Unsavoury visit
THE foreign office seems to have suddenly woken up to the growing Indo-Israel cooperation in defence purchases and technology transfers. After having toyed with the idea of Pakistan’s own recognition of the Jewish state for weeks and tried to stimulate a debate on the issue, the government came out with a statement on the eve of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s high-profile visit to India, saying it was a cause for concern for Pakistan. Indo-Israeli relations have steadily grown over the past 11 years after New Delhi formally recognized Israel. A decade was a long enough time for the Israelis to have cleverly made inroads into India’s political establishment by offering New Delhi advanced technology in the fields of agriculture, defence and information. This has, over time, muted India’s vocal and traditional backing of the Palestinian cause. The timing of Ariel Sharon’s visit and its symbolic importance, as the first-ever by an Israeli prime minister, has caused much controversy in India itself. The opposition left-wing parties have made common cause with Muslims to denounce the visit as a betrayal of the Palestinian cause by New Delhi.
Hardliners within the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party have been gloating over the recent one-billion-dollar defence deal that India has all but finalized with Israel. The purchase includes Phalcon, one of the world’s most advanced early warning radar systems, and has Washington’s backing, which had earlier forced Israel to back out of a similar deal with China. The ultra right-wing governments led by the Likud party in Tel Aviv and the BJP in New Delhi have been courting one another in recent months. Israel has trained India’s Border Security Force personnel notorious for their human rights abuses in Kashmir in exchange for the toning down of India’s backing of the Palestinian cause. Besides, both Likud and the BJP share mythological beliefs as part of their political ideologies: the former claims the whole of Palestine and beyond to be the promised land for the Jews alone and the latter considers India as the land where Hindutva should reign supreme. These similar ideological beliefs have led to a meeting of minds between the two extreme right-wing governments, both of whom are known for their antagonism towards their neighbours for religious as well as political reasons.
Ariel Sharon’s visit comes at a time when Israeli-Palestinian relations are at their lowest ebb since the beginning of the Oslo peace process, and given Tel Aviv’s obdurate stance on the issue, Israel needs all the new friends it can find. In India, it is this very question that is being perceived as a betrayal of the Palestinian cause by New Delhi. Commenting on the Sharon visit, The Hindu newspaper says: “Zionism provides inspiration to communalists in India who believe that an identity based on a common religion or a poisonously mythicized history must form the essence of nationhood. Mr Sharon’s visit might be an event to celebrate for those who adhere to this world-view.” India will now be seen by the Arab world as having abandoned its long-standing support to the Palestinians’ just struggle for an independent state. And it is this, rather than arms deals, that should concern those who believe in peace and oppose hegemonism and expansionism.
Issues at Cancun
THE WTO round of talks that opens in Cancun today is expected to see a lot of fireworks as developing nations take on the might of the developed world, particularly the European Union, in a bid to level the playing field for international trade. The previous round of talks at Doha in 2001 was termed as the development round, as the talks addressed some of the major trading obstacles placed by the rich countries in trading with the poor and developing ones. This theme is expected to be pursued at Cancun. The conventional wisdom that precedes this round of talks is that if the rich countries are able to provide suitable business opportunities for their poor trading partners, the resulting benefit to these countries will mean a reduction in their dependence on aid that is doled out to them each year. The major point of contention at Cancun will be the subsidies given by the European Union and the United States to their farmers and the high tariff walls that have been raised to protect their agriculture sector. The World Bank has estimated that some $300 billion a year is spent by the US and the EU in subsidizing their farmers.
The other issues that need to be tackled include the resistance of the developed world to value-added items as these seem to attract higher tariffs than more basic ones. This is a disincentive for developing countries wishing to move up in the production chain. The absence of financing for developing countries has to be looked into as this gives producers in developed countries an unfair advantage. Finally, developing countries need to start reducing tariffs for intra-developing world trade. Keeping all this in mind, the most important point for the developing countries would be to adopt a common position and stick to it. Such a grouping — with India and China together accounting for 60 per cent of the world’s farmers — is already in place and will give the poor countries a much stronger position to bargain from.
Women councillors’ role
A REPORT says women councillors played a decisive role in the elections of the Kamoki tehsil nazim in Punjab. Under the local government ordinance, a candidate has to secure 51 per cent of the votes to be elected as tehsil nazim and inevitably the unit’s women councillors held centre stage. Candidates were forced to address issues agitated by the women, such as securing funds and facilities for projects. This is a small example of how women councillors can utilize their bargaining position for maximum benefit.
After General Musharraf announced the allocation of 33 per cent seats for women in March 2000, 4,000 women were elected as councillors — a major breakthrough in previously male dominated local bodies. The move, criticized by the right wing, was made in the hope that it would empower women but the course has not run very smoothly for women councillors who continue to complain of harassment and not being taken seriously by their male counterparts. Many in Punjab complain of not even being paid the Rs. 3,000 a month honorarium that is due to them. A change in attitudes has to be brought about in order for women councillors to take up their task of addressing their constituents’ needs and expectations. Perhaps they can take heart from the example of four women councillors in Karachi who in February 2000 asserted themselves and got elected as heads of different committees of the city government to monitor departmental performance.
Far too much is at stake on how successful women councillors and parliamentarians are, for the country as well as for society. There are bread and butter issues on which women representatives can mount pressure, and social reform is not possible without women’s full participation. Scores of women have turned to their councillors on a host of problems, from settling domestic disputes to having their forms attested. Political parties too need to educate their female representatives, many of whom are first-time legislators, on legislative strategies. The numbers in which our women are now present in local bodies and the assemblies is an asset that should not be wasted through indifference or disdain.