|
| November 01, 2008 | Saturday | Ziqa'ad 2, 1429 |
Diversifying the energy mix
Gender equality
Europeans await President Obama
The largest mall
OTHER VOICES - Sri Lankan Press
HERE is some advice for French President Nicolas Sarkozy: do not worry too much about the rising sales of your lookalike voodoo dolls.
IMAGINED in a bygone era of bubble and boom, the gigantic Westfield shopping centre in London’s Shepherd’s Bush on Thursday launched itself defiantly into a gigantic bust. The size of 30 football pitches, with 96 escalators, 265 shops, 13 cinema screens and 47 restaurants, the promise was that a cash register would ring here every 30 seconds.
SENATOR Raza Rabbani’s statement assuring the opposition that there was no “wavering” on the part of the government on repealing the 17th Amendment to the constitution is welcome. The PPP and its ruling coalition partners have long rallied against the infamous amendment and one only hopes that the party will not do an about-face over its commitment as it has done on the judges issue. This amendment amassed many powers of the prime minister and parliament in the office of the president, including a resurrected Article 58-2(b) — a lethal tool originally inserted into the 1973 Constitution by Gen Ziaul Haq in 1985 which empowered the president to send a government packing at his own discretion. The last Nawaz Sharif government did it away after it had been on the statute book for more than a decade. The article, as it stands today, still empowers the president to send the chief executive home and dissolve parliament but binds the president to refer the matter for a final settlement to the Supreme Court within 15 days of his action. The 17th Amendment was drawn up by the former president, Gen Pervez Musharraf, in December 2003 with a view to indemnify all his actions taken as the chief executive and president after he assumed office in the military coup of October 1999. Mr Musharraf was supported in the passage of the amendment by the Muttahida Majlis-i-Amal, which leveraged it to get the general to give up his military office by the end of 2004 — a promise on which the general reneged.
The Muttahida Qaumi Movement is the only party which has not made its stance clear on the repeal of the controversial amendment since the February 2008 election. Although as part of the former ruling coalition it had supported the passage of the 17th Amendment, much has changed since then, and it is safe to assume that it will go along with the other ruling coalition partners. As for the opposition in the National Assembly, the PML-N and the PML-Q — the former having opposed the amendment and the latter having supported it — are now in favour of its repeal, ostensibly unconditionally. This should give the government more than the two-thirds majority required to sail through a constitutional amendment aimed at annulling the distortions brought to the 1973 Constitution, which prescribes a fully empowered parliamentary form of government. The time has come to scrap the detours taken to suit the exigencies of the previous regime which tilted the constitution heavily in favour of an indirectly elected president to the detriment of parliament. As promised in its election campaign and reiterated subsequently, the PPP should lead the move to undo the controversial amendment. Needless to say, this should be done without any delay.
THE assertion made at a recent seminar that Sindh alone has the potential to produce 40,000MW of wind-based energy and thus meet the requirement of the entire country is yet another reminder to our policymakers of all the alternative means of power generation that are available to us. Regrettably they have thus far remained untapped. The way things stand today, however, the contention is likely to fall on deaf ears. There is no denying the fact that Pakistan is geographically well-placed to make use of natural resources like wind and sunlight. But the leadership’s lack of vision over the years means our energy production is still based on fossil fuels even though the world has moved swiftly to diversify its energy profile. Around half of our needs are met through indigenous gas, another 28 per cent through imported oil, and about 13 per cent through hydro power. Coal at seven per cent and nuclear energy at one per cent bring up the rear of our energy mix. According to targets set by the Alternative Energy Development Board, the country will have wind energy on the national grid by 2010, but these are targets that are more likely to be missed than met.
