A major setback

THE world, especially the developing world, has been extremely concerned, at least since the Doha round of July 2003, over the way the global trade talks had progressed. Now that these talks have been suspended after the failure of the ‘Big six’ in Geneva on Monday to break the continuing deadlock over issues relating to farm subsidies (US), import tariffs (EU) and market access for industrial goods and services (developing countries), this concern has intensified. Most developing countries in anticipation of a more liberal access to the rich markets and a level playing field for their farm produce in the world market had over the years vastly opened up their own markets to the capital goods and services from the developed countries. Still after the collapse of the Geneva talks and their suspension for the time being, some of the representatives of the developed world had accused the developing countries of wanting rich markets opened without opening theirs.

On the other hand, there was this feeling among many concerned watchers that the key to moving forward was a narrowing of the differences over agricultural market access, with the EU required to further improve its offer on tariff reductions and the US required to upgrade its proposal for reforming its domestic firm price support system. But neither was forthcoming. In fact, the US has accused the EU, after the meeting, of not being interested in providing anyone, including the United States, additional access into its market which it said smacked of pure protection. The EU, has countered, saying that the US had no intention of making any concessions that would affect their own farmers. While these two rich groups fought it out over farm subsidies and tariffs, the developing countries could only look on, feeling sidelined and frustrated. It is clear that the developing countries cannot open up their markets any further unless the developed countries resolve differences among themselves and, at the same time, lift all barriers against imports from developing countries and also reduce farm subsidies to facilitate a level playing field for farm exports from the developing world.

The stated goal of the World Trade Organisation is to facilitate freer trade flows aimed at accelerating economic growth all around which in turn is expected to result in poverty reduction the world over. But since its establishment, the WTO seems to have worked basically as a lobbyist for the developed world without securing for the poorer countries getting them any significant access into the former’s market. In the meantime, the organization has also failed to help reconcile the competing farm interests of the US and the EU. The failure of the WTO to achieve its stated objective and the continued adherence of the developed countries to the outdated concept of protectionism seem to have made it almost impossible to achieve any significant reduction in world-wide poverty. Pakistan has already opened up its market to a significant extent and therefore stands to suffer more in view of the continued failure of the WTO members to reach a consensus on more liberal trade flows. However, since we are actively involved in a number of bilateral and regional arrangements and since we propose to boost our exports through special arrangements with trading partners perhaps we could lessen our pain. Still, Pakistan needs to take a second look at its relations with the WTO in consultation with the private sector.

Disturbing trend

THE message inherent in President Pervez Musharraf’s assertion in Karachi on Wednesday is that a change at the top provincial or federal executive level will not be allowed. He made this clear while presiding over a meeting of the ruling coalition’s MPAs, among them legislators opposed to the Sindh chief minister’s policies, nazims and the Sindh governor. For many, this rests any hopes pinned on the president, expecting him to allow the current political dispensation to take its natural, democratic course. Simultaneously, voices emanating from Islamabad — those of the Inter-Services Public Relations head and the state minister for information — struck a similar note. The two officials cautiously dismissed the contents of the letter written by a number of intellectuals and retired generals, asking the president to separate the offices of the head of state and the army chief. Earlier, the Punjab chief minister had said that the ruling PML would re-elect the president in uniform, ‘not once but twice’. Childish as it may sound, it has left many wondering and asking why stop at ‘twice’? The aggressive, sanctimonious line and tone adopted by the government and the president leave no room as to the impartiality of the latter, especially when seen in the context of the revamped political dispensation born out of the 1999 military take-over. The king’s party is here to stay — at least for now.

The big game being played out today bears an uncanny resemblance with the politics of the 1960s, when Field Marshal Ayub Khan had set up the Convention Muslim League whose pivot of power was he along with the men in khakis, and not popular support. When it came to the crunch in 1969, the League crumbled like a sand castle. In the 1980s General Zia came up with a different strategy to manipulate a system of his own creation, which also came crashing down with his death in an air crash. The lesson of our chequered political history is that no political system can survive unless it is allowed to strike democratic roots, with the genuine will of the people as the real force behind it.

