|
| January 18, 2009 | Sunday | Muharram 20, 1430 |
Indifference of legislators
Punjab’s urea crisis
OTHER VOICES - Indian Press
Safety of nuclear assets
War on plastic bags
COMMENTATORS in Pakistan refer to its nuclear assets much too often and needlessly. They speak of Pakistan and India as “nuclear armed” neighbours or rivals.
THE global battle against plastic took a draconian turn on Friday when officials in Delhi announced that the penalty for carrying a polythene shopping bag would be five years in prison.
IT is perhaps unfair to rail against George W. Bush for he was merely a pawn in the hands of the neocon establishment that has ruled America since 2000. It was the likes of Dick Cheney, Elliott Abrams, Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz, all leading lights of The Project for the New American Century which promotes US imperialism and total control of the world’s energy resources, who called the shots in those bleak years. Some years ago, before 9/11, the manifesto of the Project for the New American Century even justified the deliberate creation of circumstances that would allow America to attack worldwide. But still, if only in name, George Bush was the president of the United States at a time when that country embarked on a global offensive against an amorphous enemy called terrorism. It was none other than George Bush who authorised the killing of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians in a war based on lies. It was George Bush who justified torture at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. It was George Bush who felt it was kosher to bomb an ally such as Pakistan. Like other gung-ho Republicans before him, it was George Bush who mollycoddled a military dictator who drove Pakistan into the ground while under the influence of a toxic cocktail in which ego and ignorance were mixed in equal parts.
America will see the formal authorisation of a revolution on Tuesday, when a black man will become president of the United States of America. Yet, despite all the idealism and multiculturism at his disposal, Barack Obama will not change the world. His colour in itself means that he must tread softly, as if walking on eggshells, careful not to offend. The liberals who voted for him include millions of American Jews, and as such Obama cannot be expected to open America’s eyes to the reality of Palestine. It has often been said that great statesmen don’t just respond to public opinion, they change it. There is no indication yet that Barack Obama will reshape America’s distorted view of the world. Going by his statements so far, it seems his administration will continue to justify the status quo. He either believes the untruths or is apprehensive about taking a strong line on the historical injustice that is Israel.
A black man at the helm will not change America. Barack Obama will not disown his country’s imperialist designs, for to do that would damage his patriotic credentials in a country as insular as the US. America imposes itself on the world, it is not part of it. This is so because it sees itself as a superior entity in any given situation. Obama can’t change that perception. And we certainly cannot.
MUST the prime minister have to remind the legislators of their duty? Not all of them are new to the job; several MNAs have been elected many times and must know their responsibility. As a sovereign body the National Assembly not only enacts laws, it serves as a watchdog on government functioning. These tasks must be performed with the seriousness and sanctity they deserve — which unfortunately does not seem to be the case. Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani has started attending the question hour regularly, but his presence has not served to persuade the ruling party MNAs and others to be a little less trivial. As a report in this paper revealed the other day, MNAs during an Assembly session talked among themselves, paying scant attention to the question-answer session even though the prime minister was present. In fact, on Friday the deputy speaker had to snub an MNA by asking him to keep the pitch of his voice low. Even though he was sitting on a back bench, his constant talk disturbed the others and was symptomatic of the legislators’ nonchalance. All this in addition to the low attendance that characterises Assembly sessions, leading to frequent adjournments because of lack of quorum.
The MNAs’ attitude betrays a shocking indifference to the overriding need for building democratic institutions and strengthening parliament. Since independence, heads of state and army chiefs have sacked democratic governments and dismissed elected parliaments. Between 1977 and 1999, five national assemblies were dissolved, and if we add to this the number of provincial assemblies, then the number of houses that fell victim to military takeovers or Article 58-2(b) goes up to 25 or so. The dissolution was followed in each case by the trial and conviction of a large number of legislators for political reasons. The task before the MNAs now is to build the edifice of democracy brick by brick so that non-democratic forces do not get another chance to sabotage democracy. All parties agree that the 17th Amendment should be done away with so that the constitution’s parliamentary character is restored. But that would mean only half the job, for the real challenge is to consolidate democratic values in and outside the Assembly and make parliament a policymaking body that, besides being the sole determinant of national interests, represents the people’s sovereignty. However, the conduct of most of our legislators in this regard does not inspire much hope.
A CROP of anger is being sown in Punjab’s fields of despair. Wheat farmers across the province are flustered and frustrated over their failure to get as much urea fertiliser as their crop requires. Reports of angry protests over the shortage of the fertiliser as well as photographs showing farmers standing in long queues to get it refuse to go away from the inside pages of newspapers. If, in the coming days and weeks, the supply and distribution of urea remain as bad as now, protests can turn ugly and the queues give way to major quarrels.