The official short-term target, for instance, is 680MW by 2010, while in the long run the government hopes to have as much as 9,700MW by 2030. These fantastic figures are belied by on-ground reality. Of the 22 firms that have been allocated a total area of 35,000 acres of land for setting up wind farms, 14 are still working on feasibility reports and another seven are in the process of negotiating their power purchase agreements. The two phases happen to be uncertain both in terms of the end result and timeframe. There is only one plant being erected on ground that, if everything else goes according to plan, will be producing 50MW by early 2010; a mere seven per cent of the target. At this pace, the government will end up achieving the short-term production target over the long-term timeframe. It is no wonder that every time some government functionary talks about one project or the other to manage the worsening power crisis, no one among the masses pays much attention to it. They worry more about their own generators and UPS systems than about the legitimacy of official assurances. It is time the government tried to understand why it is what it is.
WOMEN in Pakistan are discriminated against due to deeply entrenched socio-cultural practices of society which are reflected in the widespread gender disparities that are quite visible. Women are by and large less educated than men; their health and nutritional status is lower; their mobility is immensely restricted; and their access to employment is kept within certain limits. Crimes against women such as child marriage, internal and external trafficking, domestic violence, sexual abuse and honour killing are commonplace. This raises questions about the rights of women especially in a country where they face violence on a daily basis and their potential is under-utilised. If there is social and economic exclusion of Pakistani women, it means half the population of the country is deprived of its fundamental rights and it is denied the opportunity to contribute to the development of the land. Therefore, gender equality is the key to national progress as was pointed out at a seminar recently. Gender mainstreaming was stressed by the participants and the secretary planning and development mercifully asserted that in future it will be ensured that gender impact was properly considered in the formulation of every development project.
Gender equality and women’s empowerment play a prominent role in the prosperity of the nation. Great strides have been made in increasing the number of women in parliament. The government is even considering increasing the women’s quota in the legislature from 18 per cent to 33 per cent. However, what is needed is a change in the status of women at the grassroots level. Poor women are the most vulnerable and marginalised segment of society. Poverty alleviation programmes aimed to help women in both urban and rural areas would improve their lot. Employment schemes which will help generate income for women should be launched by the government making them equal to men. The government must ensure that police at the district level take notice of cases of domestic violence — most of which go undetected — and bring the offenders to justice. On the other hand, women themselves need to ensure that they enter the public sphere. There needs to be a change in public attitude towards women who themselves need to strive harder to make their voice heard and get their due share in employment and other activities.
True, French men and women may enjoy sticking pins into the best-selling doll for a few days. But come Nov 4, French nationals — as most of their counterparts in other European countries — are likely to be too busy following the US elections to pay attention to the antics of their leaders. Especially if the polls are correct and Barack Obama is elected US president.
It’s no secret that Europeans are in the grips of an overwhelming wave of ‘Obama-mania’. But the extent of support for the 46-year-old Democratic presidential candidate continues to surprise. Europeans’ passionate backing for Obama says a great deal about Europeans’ disillusionment with their own politicians, America’s enduring appeal in Europe — and hopes that the next US president will help usher in a new era of global peace and stability.
In a continent where most leading politicians fail to enthral, Europeans are unsurprisingly enthusiastic about Obama’s personality, youth and ability to inspire. But equally surprisingly, while they may not vote for a non-white politician themselves, Europeans appear thrilled by Obama’s personal history and racial background.
Across Europe, newspapers predict that Obama will revive the US brand and America’s now almost extinct soft-power ability for advancing its policy goals without the use of force or coercion. Recent polls show that at least two-thirds of Germans, Italians, Spanish and French want to see the Democratic candidate elected, with support in France as high as 78 per cent. In Britain, Obama is preferred by a 4:1 ratio.
It’s all about change. Asked to give their main reasons for supporting Obama, an overwhelming majority of Europeans and Americans cited his capacity to represent a change from the policies of the current Bush administration.
And it’s not just the public. The view that change is needed in the White House is mirrored in statements by European politicians. In a plenary debate last week, several Socialist members of the European Parliament branded George W. Bush the “worst president” in US history, while party leader Martin Schulz blamed Bush for the current global financial crisis.
