Blair’s Mideast initiative

IT IS not quite clear what British Prime Minister Tony Blair is up to. Playing host to Syrian President Bashar al-Asad in London, Mr Blair on Monday announced his intention of holding a conference to which Palestinians would be invited to discuss “progress on reform and to look at how the international community can help”. Other Arab states will also be asked to be present as well as members of the Quartet — the United Nations, the US, the European Union and Russia. Israel has not been mentioned, and its reaction to the proposal has been non-committal. The Palestinians have accepted, and President Yasser Arafat has said he will send a team to London. From Mr Blair’s statement, it appears that the main purpose of the conference will be to discuss reform of the Palestinian Authority. Yet the Palestinians have said they welcome this effort as a “means to relaunch the (Middle East) peace process”. These differing perspectives of the British move need to be clarified.

US President George Bush in a speech during summer had demanded that the Palestinians ditch Yasser Arafat. This faithfully reflected the Israeli line, and now Mr Blair appears to be getting into the “leadership change” act. Of course, he is doing it with greater finesse, but the objective seems to be the same. There may be Palestinian dissatisfaction with their leaders, but this is a Palestinian issue which only the Palestinians can and should decide. Elections are scheduled for January 20 in Gaza and the West Bank, but it seems unlikely they can be held because of the Israeli occupation of the areas. A change is far more desperately needed in Israel, which goes to the polls on January 28, and in Israeli policies of oppression and denial. Yasser Arafat, whatever his faults, has symbolized Palestinian resistance to Israel. Driven into a corner by constant Israeli-US pressure and forced into compromises because of lack of active support from his own Arab constituency, he has yet managed, particularly in the last few gruelling months, to act with realism. He has withstood both repeated Israeli attacks on his headquarters and Palestinian cities that have killed men, women and children and the problems created by suicide attacks against Israelis in retaliation. His security apparatus has all but been demolished by Israel. When the time is right, there is no doubt he will step down. But it is not for Israel or the US or any other country to say when.

The EU recently declared that it attached the highest importance to the adoption by the Quartet of a joint plan with definite timelines for the setting up of a Palestinian state by 2005. This matter is again to be discussed by the four. Mr Blair should have asked for a conference to speed up Palestinian statehood rather than to seek reforms in the Palestinian Authority as a condition for fresh peace initiatives. His proposal may have more to do with the belated western realization that the Bush adventure in Iraq will arouse even greater Arab and Muslim outrage without some progress on the Palestine front. A little assuaging of the sense of desperation in the Middle East is required, and this is what Mr Blair may be wishing to achieve. The Palestinians should be on guard against another ploy designed to divide them and deprive them of their right to independence.

Rumpus in the house

THE boycott of the Sindh assembly’s proceedings by the PPP and MMA following Speaker Muzaffar Shah’s ruling on a point of order serves to highlight the need for all our politicians to uphold democratic traditions. The boycott was not without provocation. The speaker should have been more accommodating. He somehow overlooked the fact that the speaker belongs to the house and not only to those who voted for him. PPP leader Nisar Khuhro had a point when he said that the motion seeking his election as leader of the house too should have been put to the vote. The speaker thought that a second motion was unnecessary when Mr Ali Mohammad Mahar had already proved his majority. Both cited previous traditions in support of their contentions, and when Shah rejected Mr Khuhro’s point of order, the opposition walked out.

Heavens would not have fallen if the point of order had been admitted and, possibly, talked out. For its part, the opposition should have stayed on in spite of what to them appeared to be the speaker’s partisan attitude. A boycott is the easiest thing to resort to; on the other hand, it takes patience, maturity and political acumen to put forward one’s point of view effectively. After all, an assembly is a forum for the ventilation of grievances. A walkout isn’t exactly the best way of doing this. This also brings us to the question of gross violation of rules and proprieties witnessed during the election to the office of deputy speaker. Also disgraceful was the manner in which a Haqiqi MPA was arrested and vehicles carrying some MPAs searched. The administration behaved outrageously and owes an explanation. Instead of showing respect to the people’s representatives, the law enforcement agencies behaved in a manner that smacked of a police state. The Sindh assembly should consider setting up a committee consisting of members from both sides of the house to fix guilt and ensure against a repetition of such outrageous occurrences.

Badami Bagh accident

TUESDAY’s train accident near Lahore’s Badami Bagh railway station, which claimed two lives and injured 10, was probably the result of negligence and operational lapses. These factors have led to many such mishaps in the past. A train coming from Narowal rammed into the rear of a stationary one, causing the derailment. The standing train had been halted some distance away from the station and, according to a railway spokesman, was waiting for clearance to move on. The area residents, however, claimed that trains coming from branch lines were frequently stopped at the place to unload goods. The railway authorities were quick to pin the blame on the driver of the Narowal train, pointing out that he remained on the same track despite being signalled not to move ahead. The driver, however, has questioned the rationale of allowing his train to leave the Shahdara railway station if the track was not clear. Besides, he has cited poor visibility for his failure to see the standing train, emphasizing that the damage would have been much greater had he not applied the brakes.

While only a thorough inquiry can fix responsibility, both criminal negligence and an operational mix-up cannot be ruled out. Although the PR is now a safer mode of transportation than before, accidents continue to occur on a lesser scale. A couple of months ago, the Quetta Express derailed near Sibi, resulting in the death of eight passengers and injuries to many others. Last year, a train disaster took place near Kotri owing to a technical fault in one of the bogies. It claimed eight lives and injured scores of others. Two passengers died on the spot and 28 others received injuries when the Multan-bound Thal Express went off the track near Kot Addu in June last year. Except for the Quetta Express incident, attributed to sabotage, neglect of safety rules and technical and infrastructure shortcomings are implicated. Following Tuesday’s incident, closer attention must be paid to these particular aspects in order to improve safety.