|
| March 29, 2008 | Saturday | Rabi-ul-Awwal 20, 1429 |
A controversial visit
England’s offer
Search for a prime minister
OTHER VOICES - Bangladesh Press
International rating agencies like Standard & Poor’s are not inclined to upgrade the current outlook unless Pakistan takes tough fiscal measures to rectify imbalances. Even the hope of an early return to political stability after the formation of a coalition government has failed to change the negative international outlook on Pakistan’s economy because of growing fiscal imbalances. Though foreign investment is still maintaining pace and workers’ remittances are going up, the economy remains in dire need of improved inflows of foreign money. Thus it would be difficult for the ruling coalition to turn a deaf ear to multilateral donors because of our heavy reliance on foreign assistance and loans for meeting foreign exchange requirements.
THE search for a new Pakistani prime minister may have appeared needlessly long and difficult to people and politicians anxious to turn a new page in the country’s troubled history, but the exercise has been even more difficult, acrimonious and painfully long in Belgium, a stable, well-established democracy and one of the European Union’s six founding nations.
But the question remains: could the government further transfer the differential in domestic and international fuel and food prices to consumers in the immediate future? That seems rather difficult for the time being even if the World Bank helps ensure targeted, smart subsidies for the poor. The recent 16 per cent hike in domestic oil prices and ten per cent increase in the power tariff have already been a bit too much for low-income groups and those on the lower rungs of the economic ladder.
A further rise in food and energy prices would push a larger number of the rural and urban population below the poverty line — in fact towards starvation.
WITH the judicial crisis resulting from the Nov 3 emergency not yet over, there is considerable validity in the argument of those who have felt uncomfortable with Thursday’s meeting between Asif Ali Zardari and some of the deposed judges. True, the judges — including Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry — visited Mr Zardari ostensibly to condole with him on the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. But could this not have been done more discreetly, if they had not already communicated their condolences? At a time when the detained judges have been released on the orders of Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani, and a parliamentary resolution for their restoration is awaited, such a visit sends the wrong message. It could be seen by some as an attempt by the judges to ingratiate themselves with a politician whose influence over parliament could restore them to their former glory. Still others may regard it as a show of solidarity against President Musharraf by the government and a judiciary that is widely expected to make a comeback. Another question may also rankle in some minds. Would such terms of cordiality have a bearing on the future of the National Reconciliation Ordinance that has benefited Mr Zardari but that previously Mr Chaudhry, as chief justice, had described as going against the public interest? Here Mr Zardari needs to take a leaf out of PML-N chief Nawaz Sharif’s book. Mr Sharif has communicated that he will take a principled stand and not meet the deposed chief justice as cases against him might one day come under Mr Chaudhry’s scrutiny.
The deposed judges are held in high esteem for rejecting President Musharraf’s unconstitutional Nov 3 emergency and refusing to take oath under the PCO. They have braved months of confinement for their principled stand which gave people reason to hope that the traditional nexus between the courts and military governments had finally been severed. However, they must take a few more steps now. For it is not only military governments that have the power to force their will on institutions of the state; civilian governments, even though clad in the garb of democracy, are capable of doing much the same. The onus is then on members of the judiciary to be honest and above board and to be seen to be so. In that context they must also refrain from commenting on politics or mingling with politicians in any way that could taint their reputation. The pre-November judiciary had demonstrated that this was possible. It is to be hoped that its members will not disappoint the people now.
THE Pakistan Cricket Board must be firm and not abandon its stand on not playing Test matches at neutral venues. Both politics and money are there in the offer by the England and Wales Cricket Board to host the Pakistan-Australia series. The PCB is now its own boss, for at the moment there is hardly any effective government that could put its foot down and ask the PCB not to budge. Agreeing to the series in a third country will send a loud and clear message to the world that the government is unable to make the country safe for its people and tourists. The Australians had initially offered to play all the Tests in Lahore, but the twin blasts on the same day earlier this month scuttled the series. The Sydney Morning Herald’s jibe at Wasim Akram’s anxiety about his family’s safety in Lahore shows how the cricket-playing nations — or perhaps the world at large — looks at the law and order situation in Pakistan.