As in America, many in Europe are convinced that Obama is better placed to deal with current financial woes. They are also hoping for a change in US policies in Afghanistan and Iraq and an improvement in strained transatlantic relations.
European support for Obama as a global statesman has been rising since July 24, 2008 when he spoke in Berlin in front of 200,000 cheering Germans. At the time, German analysts described Germany as ‘Obamaland’, saying Germans saw the African-American senator as a mixture of John Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr.
But while Obama is the clear European choice, policymakers across the European Union admit that pinning their hopes on one man opens the risk of unfulfilled hopes and mismanaged expectations. After all, the next president will inherit two wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan, potential showdowns over nuclear threats from Iran and North Korea, a newly aggressive Russia, and a financial crisis worse than anything since the Great Depression.
Striking fear into European hearts is the recognition that if elected, Obama will call on the European allies to assume greater responsibility in Afghanistan by sending more troops to the country. To date, no European country is ready to do so. Europeans also worry about Obama’s anti-free trade campaign rhetoric, fearing that his election will deal a fatal blow to the Doha trade round and trigger a new wave of US protectionism. Expect also some friction on French President Sarkozy’s calls for a complete overhaul of international financial institutions and more banking regulations and supervision.
On the plus side, EU policymakers believe Obama will make positive changes in US policy on climate change, nuclear disarmament, and will accept a ban on torture. Most significant, say EU diplomats, is that Obama will bring a change in diplomatic style and an improvement in US foreign relations. Transatlantic ties have improved since hitting rock bottom after the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq that was opposed by France and Germany.
But the EU and US still quarrel over a range of political, trade and other issues, with Europeans lashing out at American unilateralism. In a speech in Washington earlier this year, European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso spoke repeatedly about the need for joint EU-US efforts to forge a new multilateralism to tackle global challenges.
The focus, said Barroso hopefully, should now be on building a stronger multilateral world, governed by internationally agreed rules.
Significantly, one fallout if Obama is elected could be on the image — and aspirations — of Europe’s own minority communities. Obama supporters insist that his victory will force European governments to take a closer look at their treatment of non-white Europeans who continue to face an uphill struggle for recognition as full-fledged citizens.
But others say the far more institutionalised role of European political parties, in which potential candidates have to work their way up the pecking order, would restrict the chances of a relative outsider like Obama.
“The French themselves are ready, but our political system would stop an Obama appearing,” French human rights minister, Rama Yade, told the French news magazine Le Figaro. “Not because he’s black, but because he comes from a background of recent immigration,” Yade added. “Here, integration is much more difficult.”
The writer is Dawn’s correspondent in Brussels.
But those are calculations from the spend, spend, spend days, when shopping was retail therapy and house prices rose by GBP50 ($75) in the time it took to go out and shop till you dropped. How long ago that seems, and how out of joint this gargantuan emporium feels with the mood of fear, squeeze, pinch and cut.
Now people cut up credit cards, banks recall overdrafts, food sales figures show the biggest drop since records began, and retail analysts predict the worst Christmas in 30 years. There is something ominous about Westfield making its first “anchor” store Debenhams — the group devoured by private equity greed, asset-stripped, and pushed back on the market, denuded and loaded with debt.
But there was Boris Johnson, London’s mayor, proclaiming: “I think there are people with piles of money out there who could come and invest in Westfield.” It is, he said, “a fantastic vote of confidence in London as the world’s greatest venue for buying and selling”.
Sir Philip Green of the retail chain BHS was there to proclaim that he was “not in the doom-mongering camp” despite a recent 40 per cent profit fall. Sir Stuart Rose of Marks and Spencer was more cautious: “I think we’re OK, but it’s going to be tough.”
