|
| December 06, 2008 | Saturday | Zilhaj 7, 1429 |
Meeting ends of justice
Child mortality
OTHER VOICES - Bangladesh Press
Europe’s deep concern
Media: boom & bust
AS terrorists wreaked havoc in Mumbai in the last week of November, it was — once again — not a good time to be a Pakistani abroad. True, no concrete evidence has been found linking the terrorists involved in the Mumbai massacre with Pakistan’s government, army or security services.
THE easy equation says ‘news sells’, and it often does, in a way. For a pre-budget paper, or one that leads on Obama’s victory, sales figures take a sudden lift. A slower build towards a moment of history can have much the same effect.
THERE can be no quibble with requests that the media should refrain from showing gory images of any sort. Be it a train accident or a building collapse or an attack by terrorists, no publication or television channel can ever be excused for presenting photographs or footage of people who have met a violent end. The argument, proffered by some, that such images only depict reality is deeply flawed. The truth has to be told, not sensationalised. It should be enough to present the facts without extracting sordid mileage out of tragic events. In these traumatic times, the media must think twice before subjecting readers and viewers to images that will either brutalise society even further or desensitise members of the public to senseless violence.
That said, such decisions should be left to the media for government diktat has no role to play in these matters. Individually or collectively, media organisations must abide by their own codes of conduct. Pakistan with its history of dictatorship is a country where rulers have repeatedly tried to strangle the media when the news doesn’t serve their own purpose. But India is a robust democracy and it is for this very reason that the advisory issued by the Indian information ministry on Thursday is dismaying to say the least. Television channels have been urged not to show gory scenes and replay moments of tragedy, the point of reference obviously being the assault on Mumbai. Fair enough, though the merits of the request pertaining to replaying tragedy are debatable. But the ministry also makes it clear that it wants India to be portrayed in a particular way, that a certain image must be promoted. “News coverage should project that India is a global power which has the full support of the international community,” advises the information ministry, stressing that the media should not promote “insecurity”. It has also been reported that the Maharashtra government is proposing a ban on live coverage of any future crisis.
Sound familiar? Of course it does. Gen President Musharraf was a man obsessed with the idea of ‘image’. Whether or not that image reflected the reality on the ground was immaterial. He repeatedly berated the media for its ‘negativity’ and thought it would be more fitting if only positive stories were promoted. For him, highlighting injustice or crimes against women was tantamount to being unpatriotic. He went much further than that, banning live coverage and even putting channels off the air, but then he was not a democrat and came to power through a military coup. It ill befits the Indian government to adopt a similar tone. The media’s job is to engage in balanced assessment and present facts to its audience. No government has the right to dictate what these ‘facts’ should be.
ONE of the consequences of the non-democratic existence that Pakistan has had is to be seen in the frequent conflicts among state institutions. Last year saw a painfully long confrontation between the executive, as represented by Gen Pervez Musharraf, and the judiciary. In spite of the change in government, the issue has still not been fully resolved. In the ’90s we saw how presidents and prime ministers fell out and how this led to constitutional crises in the form of premature dismissals of assemblies, the involvement of intelligence agencies in elections and the military takeover of the government. Once again we see an institutional conflict taking shape, with the Supreme Court staying the proceedings of the National Assembly’s education committee on the matter involving the chief justice’s daughter. According to media reports, the NA body intends to summon Chief Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar on what is becoming a complicated affair. The issue here, which is sub judice, is more than the purported enhancement of a girl’s exam marks. The real issue is a larger one, i.e. the image and functioning of Pakistan’s judiciary.
We know we have had politicians (including prime ministers), senior military officials and bureaucrats, among others, who have been cited for corruption and committing irregularities. Unfortunately, the judiciary too doesn’t have a very bright image. Ignoring its conferment of legitimacy on dictators, it has had judges whose conduct and commitment to equity were far below the minimum standards. Musharraf’s sacking of the chief justice was appalling and unconstitutional, but an instance of alleged nepotism by Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry was also in the public domain when he apparently used his influence to manoeuvre his undeserving son’s transfer from the health department to the police. Once again the incumbent chief justice’s image has been hurt, this time by the marks-enhancement controversy. The stay order to the NA’s education committee is not going to solve the issue. After all it is the legislators who make laws, which the courts interpret. Nothing would be more damaging to our nascent democracy than another conflict between the two state institutions. While we have no intention of casting aspersions on the judiciary, we wonder whether the ends of justice and the image of the judiciary would be better served if the chief justice reconsidered his position. Unfortunately, if history is any guide, very few Pakistanis holding key positions have shown the ability to realise when it is time to quit.
