Samuel Getachew

Neethan Shan is currently running for the Presidency of the Ontario NDP. Last year, he was a candidate for member of the provincial parliament of Ontario. The year before that, he was running to be a city councilor. And two years before that, he was running to be a member of Queens Park. Prior to this, he was elected as a school board trustee successfully after failing at that the term before. What makes this ever-passionate South Asian community activist tick?
“I want to be part of a movement where I can engage myself in the decision-making process of my community,” explains Shan in his office in Scarborough. The Council of Agencies Serving South Asians (CASSA) Executive Director has been engaged since his arrival to Canada as a 16-year-old from Sri Lanka. Over the years, he has been a powerful advocate for issues such as electoral reform, youth engagement and his great passion – the plight of Tamils in Sri Lanka.

This ambitious South Asian immigrant made his foray into electoral politics by announcing his candidature for Trustee in 2003, a contest which he narrowly lost. While most would be devastated by the results, Shan continued to be engaged on vital issues and became more active in politics. In the subsequent election in 2006, he put his name forward as a candidate once again. This time, the sitting candidate decided to withdraw from the race, and that created an opening for Shan. He ultimately won and became a Markham Trustee for an area just north of his beloved Scarborough.

Shan’s proactive nature was noticed by many in the NDP. The University of Toronto graduate and high school teacher was soon approached to run for the Ontario NDP in 2007. He decided to put his name for the nomination, which he won handily and became a candidate in Scarborough Guildwood. He was an easily noticeable candidate with eloquence and dedication. His campaign attracted much support. However, despite a respectful showing, he was not successful.

Over the next four years, Shan focused on grassroots work, including being a school board trustee, working for electoral reform in Toronto with another passionate activist, Dave Meslin, as well as being a candidate for the city council. In the City of Toronto election in 2010, he competed in Scarborough Rough River against an aging veteran, Raymond Cho. Despite the ward being held by the veteran politician since 1991, Shan created a tossup.

His campaign consisted of a wide array of party veterans and party stripes and was endorsed by many leading unions, civic organizations and the media including the Toronto Star, Scarborough Mirror and NOW magazine. He competed against seven other candidates, yet his stature made the area the one to watch on Election Day. Despite a close contest, he was once again a runner up. He went back to his day job serving South Asians.

In 2011, he returned as a star candidate for NDP representing Queens Park against Liberal Bas Balkissoon in Scarborough Rouge River. The leader of the party made several stops to campaign on his behalf. With an army of volunteers, Shan’s effort looked like a movement rather than a mere political campaign. Despite all his efforts, he lost yet again. What was achieved that night was historic for the party, as he came within 2,000 votes of defeating the Liberal candidate. However, in an imperfect political system, unfortunately, there is only one winner, and it was not Shan.

At the upcoming Ontario NDP convention in Hamilton, on April 13^th, he is once again a candidate, this time, for the presidency of the party. Why the NDP? “I believe the NDP is a socially conscious party that speaks from the grounds up,” says Shan. What will be his signature initiatives if he were to be successful in securing the NDP presidency? “I have been a grassroots organizer in the area of youth engagement as well as community empowerment, and I will take that passion all over Ontario,” he explains, adding “there are many more seats that we can take and form an Ontario government in the future.”

“I believe in young people,” he says with his trademark passion. Inside his small office, the walls are empty. None of the awards he has won over the years are on display. His desk is almost bare too. It seems, this passionate community leader belongs somewhere else where he can be, as he says, part of the “decision-making process of my community.”

Shan’s many admirers include Toronto activist Doug Kerr. The latter recalls the time he met him a decade ago, at the Canadian Tamil Youth Development Center where Shan was a youth leader. Kerr describes his journey as how “amazing it is to see him grow into the community leader he is today.” He continues, “He (Shan) is dedicated, smart and passionate.”

As the new father of a toddler, with his signature colorful shirt and big smile, Shan explains why he is currently a candidate for an elected office once again. The more one hears him, the more one is convinced that he belongs in the direction he is headed.