Organ sale racket

WHILE our legislators delay the passage of an organ donation bill that has been lying with them for years, illegal kidney sales in the country are acquiring alarming proportions. The media attention so far has been concentrated on those poverty-stricken sections of society who often sell their kidneys for temporary relief from monetary distress including mounting debts. But with no checks on the organ trade, a far more dangerous trend is developing — the forcible removal of kidneys by doctors or their extraction without the patient’s knowledge. The report in this paper of two brothers who worked at a brick kiln in Lahore is a case in point. When one of them developed abdominal pain, he was taken to a hospital and given an injection that rendered him unconscious. Later, he came to know that his kidney had been removed and sold to an Arab national for a million rupees handed over to the kiln owner’s clerk. His brother had a similar experience when he was forcibly taken to a hospital where his kidney was removed.

Each year, about 10,000 renal patients in Pakistan need kidney transplants. While sometimes close relatives of a lucky few are willing to donate a kidney for transplant, a cadaver donation law could give a new lease of life to many more. Unfortunately, the absence of this is turning Pakistan into a haven for overseas patients in need of kidney transplants. Poverty and the presence of unscrupulous elements have aggravated the situation to a point where a large number of people are ready to sell their kidney in return for just a fraction of the money offered by a rich patient. The rest of the proceeds find their way into the pockets of the doctors or middlemen involved in this racket. A comprehensive law on organ donation and its implementation is absolutely necessary to contain this reprehensible trade in human organs.

Friday feature: The essence of Islam

IT has become a fashion in some quarters to blame the religion of Islam for any act of violence or terrorism in which some Muslims are involved. This, of course, could be the most inappropriate way of judging the merits and true spirit of a religion.

No Muslim has ever blamed Christianity for the Holocaust or for the most destructive bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki or for the indiscriminate killing of Iraqis and of Muslims in Kosovo and Afghanistan.

The appropriate way of judging the true spirit of a religion could be to have a look at its scripture and at what its main proponent and protagonist said and did and not at what some of its followers now say or do. If we have a look at the Holy Quran, the scripture and the mainspring of Islam, it will be evident that it treats the human beings as the vicegerents of Allah on earth (2:30) who has for that reason favoured them above most of His creation (17:70).

It provides necessary guidance, in several ways, to the human beings to help them develop and attain the level that can enable them to discharge their obligations as vicegerents of Allah on earth in a befitting manner (2:185)(4:174). It specifically tells the human beings that they will be able to live in peace and tranquillity and survive in the terrestrial environment only if they abide by the principles of balance, the principles on which the whole system of the Universe is structured and functioning. It categorically commands them not to disturb the balance (55:8) and cites the examples of those who disturbed the balance and the end they met with (10:95).

It highlights the importance of knowledge and exhorts the believers to go on acquiring it from cradle to grave if they have to abide by the true spirit of the Quranic verses which say “O Lord give me more of knowledge” (20:114), “you will surely come up from stage to stage” (84:19) and “excel in all that is good” (2:148) implying emphasis on continuous march towards enlightenment. At the same time it cautions the human beings that the favours conferred on them are not just doles and gifts but they have to account for the use they have made thereof and will be duly requited for it (7:6).

About the Muslims, the Quran specifically says “thus you are an Ummah justly balanced, that you might be witnesses over the nations and the Messenger a witness over you” (2:143). This verse is being understood in some quarters as meaning that the Muslims are a balanced people by birth or just because they happen to be Muslims. This is not what the verse actually conveys.

In fact, what the verse implies is that since balance is one of the keynotes of the Quranic teachings, the Muslims are expected to abide by its norms in letter and spirit, wherever possible, in their activities, behaviour, relations and dealings with others. Rather they should abide by such norms to an extent that they serve as models for others. Only then they will be entitled to act as witnesses over others. In the sphere of human activities, the maintenance of balance would mean maintenance of requisite degree of equilibrium, observance of the norms of moderation, doing of justice, provision of equal opportunities where possible, avoidance of transgression and commission of excesses and adherence to the principle of golden mean where possible.

The Quran specifically exhorts us to be moderate in peace (31:19) which not only implies moderation in walking but in every walk of life or activity. Even in the matter of eating, the verse which says eat and drink also says not to exceed the limits (7:31). The Quran enjoins us not to commit excesses (5:87) and to avoid transgression (7:55). It provides a clear pointer to the need for the provision of equal opportunities where possible (49:13) and enjoins us to be just and fair in all dealings with others (5:8)(4:135).

That’s why commenting on the contribution of Islam some of the prominent intellectuals of the West have said: “the nobility and broad tolerance of this religion which accepted all the real religions of the world as God-inspired will always be a glorious heritage for mankind.” “No other society has such a record of success in uniting in an equality of status, of opportunity, and of endeavour, so many and so various races of humanity” (“Whither Islam”, Prof Gibbs).

