly so. Accusing fingers were also pointed at the discarded PHF officials who kept changing the team management without allowing anyone to settle down. The panel of selectors also had its issues with the management. But by throwing out the top brass at such a crucial juncture, the minister concerned has only repeated the folly of those to whom he has shown the door. Handing over the PHF to a 36-year-old who could earn no particular distinction either as a player or during his tenure on the national coaching panel is, in fact, an act of misplaced misjudgement.
The bigger fear now is that the spiral of change may not stop here. In fact, it may have a domino effect once the team lands back from its European tour where it has won no laurels except winning an inconsequential quadrangular featuring three of the weakest sides in world hockey. The on-field performance, in any case, can hardly show any improvement without things settling down off the field. By upsetting the applecart at the most inopportune moment, we have dented our own chance of saving face when the D-day comes.
In the United States, the Supreme Court has ruled for the third time in four years that the people detained in Guantanamo can challenge their imprisonment in US civilian courts. When the Court made the same ruling in 2004 and 2006, an obedient Congress passed legislation overruling it, but that will not happen this time.
The Supreme Court judges have ruled once again that the ancient rule of habeas corpus, the right of every prisoner to be brought before a court where the state must give a legal justification for his detention, cannot be thrust aside on the pretext that the suspect is a foreigner, or a terrorist, or an “illegal combatant.” The government still has to convince a judge that it has the evidence to justify the charge, and then bring the accused to trial.
With Democratic majorities almost certain in both houses of Congress after the November elections, and both presidential candidates committed to shutting Guantanamo, this time the Supreme Court’s ruling will stick. As Justice Anthony Kennedy put it, “The laws and constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times. Liberty and security can be reconciled; and in our system they are reconciled within the framework of the law.”
The rule of law is returning in the United States after years of abuse. In Britain, it is still under attack, but the fight-back has started in earnest. After Prime Minister Gordon Brown forced through the 42-day detention law on Wednesday despite the resistance of both major opposition parties and 36 rebels from his own Labour Party, something unprecedented happened.
David Davis, the Conservative MP who serves as shadow home secretary (the opposition spokesman on domestic affairs), resigned his seat the following day. He declared that he would run for re-election on a platform of opposition to the “monstrosity” of 42-day detention and to the “government’s slow strangulation of fundamental British freedoms.”
The Great British Public, it must be admitted, is not very interested in fundamental British freedoms. As Gordon Brown pointed out in defence of his law, a majority of the public supports 42-day detention.
Indeed, a majority of the British public, given the right lead by the gutter press, would probably also support 90-day detention, waterboarding of suspects, 180-day detention, torture of their relatives, 360-day detention, and summary execution of detainees. Provided they were Muslim, of course.
But democratic countries have laws and constitutions precisely to fend off this kind of ignorant populism. David Davis is acting in defence of habeas corpus, and when the voters of his constituency are forced to confront the issue of human rights squarely they will probably vindicate him.
Former prime minister Tony Blair began the attack on civil liberties even before 9/11. British citizens, who could previously be held by the police for only two days before being charged or released, found that period raised to seven days by the Terrorism Act of 2000, and to fourteen days by the Criminal Justice Act of 2003.
A significant minority of his own party rebelled when Blair tried to extend it again to ninety days in 2005, and after much haggling it was fixed at 28 days — already the longest period of pre-charge detention in the democratic world. So what possessed Gordon Brown to want to lengthen it yet again, given that there had been no request from the security services and no recent terrorist atrocity?
Political expediency, of course. Brown’s unchallenged succession to Blair as prime minister is already seen as Labour’s great mistake, and it is almost universally assumed that the Conservatives will win the next election in less than two years’ time. So Brown cast around for some symbolic gesture that would wrong-foot the Tories, and came up with 42 days: paint himself as tough on security, and force the Conservatives to choose between defending unpopular civil liberties or playing me-too Stupid. The Conservatives decided to oppose the legislation, although with some misgivings. (Indeed, David Davis’s spectacular action is partly intended to nail own his party to its commitment to kill the 42 days when it comes to power.) About fifty Labour MPs were initially prepared to vote against their own government, although various pressures reduced that to 36 for the final vote.
The law squeaked through last Wednesday by a majority of only nine votes — thanks to nine Democratic Unionists from Northern Ireland who agreed to support Brown in return for large sums of money spent in that province. Brown is weakened by this vote, not strengthened, and the ugly law he has pushed through the House of Commons will almost certainly die in the House of Lords (as he knew all along — it was only done to make him look “tough on terror”).
In both of the countries where civil liberties were most grievously damaged by the “war on terror,” the tide is turning. About time, too. — Copyright Gwynne Dyer
Simplistic response to complex problems
The Independent
The culture of binge drinking is a plague on Britain. It causes misery in some of the country’s most deprived areas and transforms even the most genteel town centres into no-go areas at weekends. With this bleak context in mind, it is understandable that ministers in Scotland are considering an increase in the legal age for purchasing alcohol from off-licences and supermarkets from 18 to 21. The role of alcohol in fuelling yobbish behaviour north of the border is exacerbated by its effect on health. Scotland has one of the fastest growing rates of liver cirrhosis in the world. Does it not make sense to make alcohol harder to get hold of, if only for teenagers?
The answer is no. The remedy does not lie in simplistic legislative responses. Raising the legal age of buying alcohol from off-licences will not bring about a dramatic decline in the type of anti-social behaviour associated with binge drinking.
There are several practical problems with the policy under consideration by the Scottish executive. Allowing those aged between 18 and 21 to drink alcohol but not purchase it makes no sense.
The emphasis should be on enforcing the law, not changing it. Ample powers already exist to tackle the effects of binge drinking. In many cases, binge drinkers are underage teenagers. The police already have the power to move them on from public spaces and confiscate their alcohol. The main flaw to the proposal, however, is that it fails to grasp that Britain’s binge-drinking problem, shared elsewhere in northern Europe, is a cultural one.
As such, the key to fighting it lies in fostering a longer-term change in attitudes. Such a shift can only be achieved through a concerted education campaign that makes all of us rethink our relationship with alcohol. It is no quick fix, but it remains the only realistic way of creating a more responsible attitude towards drinking in Britain. — (June 17)