The Punjab government seems to be aware of the dangers, although the response it has come up with to ward them off is certainly inadequate. On Thursday, Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif set up a committee to monitor and report on the supply and delivery of fertiliser. For desperate farmers who need five million bags of urea as quickly as possible, this is like telling a hungry child that a suitable diet for him is being mulled over. The urgency of the situation should not be lost on the government, and a handful of over-occupied politicians and bureaucrats meeting and issuing memos can hardly resolve the problem. Mr Sharif would do well to take some concrete steps like cutting the red tape and removing administrative and logistic bottlenecks to expedite the inland arrival and distribution of urea that has already landed in enough quantity at the country’s ports to fulfil local needs. He can certainly arrange the emergency transportation of the fertiliser if he is serious about tackling the problem which otherwise runs the risk of becoming a crisis that Mr Sharif himself acknowledges can reduce Punjab’s wheat output by as much as 30 per cent.
Such a drastic decrease in wheat yield will drag down the whole economy with it and will require huge and costly imports. But, as seen in previous years, imports do not ease supply constraints after local wheat production falls short of the target. That wheat shortages have had dangerous political fallouts goes without saying. Anyone mindful of such fallouts should know better than writing memos and holding meetings.
The Times of India
Star of Mysore
Don’t gag the media
…THE amendments to the Cable Television Network (Regulations) Act proposed by the I&B ministry in the wake of the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks aims to put in place extensive restrictions on live coverage of crisis situations. This would prevent news broadcasters from showing any live telecast during emergency situations other than a government-authorised feed.
There were undoubtedly mistakes made during the coverage of the Mumbai terror attacks. The transcripts of calls made by the terrorists have revealed that their handlers in Pakistan, who were watching Indian news channels, kept them informed…. There is an urgent need to work out regulations for live coverage, especially of terror incidents…. But the government is also to blame for the chaos during the coverage of 26/11. There were no clear guidelines issued either by the defence forces or local authorities to television channels. Basic rules like keeping away journalists and the public from the site of action were not enforced….
… Following 26/11, the news broadcasters association has come up with its own ‘emergency protocol’. Now it should sit down with government representatives to draft an acceptable code of conduct for coverage of emergency situations…. (Jan 16)
The protection bill
THE Karnataka Legislative Assembly and Council are taking up … [the] Karnataka Prohibition of Violence Against and Damage to Property in Medicare Service Institutions Bill. … But … what about medicare personnel when they step out of hospital? Who or what will protect them there?
The bill is indeed important keeping in mind that it will curtail the violent behaviour of patients’ relatives or of a mob that causes inconvenience to other patients in the hospital....
Now if the bill states that the same protective laws be applied to a doctor who is off-duty then it is going to lead to misuse. … [W]hat if a doctor has a small argument with a non-medicare personnel which leads to a scuffle? Does that mean that the other person can be … jail[ed] … and fined … while the doctor gets away with a minor charge? This is not fair….
… [N]o person or property can be protected by merely enacting laws. Effective implementation is required. So [the matter] is finally in the hands of a strong and committed police and an efficient judicial system. If these two bodies are not robust, then culprits will always find ways to bypass the law and wreak havoc on other people’s lives. — (Jan 15)
This they do in spite of the fact that the entire world is aware not only of the hostility between these two countries but also that both of them possess nuclear weapons and a nuclear war in this region is not beyond the realm of possibility. Pakistani officials have felt it necessary to assure visiting foreign dignitaries that these weapons are in safe hands beyond the reach of militants and terrorists.
It may be said that these assurances are needless, for no major power has called upon Pakistan to prove to the world’s satisfaction that its nuclear assets are secure. But it is a fact also that governments and think tanks in North America and Europe have periodically expressed concern that these assets might not be secure.
Some Pakistani observers are inclined to interpret this concern as an indication of the western powers’ unwillingness to countenance a Muslim nation’s possession of nuclear weapons, emanating from their generalised disapproval of Islam both as a doctrine and a guide to conduct. This interpretation may have an element of truth, but it cannot be the main explanation of the western powers’ reservations in this regard.
The apprehension that Pakistan’s nuclear weapons might fall into the wrong hands is based on the hard fact that the ‘wrong hands’ — fanatics, militants, terrorists — do exist in this country in substantial numbers and they are doing their work. It may not be likely that they will come to power through the electoral process or otherwise seize the government. But sceptics worry also that an anti-western coalition of forces — not only the Taliban and the likes of them but also those who are sympathetic to their ideological persuasion and mission — may come to power and feel free to use the weapons under its control to the western powers’ detriment.
According to some reports, there have been indications on the part of an Islamic party that the Islamic parties in the country could be considered trustworthy guardians of its nuclear weapons if they came to power. These assurances may not be entirely credible in view of the fact that these parties have never condemned the death and destruction that the Taliban and other Islamic militants have been visiting upon this country.In my reckoning, however, it is most improbable that any radical group, Islamic or other, will take control of the government in Pakistan in the foreseeable future. Western worries concerning the security of its nuclear assets are therefore misplaced. They are based upon hypothetical calculations of that which is conceivable, not that which is probable.