“For five centuries (7000-1200 AD) Islam led the world in power, order and extent of government, in refinement of manners, in standards of living, in human legislation and religious tolerance, scholarship, science and philosophy” (“Civilisation Vol. II”, Will Durant).

The ideal of freedom for all human beings, of human brotherhood, of the equality of men before law, of democratic government by consultation and universal suffrage, the ideals that inspired the French revolution and the declaration of rights, that guided the framing of the American constitution and influenced the struggle for independence in the Latin American states were not the invention of the West. They find their ultimate inspiration and source in the Holy Quran” (“Making of Humanity”, Prof. Brifault).

How can a religion that lays so much emphasis on observance of the principles of balance and moderation and has been admired for these characteristics by independent observers can be said to be breeding extremism, terrorism and violence, all being manifest symptoms of imbalance. Unfortunately, all those in the West who level such accusations against Islam are the least aware of the fact that the actual reason for such acts is not the religious bias or teachings but the impression among the Muslims in general that they are being treated unjustly and are discriminated against on account of their religion.

This impression is amply justified by the happenings in Palestine, Iraq, Kashmir, Afghanistan and Kosovo and the incidents of discrimination regularly taking place in some countries of the West. That’s why some of the Muslims do not mind even going to the extent of undermining the true spirit of their religion by taking recourse to extreme measures when they have no hope of getting justice. History tells us that closure of the doors of justice opens the doors to unjust and unethical ways. And that it may be possible to defeat the Muslims but it could be impossible to defeat the Muslim faith which has unlimited vitality and endeavouring power.

The solution to the whole problem, therefore, lies in treating its cause and not the symptoms, in removing the impression of injustice from the minds of the Muslims through some concrete measures and not in fighting their religion and above all in developing and promoting understanding between the westerners and the Muslims on the basis of some common terms and not in creating an environment of confrontation, mistrust and hate between them.

In this connection the Quranic verse telling the Prophet “Say O people of the Book (the followers of other scriptures) come to common terms as between us and you that we worship none but Allah, that we associate no partner with Him, that we raise not amongst ourselves lords and partners other than Allah” (3:64) could be the best guide.

The above verse, inter alia, emphasises the need for harmonising inter-faith relations. When the Romans, who were Christians, were defeated by the Persians, the Muslims of Makkah got very disappointed. The idolators started joking with them that in the same way in which the Persians defeated the believers in the Unity of Allah they too will defeat the Muslims if they fought with them. Meanwhile, a few verses of the Quran were revealed which predicted that very soon the Romans will emerge as victors and on that day the Muslims will rejoice (30:3,4). And the Romans did emerge as victors in a few years. This shows, how just one element of common terms can create sympathy and goodwill among people towards each other.

Dancing with dogma

TONY BLAIR was at it again on Wednesday — setting out the case for opening up public services to private providers, in one of a series of grand, setpiece speeches that he is said to have penned himself. Ditching dogma about the public-private boundary in favour of support for what works best has been Mr Blair’s defining rhetorical doctrine. But this week has seen alarming signs that in health, the private sector is now being pushed with a fervour looks distinctly ideological.

On Tuesday the health select committee reported on the new independent treatment centres, specialising in fixing hips and cataracts. Such operations always had long waits and the government advanced the centres as boosting capacity and, by taking on the monopoly of NHS specialists, improving value for money. But the implementation does not tally with these goals. The centres are not just to be placed in areas short of resources; indeed, some are under-utilised and some leave nearby NHS centres running at less than full pelt.

If driving down costs was the idea, a level playing field should surely have been used to ensure work was awarded to wherever it could be done most efficiently. Instead, the market was rigged in favour of private operators who — unlike public ones — got paid for a guaranteed number of operations, whether they carry them out or not.

Consequently, the centres could only justify their costs by galvanising the NHS to improve. But no serious work seems to have been done on whether this is happening. The committee rightly called for a proper audit of costs and benefits before the taxpayer commits to funding a further wave of centres. Sadly, such hard-headed thinking is at odds with the political desire to keep the reform juggernaut motoring onwards at all costs.

On Wednesday, the prime minister said the state could often be a commissioner, rather than a provider, of public services. But last month, an advert attracting private bids for NHS management contracts was withdrawn when its description proved incendiary.

— The Guardian, London