Message to America

THE largest Sino-Russian joint military exercise in modern history that started this week is widely viewed as sending a message to the world. “Peace Mission 2005” is officially described as being focussed on Russia’s and China’s ability to fight terrorism and separatism. This is no doubt one of its aims. But more importantly, it is designed to let the United States know that Beijing and Moscow are come together again under one banner as they were before the Sino-Soviet rift caused them to drift apart in 1960. The wargames reinforce the two countries’ declarations issued at their recent summits that they plan to enhance their strategic ties. They have also strengthened their trade relations, now above the $20 billion mark, signed a boundary agreement and have decided to hold two-yearly summits. They are also integrating their ties within the framework of regional organizations, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization being the most significant as it brings the two big powers in the same fold as four Central Asian republics. The SCO recently asked the US to fix a deadline for the withdrawal of its defence personnel from Central Asia.

It is now plain that the pattern of international relations, which had undergone a transformation in 1990 with the collapse of the Soviet bloc, is once again in the process of change. With the end of the Cold War, the United States became the sole superpower. What was billed as the advent of a Pax Americana has turned out to be a nightmare for the Third World. Instead of using its position to promote international peace and disarmament in the larger interest of mankind, Washington has assumed hegemony in the world system by flexing its military muscle and going on a rampage against small countries that had previously managed to protect themselves by using the balance of power in the Cold War years. The US overruled the United Nations and ignored its allies in Europe who wanted it to exercise more moderation and restraint in dealing with smaller nations. With the election of George W. Bush as president, American policies and actions have been marked by an attitude of arrogance and unilateralism.

The pendulum is now beginning to swing, though international equations are still quite fluid. But the pattern is clear. China has emerged as an economic power to reckon with and the US with its $162 billion trade deficit with it has begun to show concern at the emergence of this economic giant. Russia and China have also refused to toe the American line on the crisis brewing on the Iranian nuclear programme. Warning the Bush administration that it should prevent the “rise of a regional hegemon”, American think tanks advocate a balance of power between India, Russia and China. They have suggested a “hedged-mix” of containment and engagement policies towards China. That would explain the new-found warmth between Washington and New Delhi. But the US will find that in international politics, it cannot manipulate events as easily as it can in national politics. It may attempt to play off India against China but the scenario is more complex than that. First of all, trilateral talks between India, China and Russia are on the cards. Secondly, the European Union, which has been moving towards the role of an international player on the world stage, has assumed considerable strength with the increase in its economic and political clout.

When intelligence bungles

TO say that the findings of an independent inquiry into the fatal shooting of Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes by the London metropolitan police on July 22 contradict the official version of the incident is an understatement. In fact, the inquiry’s conclusions — leaked to the British media by a member of the commission that conducted the investigation — present a picture of the incident that is so different from the London police’s version that its commissioner now faces immense pressure to step down. The Independent Police Complaints Commission, which carried out the probe, noted in its report that the police “initially resisted” attempts by the commission to launch the investigation. After the shooting, the London police chief had repeatedly said that Mr Menezes’s dress and behaviour at a London tube station had aroused suspicion. But, according to the inquiry, Mr Menezes was not wearing, as the police had claimed, a heavy padded winter coat but a “lightweight denim jacket”. Also, he had not vaulted over the ticket barrier, as the police claimed then, but had entered the station at “normal walking pace” and had not disobeyed police orders to stop.

By its actions, it seems that Scotland Yard is indulging in the same kind of obfuscation and twisting of facts that one would have thought were common practices of the police in Third World countries. The apology that the London police have offered is not enough. The metropolitan police chief should accept responsibility for the actions of his subordinates and for his misleading remarks after the shooting instead of saying (as he did in a recent interview on British television) that the controversy surrounding the shooting is unwarranted and that the incident should be seen in the context of the July 7 attacks. The point here is that terrorist acts must never be used as a justification by governments to launch actions or policies that lead to a gross violation of human rights — which obviously seems to have happened in Mr Menezes’s case. For its part, the British government will also need to take steps to raise the quality of intelligence on which its law enforcement agencies base their actions when dealing with the terrorist threat, or else there may be more such tragedies.

India’s bill for the poor

CITED as a historical move, the National Rural Employment Guarantee (NREG) Bill in India promises to empower the poor by employing one member of a rural family for 100 days a year at a minimum wage of Rs 60 a day. With this, the Congress-led coalition has at last lived up to its promise of addressing the burgeoning problem of poverty and unemployment. The trickle-down effect of the country’s economic growth has yet to be felt by the nearly 70 per cent of the population which lives in villages. Under the bill, the government will employ people in unskilled labour work such as building roads. Moreover, it will give an unemployment allowance if a job is not provided. The government hopes to launch the scheme in 200 districts this year and later to all 600 districts in the country. Its critics are worried that the law will hurt the economy as it will increase government expenditure. However, Congress leader Sonia Gandhi dismissed such notions, calling the bill the “human face of economic reform”, saying that it would make the process of economic growth more equitable. The initiative should be appreciated as an effort to tackle the widespread problem of poverty and destitution in the country.

Pakistan would do well to take a cue from its neighbour on addressing the problem of unemployment and poverty afflicting the lower strata of society for it is ultimately the state’s responsibility to look after its people. While the country is cited as having the second fastest growing economy in Asia, the lives of its average citizens tell a different story. The country has a large labour force which could be put to good use if only the government comes up with an innovative scheme like India’s NREG. It needs also to promote micro-finance schemes and other poverty alleviation programmes that would provide a means of subsistence to the country’s abject poor.