Holding the series in England will mean the PCB will lose millions in TV advertising and ticket sales. Mindful of this, the ECB has offered $10m to the PCB for every Test. But that is not the whole truth, for the ECB wants its own cut. One may also add, what about Pakistani fans, for it is they who will be the real losers? A Pakistan-Australia series in England may not attract that big a crowd. The last time Pakistan played in Colombo and Sharjah there were empty stands, though it could be argued that desis in the UK may respond more enthusiastically than those in the UAE because British Pakistanis get less of a taste of their country of origin. Remember that Australia did not call off the 2005 Ashes series despite the two blasts in London. Australia should rethink the issue. They can perhaps reschedule their visit and not disappoint their Pakistani fans who have always admired the team from down under for a style all their own. Let them not give the terrorist a sense of victory.
In the end, it took Pakistan’s victorious political parties only about six weeks to agree on nominating PPP stalwart Yousuf Raza Gilani as their candidate for the prime minister’s office. Here in Belgium, in what analysts say is a record for the country, it has taken bickering politicians nine months to agree on the appointment of Flemish Christian Democrat Yves Leterme as head of a new Belgian government.
Leterme took the oath of office from King Albert II on March 20, in a ceremony at the royal palace. National elections were held last June when Leterme’s party emerged as the big winner. But attempts at forming a coalition government last year were unsuccessful as Leterme failed to muster enough support from other parties and politicians.
“Our country, Belgium, remains a country where it is good to live and which has plenty of things of which we can be proud,” Leterme, 47, told parliament. But, he pointed out, the kingdom can “only hope to have a prosperous future if it is ready for change”.
Belgians are clearly relieved at getting a new prime minister. But there is also general acknowledgment that Leterme will have a tough time running a country where linguistic and regional differences continue to sharply divide people.
Five parties make up the new coalition. Three of them are French-speaking formations and two are from Flanders. Most analysts believe the current team — which is largely the same as the interim government — lacks cohesion and may not last more than a year.
According to a recent opinion poll, 63 per cent of Belgians do not have confidence in the new government. More than half of those questioned believe it will collapse by mid-2008.
Belgium is not new to political deadlock and controversy but the latest political crisis is unprecedented.
For one, the political stalemate lasted for almost nine months, making the country a bit of a joke among other European states, even some like Italy which are also known for unstable governments.
Most damagingly for Belgium’s future harmony, the crisis also triggered an unexpected degree of acrimony between the country’s Dutch- and French-speaking populations. For a moment last year it seemed like the country was headed for a ‘praline divorce’ between its two parts.
As King Albert II turned to a succession of senior politicians including two-term Prime Minister Jean-Luc Dehaene to broker a deal, the media was full of scenarios for what would have been the first break-up of a western European state since the Second World War.
A Het Laatste Nieuws newspaper poll in September showed 46 per cent of the Flemish favouring independence, and a La Libre Belgique survey in August found only 29 per cent of Belgians “certain” that the country will still be around in 2017.
Although that doomsday scenario has been averted, linguistic hostilities between Dutch- and French-speaking Belgians run deep. The friction, not surprisingly, is about money but also the power and prestige it bestows.
Dutch-speakers make up about 60 per cent of Belgium’s 10.5 million population. They live predominantly in Flanders, once the poorer half of Belgium but now one of the most dynamic corners of western Europe. Flanders is home to Belgium’s top companies and the Antwerp port, Europe’s second largest.
The Francophones — living mainly in Wallonia and the officially bilingual Brussels capital region — make up almost 40 per cent of the country’s population.
The region was once the most prosperous in Belgium but its main industries, coal and textile, are now in decline. Belgium also has a small German-speaking minority. Leterme fuelled inter-communal anger in 2006 by suggesting that French speakers were not capable of learning Dutch.