WITH our leaders’ heavy focus on domestic and international politics, little attention is being paid to what is happening to the vulnerable sections of society. This observation is borne out by a report in this paper that ranks Pakistan eighth worldwide in terms of the annual mortality rate of children who are under five years of age. Each year around 478,000 — that’s almost half a million — children in this category die because of poor sanitation, inadequate vaccination cover, dangerous birth methods and the poor health of the mother that often manifests itself in the low birth weight of the newborn. True, the problems (often aggravated in times of disasters like the 2005 quake in the north and the recent one in Balochistan) have been identified and their solutions are ready on paper. But the will to act on the data available and implement the measures necessary to bring down mortality rates is missing. Small wonder then that we are light years away from achieving the UN’s millennium development goal of “reducing by two-thirds the mortality rate among children under five” by 2015. Nor are we any closer to the other UN goals like eradicating disease, poverty and hunger and boosting maternal healthcare, all inextricably linked to the health of children. Little wonder then that almost 40 per cent of our under-five population is underweight.
Of course the state of our children’s health is part of the larger question of the state’s priorities which, unfortunately, do not seem to factor in the concerns of the young generation. Health for instance constitutes not even one per cent of the GDP. Far more is spent on the upkeep of the military machine. Surely such priorities are skewed and must be reconsidered if we want our children to grow up into healthy, happy and productive adults. Meanwhile, better awareness of childhood illnesses that can be kept at bay through immunisation and proper sanitation is key to reducing the incidence of disease among children, as is the realisation that only skilled birth attendants can cope with the dangers of childbirth.
What business have US senators in Bangladesh?
The Bangladesh Today
THREE high-profile US senators, John McCain, Joseph Lieberman and Lindsey Graham, on their way to Pakistan dropped in on Bangladesh for about 11 hours. As to why they came here for such a short period of time and what they saw and understood is difficult to speculate about. What they said, however, is nothing new. As is usual for foreign visitors, they praised the emergency government, the EC’s efforts at registering 80 million voters and the army’s role “to strengthen the foundations of democracy in Bangladesh”. They also expressed their hope that there would be a free and fair election and that political parties in government and in opposition would work together for the betterment of the people of Bangladesh. Climate change and its likely effects also came in for a bit of comment with Joseph Lieberman saying that countries like Bangladesh would receive some financial support from the USA to cope with climate changes.
Starting with the issue of climate change, there is no denying the fact that Bangladesh suffers grievously, each year, from climatic affects and climatic changes aggravate those affects. Countries like USA that have contributed the most to these climatic changes have now the responsibility to make efforts to mitigate some of the most adverse effects of these changes and they have also the responsibility, indeed the duty to help others like Bangladesh to cope with those adverse effects, not only with money but also with technology, knowledge and expertise. But if all of these turn out to be more business and profit for US companies, then Bangladesh and its people will have little to gain — that’s something the US senators did not talk about.
Going on to the next point of free and fair polls and political parties working together for the betterment of the people, it needs to be said that the people of Bangladesh have been striving for exactly that sort of democracy for well over two decades and are still a long way away from truly representative government, governance and politics. Three US senators on an 11-hour stopover are most certainly not going to advance these issues very far, if at all.
As for the registration of 80 million voters and issuance of ID cards to them, why should it surprise US senators that such a thing can be done in and by Bangladesh when it is routinely and regularly done in most other states of the world. The technology and the expertise for doing such things quickly and accurately are available and the EC has had the will and the money to do it. It is certainly not the best in the world as the US senators exaggeratedly praise but it is workable….
All in all, the visit of these three ‘powerful’ US senators have not contributed much to resolving any major issues which Bangladeshis face day in and day out. The visit did not receive any exposure from the world’s media either and so at the end we are all left with the unanswered question: what business have US senators in Bangladesh? — (Dec 05)
And President Asif Ali Zardari has said Islamabad will take “strong action” against any elements found to be implicated in the Mumbai attacks. But let’s stop fooling ourselves: whether or not any direct ties are established between the Mumbai atrocities and Pakistan, the country’s reputation as the number one troublemaker in the region — and possibly in the world — has been spotlighted and reinforced.
To put it bluntly, our neighbours hate us and, rightly or wrongly, the rest of the world views us as a country which trains, equips and encourages global terrorism. Ironically, now of course our existence is threatened by the very extremists we once nurtured.
This is possibly good news to members of Pakistan’s military and diplomatic services who continue to view violence, extremism and militancy as tools for projecting the country’s power and influence abroad. For the rest of us, it should be a time for shame, questions and careful reflection.
If Pakistan is to recover its lost reputation — and perhaps even to acquire a new, positive one — some painful questions must be answered. These concern not only the country’s weak and shaky governance structures but also the failure of Pakistan’s foreign policy, the damage done to the country by years of army misrule, the no-questions-asked implementation of a dangerous and self-defeating security strategy and the stranglehold over the country of an extremist and ritualistic form of Islam.
The recent mass murder in Mumbai should be viewed as a badly needed wake-up call to Pakistan’s government, army and ordinary citizens: whether or not there is a direct Pakistani link to the Mumbai violence, the country must accept that for the last three decades — for a variety of reasons — its security services have promoted and encouraged the development of militant movements and insurgents as tools of Pakistan’s foreign and security policy. Ironically, today, those groups have turned against Pakistan itself.
