Relief & rehabilitation

THE agony of the living in Azad Kashmir, the NWFP and elsewhere in the north continues. They are millions in number. The ordeal of those still trapped under the debris is indescribable. It could take days to clear it to pull them out — dead or alive. Some may have been buried without being hurt, but many others are injured and stuck, may be a limb trapped or crushed under tons of concrete. Television has shown the faces of the survivors and of those waiting for news of their loved ones who are still missing. Some people — men, women and children — are not only alive; they can see through a crack or a hole large enough for them to get some water and bits of food but still unable to come out because there is no equipment to free them. Heavy earth-moving machinery has not reached the ravaged areas yet. Even in normal times, given the mountainous nature of the terrain, heavy machinery takes time to go up the hills along narrow and winding roads. Doing so in the post-quake period — roads blocked by boulders, mud and earthfills — is as difficult a task as can be imagined.

Hope for the trapped is fading because of rain and the cold weather. Taking relief to the affected people has now become a major issue both as a reality and as a talking point. There is no dearth of relief goods. An immense amount of supplies has been collected by the people of Pakistan themselves — bedding, food, medicines, water — and more is on the way. But the real problem is getting the supply to the needy. Helicopters lent by friendly countries have added to Pakistan’s own fleet of choppers, but they are still short in number given the immensity of the task involved. The lack of water, the absence of toilets and the unburied bodies have raised the possibility of epidemics. Foreign aid agencies have already warned Pakistan of this danger.

One has seen a heart-warming display of unity and spirit of sacrifice in the wake of the quake and the mass misery in the north. But the opposition now seems to be resuming its role as opposition — perhaps a bit too early — as is evident from the speeches in the National Assembly. Profiteers have resumed their business, and the prices of tents and cloth for shrouds have gone up. This is not to deny the extremely admirable work done by the people of this country, political parties and different NGOs in collecting relief goods and rushing the supplies on their own. But this is basically a humanitarian effort meant to save lives and lessen misery. The greater task is the rehabilitation of the homeless. People have lost their homes, businesses and shops and all they had. The aid now pouring in may give them food and shelter for a while, but what they need is a return to at least a semmblance of normal life. Towns like Muzaffarabad, Balakot, and Bagh, which have been completely destroyed, will need a long-term housing and rehabilitation plan that should include giving money to the affected to re-start businesses and shops and to gain the confidence to pick up the thread of life. In brief, they must be made to stand on their own feet. Hurricanes and earthquakes are natural phenomena beyond human control. But what we humans can do is to be prepared for them so as to save lives and lessen the survivors’ miseries.

UN not a US tool

THE Group of 77 (representing 132 developing countries) and China have taken strong exception to the UN secretary-general’s chief of staff’s appearance before the US Congress to brief the house international relations committee about the recent UN summit. The Group of 77’s contention is — and quite rightly so — that the staff of the UN Secretariat is expected to be politically neutral and is answerable only to the organization and not to any particular member state. It is not surprising that the Third World countries have not been too pleased with the move. The secretary-general’s chief of staff, Mark Brown, is also known to have been critical of some member states. As it is, there is a general impression that the United States as the largest contributor (and also defaulter when it holds back its dues) to the budget of the world body has been attempting to control it and its agencies. It has blatantly used its economic power to browbeat these organizations into making them toe its line. The US even pulled out of Unesco when the Reagan administration found its director-general Amadou-Mahtar M’Bow of Senegal too independent for its liking.

What was previously a strategy of economic arm-twisting has now emerged as a hamhanded approach of bullying the UN to provide the justification for America’s hegemonistic policies in world affairs. It is now widely known that President George Bush attempted to secure the UN’s backing for invading Iraq in 2003 and went ahead unilaterally when he failed to do so. Now a book by a UN arms inspector in Iraq, Scott Ritter, discloses how the US tried to use UNSCOM to bring about regime change in Baghdad in the nineties. Given this record, it is understandable that the developing countries which have been at the receiving end of American imperialistic policies should want to keep a check on the United Nations to prevent it from acting as a tool for the Pentagon. Hence even the move by a secretariat staff member to approach the US government directly has caused concern. The Group of 77 has done well by making its stand clear. It has done better by enlisting the support of China on this issue.

Keeping a check on profiteers

WHILE the response to Saturday’s earthquake in Azad Kashmir and the NWFP has been nothing short of phenomenal, with government and private organizations and citizens making significant contributions to the relief effort, it is distressing to note that certain segments are exploiting the situation for their own ends. It is shocking to read reports about those who are making a killing on the sale of tents and blankets by more or less doubling the prices of items that are urgently needed by the quake victims. Apparently, they are not touched by the tragic images on television screens of homeless men, women and children who have lost their homes and their near and dear ones and now face rain and cold weather as they wait, without shelter, for relief to arrive. With winter just round the corner, it is imperative that they are provided with tents and blankets to protect them from inclement weather conditions.

Equally appalling is the fact that transporters, citing the increase in the cost of diesel and the time taken in negotiating badly battered roads after the quake, have raised their prices for taking relief goods upcountry. There has also been news of bus fares being increased on certain northern routes as a result of the huge rush of anxious people wanting to reach their families trapped in the quake zone. There is no doubt that the prices of goods and services are determined by demand — and in this case, the demand for tents, blankets, food and medicines is extremely high. But then, the circumstances are such that there is no justification for the price increases of the sort being witnessed. The goal is to get speedy relief to millions of quake victims in the north. The government would do well to keep a strict watch on the profiteers and prevent them from cashing in on the dire needs of the victims.