The current crisis was primarily about how much federal power should be devolved to the regions, with parties in Flanders demanding more control over regional affairs.
The government’s priority task is therefore to reach agreement on devolving powers to the regions. It is going to be difficult. Leterme’s party favours more devolution for the Dutch-speaking regions but the move is strongly resisted by the French-speaking groups.
The new government agenda, which is still to be approved, therefore leaves out references to constitutional reform, concentrating instead on immigration, tax cuts and pension benefits where there is widespread agreement.
The parties are committed to deeper reform in the future. The programme also includes promises of higher pensions and lower taxes.
Public frustration over the political deadlock had come to the fore in recent months. In December, thousands of trade unionists took to the streets in Brussels, complaining about the political stalemate and rising food and fuel prices.
The European Commission warned that the political paralysis was beginning to affect Belgium’s economy. Though a successful leader in Flanders, Leterme will need to try hard to widen his appeal.
A recent opinion poll by La Libre Belgique showed that 92 per cent of Walloons did not trust Leterme as prime minister, while 54 per cent in Flanders felt the same.
Just like his counterpart in Pakistan, Leterme will have to prove he can reconcile bickering political factions, calm tensions and deliver results. This is not an easy task whether you’re in charge of a stable, prosperous and peaceful western democracy, or responsible for consolidating democracy and fighting extremism after nine years of army rule.
The writer is Dawn’s correspondent in Brussels.
Foreign envoys draw ire
Prothom Alo
THE government’s veiled criticism last week of foreign diplomats for their “interference” in the internal affairs of Bangladesh has attracted a great deal of attention. The issue received wide media coverage with comments from analysts.
“There has been a renewed perceptible tendency on the part of some foreign diplomats to make remarks in public that a section of the media has perceived to be interference in Bangladesh’s internal affairs,” the foreign affairs ministry said on March 20. Although it was a government statement, part of it was attributed to media perception. We hope the diplomats understand why.
Foreign affairs adviser Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury described the media as the country’s parliament, adding that it had brought the issue to public attention. The adviser was asked if the statement had been issued in the wake of one diplomat’s dialogue with political parties ahead of year-end elections. Not so, said Iftekhar.
If the government strongly feels that one or two diplomats interfered in the internal politics of Bangladesh, we think the statement must be more specific. Foreign diplomats and representatives of donor agencies have long been involved in Bangladesh’s political affairs.
In the chaotic years leading to January 2007, news briefings after talks with political parties had become almost routine. At the same time, we noticed commotion in political circles if some remarks by foreign diplomats went against the political parties.
Donor agencies are part of our development efforts and have the right to keep tabs on the situation in Bangladesh. But there is a clear dividing line between knowing about and interfering in the country’s internal affairs. — (March 27)
Rice from India
Samokal
THE deadlock over rice imports from India through the private sector seems to be easing. Hundreds of rice trucks started rolling in from across the border on Tuesday, apparently calming tensions among businessmen and consumers.
We believe the shipments will have a positive impact on the essential commodities market. Rice imports ran into a roadblock because of red tape and dithering on the part of India.
The reason Bangladesh prefers India to other countries when it comes to rice imports is that India is our nearest neighbour, meaning transport costs are low. The delay in the arrival of shipments through the private sector was unexpected, but the latest news brought a sigh of relief to those who rely on the staple.
As the food crisis loomed over much of the world, many countries put the brakes on rice exports to keep their own markets stable. India did the same — to “feed its own people first”.
Things improved after the army chief, Gen Moeen U Ahmed, visited India. We appreciate India’s gesture in general and the role of the West Bengal chief minister in particular.
The rest depends on Bangladesh. We must make appropriate decisions in time to save people from a bigger crisis in the future because a rescuer may not be around all the time. — (March 27)
— Selected and translated by Arun Devnath.