Prepare to be disappointed. It’s more Gatwick village than Liberty, all airport ambience and airlessness, an everywhere and nowhere place. In the designer quarter, most of the posh shops have not yet moved in. Marble floors and a sweeping staircase await them — but this looks airport too, if not Gatwick, maybe Milan.
Outside, this gigantic block is a wall-eyed blot on the streetscape. Inside, the one good feature is an undulating roof that lets in some blessed daylight. Think how a shopping mall could be: exotic, bizarre, a flight of fancy, funny or kitsch. What a wasted architectural opportunity.
So whose feet will form the promised 60,000 daily footfall? The first day’s clientele were packing in to gawp more than to shop. Throngs of children and teenagers on half term poured in. This is young teen heaven, big, warm, indoors, safe yet far from home, bright lights, a change from cold street corners. But they have no money. Even the well-heeled these days are frightened into snapping wallets and purses shut.
But Westfield needs to succeed, as it brings 7,000 new jobs, in so far as it doesn’t simply draw away business from other London shops. Thanks to long campaigning by London Citizens, the community, faith and trade union activists, many are good jobs by local standards. Westfield’s own cleaners and security guards are guaranteed the living wage, over GBP7.45. Sadly most people working here are not covered by Westfield’s promise, hired by retailers who rent space.
Westfield said: “We will be here for many years and turns of the economic cycle”. Let’s hope so, but as Keynes warned, in the long term we’re all dead.
— The Guardian, London
Come to terms with ground realities
Daily Mirror
TUESDAY’S LTTE’s air raid is yet another reminder to all concerned for exercising extreme vigilance and for being realistic about the situation that the country is confronted with. Several questions were raised by many about the apparent ease with which the terrorists’ aircraft flew from Mannar and carried out the attack and got back to their base unscathed….
The SLAF, however, claims that its vigilance prevented the aircraft from reaching the intended places and carrying out attacks on the desired targets…. The fact, however, remains that the Tigers had managed to carry out an air attack on the Thallaadi military base in Mannar and proceed to Colombo to cause the damage at Kelanitissa power station.
The people of this country could console themselves that the LTTE terrorists had failed in their mission to cause extensive damage and destabilisation that they had planned…. It has obviously raised the sagging morale of LTTE cadres and their supporters here and abroad.
The government … asserts[s] that Tigers, knocked out of their senses by the crushing assaults on their cadres and camps by security forces, are carrying out these desperate attacks. These statements are invariably accompanied by impressive accounts of continuing battlefield successes details of which the media carry often without much verification.
However, these morale boosting exercises mainly aimed at retaining political support for the ruling parties would not serve the national purpose. Nor would the opposition parties’ scathing criticisms of every step the government takes serve the country’s urgent need for extricating itself from the accursed conflict it is embroiled in.
It is not appropriate, however, for the government to dismiss all such criticism imputing political motives to them. Some of these criticisms have to receive the attention of the relevant authorities and where necessary they have to provide plausible explanations. The UNP says it is humiliating that the [air force] failed to destroy the LTTE aircraft that had hovered over the skies for more than two hours in the course of the attack on Kelanitissa. Expressing his party’s view on the incident, MP Dayasiri Jayasekera has said that the fixed-wing aircraft disturbed the south for the seventh time with this attack on the power station after which the craft escaped unscathed….
The responsible security forces authorities should … examine … the circumstances under which the present attack had been carried out without attempting to gloss over the apparent security lapses....
All these parties should at least now realise the gravity of the situation and refrain from using the present national tragedy for partisan political gain. As we repeatedly emphasise in these columns, the most urgent need today is unity among main political parties to face the crisis with greater strength. The government has to take the opposition parties to its confidence and convey to them the exact ground realities and seek their views in dealing with the situation.
Meanwhile, the government spokesmen and supporters who often demonstrate their over-confidence and enthusiasm and go into flights of fancy without having any regard for ground realities, should exercise some restraint over their verbal outpourings thus leaving the forces to conduct the campaign to its logical conclusion. — (Oct 31)
