An anti-woman culture

IN its latest report on the state of the world population, the United Nations Population Fund has called for a culturally sensitive approach to development. Nowhere is this more needed than in the context of women. This approach is especially required in patriarchal and conservative societies like ours where women are at the receiving end of a number of socially abominable traditions. A cursory glance at the statistics shows how unequal they appear when compared to men, be it in the field of education, health or employment. They lack choices in life, yet are central to family and tribe honour, often having to pay dearly, sometimes with their lives, if they are perceived to be violating cultural values. Unfortunately, regressive thoughts and practices are not only embedded in our culture, they are boosted by the state’s outlook which is sometimes governed by anti-women legislation but more often by the government’s inability to safeguard the rights of the female population.

At the other end of the spectrum are the progressive societies of the West where women’s contribution is acknowledged and encouraged, where their opinions and choices count. An admirable human rights framework — especially true of Europe — is espoused and followed; one that in theory makes culture subservient to fundamental values. In an ideal world, this perhaps is the framework that all countries should be broadly following, but many deep-rooted, culture-specific practices and ideas fly in the face of such lofty value systems. Even the gradual reversal of such traditions, much less their elimination, appears difficult to achieve in many societies where the state itself is unable to make a distinction between what constitutes the abuse of human rights and the practice which allows it. How is the empowerment of women to be encouraged in such a social milieu, even when there are some attempts to upgrade their position — such as ensuring a reasonably strong female presence in parliament as is the case in Pakistan?

Perhaps the key lies not only in making the implementation of human rights legislation more effective but also in wholeheartedly embracing more universal ideals of basic liberties. The state must not be afraid to be seen at odds with cultural preferences that violate human rights or to actively call for greater decision-making by women in subjects as varied as reproductive health and political liberties. It should also do more to ensure that women at the grassroots are able to reach out for opportunities and that trends like Talibanisation are not allowed to rob them of these. This would entail working around present value systems. But if the commitment to uplift society, especially women, is there, then there is no reason why the state should not be broadening the definition of culture by working with it to achieve its goals.

Taliban in Peshawar

AIT is disconcerting that the NWFP’s capital has become the most dangerous town in the province, if not the country. On Thursday, Iranian Commercial Attaché Hashmatullah Attarzadeh was kidnapped and his guard, Sajjad Hussain, killed in Hayatabad, one of Peshawar’s upmarket localities. It was also in Hayatabad that Afghan Consul General Abdul Khaliq Farahi was abducted and his driver shot in September. The diplomat has not yet been recovered. On Wednesday, an American aid worker and his Pakistani driver were gunned down. In and around Peshawar too the Taliban are active. On Monday, they hijacked a convoy of Nato supply trucks on the Peshawar-Torkham highway, while the security authorities watched. It might be recalled that Pakistan’s ambassador to Afghanistan, Tariq Azizuddin, was kidnapped in February on the same road. He was later recovered in May. No one has yet claimed responsibility for the Iranian diplomat’s kidnapping and the murder of his driver, but the Taliban have owned the murderous attack on the American official’s car.

Given the Taliban mindset, it is futile to argue with them. They have murdered innocent men, women and children, ‘executed’ spies, killed and hanged members of peace jirgas, and slaughtered UN aid workers, including women, on both sides of the Durand Line. They have also bombed Eid and funeral prayers and put the Islamabad Marriott on fire in Ramazan at Iftar time. Most Pakistani VIPs, whether in government or the opposition, are on their hit list. Given this backdrop, it was brave of the American aid worker, Steve Vance, to be there in the area in spite of the threat which the Taliban pose to all foreigners, whether tourists — if there are any — or officials. Vance was engaged in development programmes specifically meant for the tribal belt. Fata is generally reputed to be prone to violence but the incident occurred in Peshawar. The Taliban might have suffered reverses in Bajaur and Swat, but the series of commando-style actions in Peshawar clearly indicate the existence of Taliban cells in the city. It is a measure of the intelligence agencies’ failure that they have not unearthed the Taliban presence in the NWFP’s capital and have failed to crack down on it.

Closure of Guantanamo

PRESIDENT-ELECT Barack Obama’s intention to close down the notorious US detention centre at Guantanamo has been welcomed by many who saw the prison camp as the ultimate symbol of an America that had moved away from humanitarian ideals. However, not all are convinced of the sagacity of this plan. A number of people are concerned that many of the 250 or so inmates still at Guantanamo would be persecuted if sent back to their home countries or that their transfer to a prison on the US mainland would endanger the American population. In the atmosphere of fear and suspicion unleashed by the war on terror these reservations are only too natural. But they do not justify the continuing presence of the prison camp. Apparently, there are about 50 prisoners ready for release. They should not be held back because of their non-acceptability in their country of origin and the fear of their persecution by state and society. Other countries could be considered as possible new homes for them, especially some of the European nations as suggested by Amnesty International.