The question is: do we really care? Are we worried that our once tolerant society has been transformed into one where discussion, argument and intelligent conversation are viewed with suspicion, where we cannot walk the streets or go to restaurants and hotels without fear of terrorist attacks and where army rule, corruption, violence and ethnic hatred are viewed as normal facets of everyday life?
During a visit to Pakistan last month, I was in equal measure shocked and appalled at the ease with which most people have accepted a distorted, security-obsessed, nationalistic view of reality. Fortunately, I was also encouraged by the dynamism and determination of young Pakistani men and women who are trying hard to change out-of-date and destructive mindsets and question authority.
Repeatedly, many people I met blamed Pakistan’s political, economic and societal failures on the West. Terrorism was the result of US policies in the Middle East, Iraq and Afghanistan — and of course, Indian action in Kashmir. No one could explain, however, why the said terrorists were killing innocent Muslims and civilians in their quest to avenge the evil western powers.
I was also constantly questioned about European Union policies, with many asking why Europe — as part of the evil West — was biased against Pakistan. Here in Europe, the questions are similarly frequent and probing, with friends and colleagues seeking to understand just when, why and how Pakistan became the world’s prime safe haven for extremists and militants.
There are no easy answers. But contrary to conventional wisdom in Pakistan, there is no western conspiracy against the country. Certainly many EU governments are deeply concerned about Pakistan’s policy towards India and Afghanistan and Islamabad’s failure to curb the growing insurgency in its tribal areas. But the 27-nation bloc is, in fact, seeking to upgrade its relationship with Pakistan.
In the coming week, EU foreign ministers are scheduled to issue a statement on relations with Pakistan in which they will highlight their determination to help consolidate the civilian government and accelerate development across the country.
No new aid figures are expected to be mentioned. But EU policymakers are looking seriously at suggestions made at a recent Friends of Pakistan meeting in Abu Dhabi for the creation of a so-called Frontier Trust Fund to inject funds into the tribal areas. If agreed, such aid would be part of a new comprehensive strategy for Fata under which counter-insurgency operations would be followed up by investment in social development projects and vocational training schemes. However, implementation of the plan is conditional on improved security conditions.
EU ministers are expected to echo recent warnings from US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that Pakistan must take a robust stance against terrorism. They will also urge Islamabad to keep relations with India on an even keel.
Like the EU, members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Nato) are also seeking to enhance relations with Pakistan. The alliance’s secretary Gen Jaap de Hoop Scheffer is expected to visit Islamabad this month to highlight Nato’s interest in forging a closer political relationship with Pakistan.
In Brussels recently, Scheffer insisted that Pakistan must not allow strained relations with India to distract from its fight against militants linked to Al Qaeda in the lawless border region with Afghanistan.
True, the EU and Nato have a vested interest in forging closer relations with Islamabad. With thousands of European (and American) soldiers deployed in Afghanistan, both organisations are anxious to ensure that Pakistan keeps up its military assault on insurgents based in the country’s tribal areas. There are also fears that renewed India-Pakistan tensions could lead to another war between the two nuclear-armed adversaries.
If they play their cards right, Pakistan’s military and civilian policymakers could use Europe’s renewed interest in the country to forge a new partnership for change and reform — and to promote better ties with India and Afghanistan. That, however, will require a radical change in Islamabad’s jaundiced view of its neighbourhood as well as serious and sustained efforts to upgrade Pakistan’s place, role and reputation in the world.
The writer is Dawn’s correspondent in Brussels.
MSNBC, the most liberal of US cable networks, saw its year-on-year ratings jump by 158 per cent in the last three weeks of the presidential campaign and its website broke all its records in the seven days before the vote, with 25 million unique visitors.
CNN and Fox also enjoyed fantastic viewing numbers and web figures. Who could ask for more? Only, perhaps, that the boom doesn’t turn to bust. But it seems to be doing that, and rather too quickly.
When the New York Times or Washington Post crunch numbers, they find MSNBC.com down 6.4 million unique users — that’s 25 per cent — in a week, and CNN.com more than eight million adrift. Web usage is diving, and cable usage along with it. And how do you top a 488 per cent web surge in a year? The clear winner in the American blogging stakes, Arianna Huffington’s Huffington Post, scored mightily as the race grew hotter, but has now had to raise a third tranche of $15m so it can keep running hard through the more mundane months of an Obama administration.
In one sense, it’s rather heartening. Young people haven’t turned off news. Indeed, when political news grips their imagination, participation is huge and intense. But when the story goes off the boil, too much of the audience goes with it. And the gains are not shared equally between competing media.
Most of America’s newspapers have endured a rotten circulation year, with losses of between five and ten per cent commonplace. Obama’s rise did nothing for them in the long term. Equally, major network news bulletins — the bread and butter of ordinary coverage — seem to have held up well through the grey business of cabinet-building: slow and steady stays in the race.
— The Guardian, London