Bridging the Turkey-EU divide

THE accession talks for Turkish membership to the EU that began last Monday have a significance that goes far beyond the borders of Europe. Turkey did not come this far without wrenching delays and disappointments. Soon after the European Economic Community was formed in 1957, it was among the first countries to apply for associated membership of the EEC in 1959 which it obtained in 1963. It applied again for full membership in 1987 but was officially recognized as a candidate after 12 years.

Turkey had to wait another six years before membership negotiations started this October. All of this doesn’t sound a positive note for membership prospects.

However, all that is behind us, but what lies ahead? After a further 10 years of negotiations to harmonize social, economic and legal systems and procedures between Turkey and the EU, any member can still veto its entry. And if Austria’s last-minute spanner in the works to extract concessions for Croatia is any indication, it is likely that there will be other obstacles along the way.

So Turkey will continue to remain on tenterhooks. But what would it mean for the credibility of the EU if Turkey’s membership is seen still facing additional handicaps and discriminatory treatment even after 10 years’ of arduous and painful negotiations? Specially, when it is known that some others who became members earlier were less qualified than Turkey at the time of their membership?

It has been said that Turkey’s historical background has been creating ambivalence in the minds of some segments of the EU population. But history has also divided European nations. Still, the promotion of a common vision and shared interests under the EU umbrella has been powerful enough to wash away past bitterness. The European project, which its founding fathers launched with Treaty of Rome in 1957, has achieved great success as it has promoted the time-tested wisdom of ‘common interest’ as a means of ensuring peace among historic enemies, and Europe has seen its longest period of peace and rising prosperity since then. So why is this principle not applied to Turkey?

That European project had successfully built bridges across racial, linguistic and cultural divides among European nations as also across the bitter legacies of many wars. Why should the secular EU stop its successful project of building bridges now that it has come up against a religious divide? The principal criteria for EU membership include democracy, rule of law, protection of human rights including that of minorities and a market economy. These are good values for Turkey with or without the EU. And the incentive of membership has already worked as Turkey has been deemed by the EU to have made sufficient progress in reforms towards democracy, human rights and economy and increasing compatibility with European systems.

Another 10 years of working with the EU would bring Turkey increased trade and investment flows and other assistance to improve its human and physical capital and become a much bigger asset to Europe than many of its other members. Turkey would emerge as a large democratic country, a competitive economy, governed by rule of law and upholding equal rights for all including minorities.

These will help in the flowering of the potential of her human resources and turning them into competitive producers of the Union. Given Turkey’s strategic location, how can Europe afford to ignore such an economic powerhouse with its strategic links to the Middle Eastern and Central Asian markets?

That may be true, but critics argue that many in the EU have been wary of opening doors to a predominantly Muslim country, and consequently, some of their government leaders have been discovering new reasons to delay or derail the process. Although there is a hard core of those who may not want to move away from past prejudices most of those who have expressed reservations on Turkish entry seem to have done so out of the fear of the unknown and concerns for unemployment rather than out of cultural and religious prejudice.

The research and surveys conducted subsequent to the French and Dutch referendums have also confirmed that the enlargement of Europe in general and the Turkish candidacy in particular are not the key factors behind the rejection of the European constitution treaty. It is pertinent to recall that the writings of former British foreign secretary, the late Robin Cook, who also attributed negative feelings about the European constitution in some countries to the poor work of European politicians in addressing peoples’ economic concerns and uncertainties.

About half the European population is already supportive of Turkey’s entry into EU as they see a vast potential economic market for growth and prosperity. With Turkey the EU with a population of 550 million in 2015 would become the third largest market after China and India. Also with Turkey joining its ranks, it would become a younger organization. Facing demographic challenges, millions of young workers from Turkey would be needed to run trade, industry and services in Europe.

After another 10 years of progress, would EU refuse to embrace all these assets and say ‘no’ to Turkey to please religious prejudices? Or would its politicians do a better job of addressing the concerns of their people and still win global status for EU? And if all this fails to materialize, it becomes relevant to ask why Turkey, with its strong assets, could accept anything less than full and equal treatment?

But why should all this matter to anyone outside Europe? Because the debate that has been raging for years about the pros and cons of Turkey’s membership, has made it increasingly clear to even secular Muslims that despite Turkey’s economic, and political merits, it is the religion of its people that is holding Turkey back from receiving fair treatment. And this, despite the fact that the state of Turkey has been more secular for over 80 years than many of the existing member states of the EU.

Many from Asia to America would also be watching to see if the ‘European model’ for democracy and human rights works better than some other models in the market. For a number of reasons, the internal power structure of civil society institutions in many of these countries is weak. What is good about the EU model is that it builds upon a ‘common interest’ to override differences of race, language, culture, religion and thus even the bitter legacies of wars and bloodshed are forgotten. And just as important, this model promotes common interests and values amongst people — rather then just governments — which is what makes it so binding and irreversible.

Many are already favourably comparing the European model to the US model of ‘shock and awe’ to introduce democracy and human rights, which has further fuelled the fires of anger and extremism, besides adding to the misery of millions of people.

As the EU and Turkey work on the negotiations, many in the outside world, particularly in Muslim majority countries, will be watching and wishing them success. The success of the European model would help promote a peaceful transition to democracy in many of their societies. Peace and prosperity in these countries cannot be separated from global peace as we can neither live in isolation of nor in conflict with one another across civilizations.

For quite some time now, we have been hearing talk about the clash of civilizations. It is good to know that there are some who want to build bridges across civilizations and work together to promote a common vision for the common interest of all. But it is too early to tell if such a European model would actually emerge.

Email: smshah@alum.mit.edu