Again, fears with regard to the possible presence on the US mainland of those who have been charged or will be in the coming weeks and months are unsubstantiated. According to reports, apart from a handful, most have not been charged and the number of those who might face trial does not exceed 80. Accommodating such prisoners in maximum security prisons during the duration of their trial in federal courts (human rights activists point out that these are just as capable of handling terrorism cases as military tribunals in Guantanamo) should not be such an onerous task. By itself the closure of Guantanamo may not herald a change in policy as Barack Obama takes over from President George Bush whose handling of global terrorism has been disastrous. But it will be an important step towards changing the image of the American administration that has come to be universally disliked for perpetrating human rights excesses abroad, often on defenceless individuals and populations, and in the process violating every norm or law that safeguards basic liberties. Since 2002, Guantanamo has been a story of horrendous physical and mental torture of prisoners, some of whom have even committed suicide. The prison has made a mockery of all universal values, including US constitutional articles supporting the dignity and freedom of man, and it should be closed down without further delay.

Europe rethinks security policy

LIKE their counterparts across the world, European Union policymakers are waiting impatiently for the results of the much-touted review of US foreign and security policy being undertaken by the president-elect, Barack Obama, and his incoming administration.

Europeans are looking forward to working with a future US president who will eschew the hard power and unilateralism favoured by President George W. Bush. Instead, Europeans hope the new US leader will opt for cooperation and consultation with allies to tackle global challenges and defuse an array of dangerous political flashpoints across the world.

Interestingly, while global attention is understandably focused on Mr Obama, EU governments are engaged in a very similar — albeit less visible and less publicised — rethink of the 27-nation bloc’s security and foreign policy interests.

Details of the security review are expected to be unveiled at a meeting of EU leaders in Brussels in mid-December. EU insiders say no dramatic changes in the bloc’s first-ever security strategy adopted in 2003 — which highlighted Europe’s hopes of becoming a global player and its commitment to effective multilateralism — should be expected.

The focus will therefore remain on the use of soft power tools of diplomacy, trade and aid to encourage reform and change in weak, anti-democratic states. As the 2003 document underlines, the EU believes that the best protection for global security is a world of well-governed democratic states.

Spreading good governance, supporting social and political reform, dealing with corruption and the abuse of power, establishing the rule of law and protecting human rights will therefore remain key EU goals.

Still much has changed both globally and within the EU since 2003. For all its focus on soft power, European governments have been forging ahead in building a credible security and military arm. And while engagement is favoured over the isolation of governments found in flagrant violation of international norms, the EU has not hesitated to use tough sanctions against countries like Burma, Zimbabwe and Belarus.

The new EU security strategy will therefore include a broader view of global alliances and partnerships. EU officials clearly hope to build a stronger transatlantic alliance with Mr Obama’s more Europe-friendly US administration. But more attention will also be given to other strategic relationships, including ties with Russia, China and India. For the first time also stabilising Afghanistan as well as fighting extremism and consolidating democracy in Pakistan are expected to figure on the EU agenda.

As EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana pointed out recently, the EU and the US have to accept and adapt to a rapidly changing global landscape. Decisions on issues as diverse as fighting climate change, curbing the spread of nuclear weapons, terrorism and human trafficking cannot be taken by the US and the EU on their own. Defusing political and military conflicts also need the full engagement of a new array of actors.

As such, it is time for a paradigm shift in how Western countries interact with the world’s emerging powers, Solana underlined. “Even the talk of us ‘leading’ is misleading,” he said, adding: “The crisis is accelerating the power shift from the West to the East ... the West needs the rising powers — and hence to get used to sharing power with them.”

Certainly, as they seek to revive and re-energise the bruised and battered transatlantic alliance after eight years of the Bush administration, Mr Obama’s aides will find much that is impressive in Europe. For one, the EU now includes 12 new members, including many former communist Eastern European states. In a world where size matters, this gives Europe more clout when dealing with both friends and foes.

Significantly also the EU has made headway in stabilising its once war-ravaged and volatile eastern neighbourhood: several western Balkan states, including Serbia, are now on the path to EU membership. After much debate, Turkey is also finally negotiating its entry to the EU although enthusiasm for the process seems to be waning on both sides.

Increasingly also the EU is striving to forge a common stance on foreign and security policy issues, although success in speaking with one voice on the global stage remains difficult. The bloc is racked by deep divisions on how to deal with a resurgent and energy-rich Russia, with France, Germany and Italy keen not to further ruffle feathers in Moscow but former Eastern European states including Poland determined to stand up to Russia.

Still, the EU, with French President Nicolas Sarkozy in the lead as current chairman of the bloc, did manage to successfully defuse Russia-Georgia tensions over the summer. The 27 countries also broadly agree on the need for a quick and just settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and favour negotiations over military action against Iran.

Most significantly, the last few years have seen a major increase in EU military missions across the world. The focus was initially on peacekeeping and peace-monitoring initiatives in the Balkans. At a joint meeting of EU defence and foreign ministers held in Brussels earlier this week, the bloc decided to launch a military naval mission under British command to fight piracy off the Somali coast. They also agreed plans to build a pan-European military aircraft transport fleet to fulfil the increasing need for humanitarian and peacekeeping missions.