It may be true that officials concerned in the American administration prepare contingency plans for immobilising, or taking control of, Pakistan’s nuclear weapons in the event that anti-western radicals do take power in that country. That does not mean that the occasion for these plans to be implemented will ever arise. It should be noted also that the disposition of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons and their security are related to their location and the identity of those who know it.
Pakistan embarked upon a nuclear programme around 1973 and openly became a maker of nuclear weapons in May 1998. It may already have built a small number of warheads by this time. Their production is believed to have been an ongoing operation since then.The places where the US and Russia have stored their nuclear weapons are known and their security is ensured by the erection of insurmountable physical barriers and by controlling access to the sites. In Pakistan these weapons are made secure by the maintenance of strict secrecy regarding their locations. It was said at the time that President Ghulam Ishaq Khan personally supervised and directed the country’s nuclear programme. But one cannot say how much of the specifics of production and storage of weapons he knew.
Gen Pervez Musharraf established a National Command and Control Authority, consisting of some 10 members with the president and the prime minister as chairman and vice-chairman respectively, to supervise Pakistan’s nuclear programme in its various facets. But it is unlikely that all of its members know where the weapons are stored.
It is to be noted that the bombs are not stacked anywhere as completed units, their components are assembled and placed in their casings, with coded switches installed, ready to be mounted on delivery vehicles and fired. The production of a bomb consists of several different processes, each of them housed in a location (usually an army unit) known only to those responsible for carrying it out.
Those who manage one of these processes do not know where and how the other processes are going on. The components produced at these various stations are transported to a central place where they are put together. Each bomb has to have a fissile core and non-nuclear materials. The fissile core is stored in a vault by itself, apart from the other materials. This core is to be placed at the bottom of the heap in the bomb, and a coded off-on switch is installed. The weapon is then ready to be placed on a delivery vehicle and sent away. No one other than the army chief and a couple of others knows the changing location of either the components or the finished product.
It follows that a nuclear weapon is not something that a thief can put in his pocket and walk away with, or even load it on a truck and drive off. The weapons cannot really go into the wrong hands unless their custodians, the army chief and some of his top deputies, are willing to let this happen, I cannot think of any reason why the head of the Pakistan Army and his associates would be willing to transfer nuclear weapons to any outsiders. The greater likelihood is that they would want to be the ones who decide when, where and against whom these weapons are to be deployed. In the making of these choices even the president and the prime minister may have to take the back seat.
The writer, professor emeritus at the University of Massachusetts, is a visiting professor at the Lahore School of Economics.
anwars@lahoreschool.edu.pk
Officials in India’s capital have decided that the only way to stem the rising tide of rubbish is to completely outlaw the plastic shopping bag. According to the official note, the “use, storage and sale” of plastic bags of any kind or thickness will be banned.
The new guideline means that customers, shopkeepers, hoteliers and hospital staff face a 100,000 rupee fine and possible jail time for using non-biodegradable bags. Delhi has been steadily filling up with plastic bags in recent years as the economy has boomed and western-style shopping malls have sprung up in the city.
There are no reliable figures on bag use, but environmentalists say more than 10 million are used in the capital every day. To begin with the ban will be lightly enforced, giving people time to switch to jute, cotton, recycled-paper and compostable bags.
Officials said that it would be up to the court to decide on how harsh a sentence an offender might face. “Delhi has a population of 16 million which means we cannot enforce [the new law] overnight,” said JK Dadoo, Delhi’s top environment official.
“But we want people to understand that they will not get away with [using plastic bags]. If they choose to defy the law repeatedly then the court has the measures necessary to fit.”
Civil servants said that punitive measures were needed after a law prohibiting all but the thinnest plastic bags — with sides no thicker than 0.04mm — was ignored. Environmentalists said these bags were too expensive as they were not made in India, and called for an injunction against all polythene.
Green groups welcomed the tough new measures . Shop-owners had long complained that no viable alternatives exist in India for plastic bags. However the authorities appeared to have been swayed by green groups, who pointed out used plastic bags were clogging drains, creating breeding grounds for malaria and dengue fever.
There is ample evidence that prohibition can work: poor countries such as Rwanda, Bhutan, Bangladesh all have bans.
The first targets in Delhi will be the industrial units that manufacture the plastic bags in the capital, which officials say will be closed down.
Bangladesh was the first country to ban plastic bags in 2002 amid worries that they were blocking drains during the monsoon. Taiwan, Australia, Rwanda and Singapore have since moved to ban, discourage or promote reuse of plastic bags, hundreds of billions of which are handed out free each year.
Towns and cities in India, the US and UK have followed. Denmark and Ireland have both experimented with taxing plastic bags. Dublin said the tax, imposed in 2002, had reduced usage by more than 95 per cent.
— The Guardian, London