In what is one of the first concrete signs of defence cooperation between EU nations, the European Defence Agency said the ‘European air transport fleet’ initiative, which should be operational in the next decade, would pool aircraft such as the A400M being built by EADS, the European defence group, and Lockheed Martin’s Hercules C-130 transporters.

While these and other initiatives are impressive, the EU’s emergence as an effective global player remains trammelled by the continuing impasse in implementing the new reform treaty designed, among other things, to give the bloc a first-ever president of the EU Council of Ministers and similarly a first-ever foreign minister.

With Ireland refusing to signal when — and if — it will re-submit the EU treaty to another referendum following its rejection by Irish voters earlier this year, the stalemate is expected to continue for at least another year.

For the next few months, therefore, just as President Obama turns to Europe to help fashion a new transatlantic alliance, the 27-nation bloc will probably be unable to react as robustly as many would like.

As Solana pointed out, the EU will certainly participate in global security and foreign policy initiatives led by a new US administration. But the European voice may be more muted than anticipated. As the foreign policy chief warned, for an EU hoping to be a more potent global actor, “being present (in meetings) is not the same as shaping the agenda.”

The writer is Dawn’s correspondent in Brussels.

Ignoring TB research

FUNDING from the European Union’s Brussels headquarters for research on tuberculosis stands at about a fifth of what it should be given the EU’s enormous wealth.

With TB killing 1.7 million people a year, health policy analysts estimate that 1.45 billion euros needs to be devoted to research and development (R&D) specifically targeting the disease every year. During 2007, however, the EU’s executive arm, the European Commission, spent less than 19 million euros, according to the humanitarian group Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders, MSF).

The Commission should have given at least 101 million euros to TB research last year as its “fair share” of work against the disease.

Spring Gombe, author of the MSF study, described this level of funding from the European Commission as a “shamefully small amount” considering that the EU commands 31 per cent of global gross domestic product and “includes a disproportionately high number of the world’s most powerful economies.”

In many western countries, TB — commonly known as consumption during the 20th century — is associated in the popular imagination with best-selling novels such as Angela’s Ashes that depict a bygone era. Yet the World Health Organisation has calculated that nine million new cases of the disease occur every year.

The low level of EU funding addressing the disease is at odds with how it has “returned with new faces”, said Gombe, also encroaching into the Union’s own territory, particularly in the Baltic states (Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia).

Her report estimates that if the EU was paying its fair share of the sums needed to develop new medicines, it would be providing 409 million euros per annum.

—IPS News

OTHER VOICES - South African Press

Finding our mojo?

Mail & Guardian

SOUTH Africans have fallen into the habit of lamenting the state of politics and the quality of political leadership in their country, damning themselves with comparisons with Barack Obama.

It is true that we do not have an inspirational leader in the Obama mould, and that since the ANC’s Polokwane conference the country has sometimes seemed to be galloping downhill. But the breaking of Thabo Mbeki’s stifling hold on the ruling party and broader national debates does seem to have ushered in a new and more vibrant political era.

There are cheering signs of a resurgent interest and excitement among ordinary people, and next year could see the most absorbing elections since 1994.

The Independent Electoral Commission has announced that last week’s voter registration drive was the most successful since 2000, with1.6 million new voters placed on the roll. The IEC has confirmed that a record 143 political parties have registered for next year’s poll.

The splitting of the ANC monolith has added spark to the political scene, jarring the ANC out of the arrogance and complacency born of 14 years of unchallengeable dominance. This week’s Mail & Guardian reports on research that underscores long-term changes in our electoral landscape, which may have been accelerated by the emergence of the Congress of the People (Cope) from the bosom of the ANC. Analysts suggest that the 2009 contest will be the most open of the democratic era, with all the opposition parties showing signs of growth. The research also highlights how falling poll percentages, relative to the total size of the electorate, have fuelled ever-increasing ANC majorities since 1994.

The new disposition of forces has already had an impact on the ANC. It has, for example, forced the party’s leaders to rein in motormouth Julius Malema, sparing South Africans the routine follies of a young man who misguidedly saw himself as following in the footsteps of Nelson Mandela, Walter Sisulu and Peter Mokaba. The ANC acted against him, not out of concern for South Africans and their constitutional rights, but out of a realisation that he had become a key mobilising tool in the hands of its opponents.

In another sign that it is finally listening to the people, the ANC government has bowed to the wishes of communities in North West, Limpopo and the Eastern Cape forced by Mbeki and Sydney Mufamadi into provinces they rejected. The new local government minister, Sicelo Shiceka, announced this week that Moutse, Khutsong and Matatiele will be reincorporated into the provinces of their choice.

The realignment may also have the effect of loosening Jacob Zuma’s dependency on the ANC’s union and communist allies and pushing the party towards the pragmatic centre, which Cope threatens. It is unlikely that some of Cosatu’s wilder proposals, including prescribed assets and nationalisation, will find their way into the ANC election platform. Given the manifest deficiencies of the South African state, it makes no sense to heap further burdens on it.

One does not have to support Lekota’s movement to see that its emergence is good for our body politic. It broadens the market, offers alternative leadership and puts the ANC on its mettle. South Africans are invigorated by the changing political landscape — and that’s how it should be! — (Nov 14)