Dr. HasanAskari                     
Lahore

Democracy is a delicate system of government. It is based on a number of principles that have to be implemented in their true spirit. Much depends how these principles are actually applied. Self-restraint and over all welfare of the society are key determinants for pursuing democracy. The major weakness in a democratic system is that it can be destroyed by democratic means. For example, if the majority party in the parliament becomes insensitive to the concerns of the opposition and uses its strength in the parliament to pass laws that negate the spirit of democracy or place unjustified restrictions on the opposition, democracy is going to be undermined. Democracy believes in the rule by majority but it should not be turned into tyranny of the majority.      

The primacy of institutions and law over individuals and organizations is an important value of democracy. These institutions must respect each other because every institution enjoys autonomy but does not operate in a vacuum; each institution has to interact with others. If an institution attempts to expand its domain at the expense of others or tries to dominate others or develops a self-ascribed mission of rectifying all other institutions, there will be sharp institutional imbalance and conflict which is not helpful to democracy.        

In a democratic system no person or institution can make an exclusive claim to ‘all wisdom’ or the ‘final truth’ or the ‘national interest’. All this is evolved through dialogue and mutual exchange among the political and societal players and state institutions. Politics is viewed as the art of making things happen within the context of law and power politics rather than pursuing this as an activity simply for promoting textbook honesty or righteousness. The latter values are part of the collective ideals and norms of democracy but all democratic ideals are pursued through mutual consultation and shared effort.  No single institution or leader can enforce them or engage in cleansing the political and societal processes as a self-assumed responsibility.

Pakistan faced the problem of institutional imbalance from the beginning. The political institutions like the assembly, political parties, societal organizations and the media were weak. The state institutions like the bureaucracy and the military were stronger. This imbalance strengthened over time because Pakistan faced strong security pressure from India and Afghanistan. It also had internal law and order problems, forcing the government to give the highest priority to security against external threats and internal disorder. This strengthened the military and the societal and political institutions were neglected. The other institution that benefited from the situation was the bureaucracy.  

The strengthening of the military and the bureaucracy increased institutional imbalance in Pakistan.  In October 1958, the military under General Ayub Khan assumed political power by imposing martial law. The military ruled the country with the support of the bureaucracy. It was able to cultivate the support of a section of the political leaders.            

Since then the military assumed political power three more times and overwhelmed the political, economic and societal processes in Pakistan.          

The return to democracy in March 2008 has initiated the process of rehabilitating civilian institutions and balancing them with the state institutions. As the tradition of institutional balance is weak in Pakistan, different institutions are now striving hard to expand their domains because democracy has provided them with an opportunity to function freely.

Traditionally the judiciary in Pakistan had sided with the military and provided legal cover to its take-over of the state power. Now, the superior judiciary is attempting to retrieve the initiative it lost to the military. The superior judiciary’s effort to expand its domain of authority has built strains on the executive and the legislature. It is using its constitutional powers to focus on the lapses of the federal government.     

As the political adversaries of the PPP have realized that the superior judiciary is building pressure on the federal government led by the PPP, it takes political matters to the high courts or the Supreme Court. Most of their petitions are against the federal government, President Zardari and Prime Minster Gilani. In addition to the on-going contempt of court case against the prime minister in the Supreme Court, he also faces a disqualification case in the Lahore High Court filed by some private citizen.       

Other pressure is coming from two sources. First, the poor performance of the federal government has alienated a good number of people. The performance of the provincial government is equally poor. However, the PMLN has been publicly encouraging agitation against the federal government on the electricity issue in the Punjab which diverts attention from its own lapses in the Punjab. Second, the opposition political parties build pressure on the PPP government. This pressure is expected to increase as Pakistan moves towards general elections. The Punjab Chief Minister is publically engaged in Zardari bashing.     

However, the most damaging institutional conflict is likely to be between the federal government and the Supreme Court, especially if the Supreme Court convicted and sentenced the prime minister in the contempt of court case. This would be the second time that the PPP top leaders faced negative judgment from the Supreme Court.       

Any such situation will increase polarization because the major opposition parties would support the Supreme Court in their bid to get rid of the PPP-led federal government. The ruling coalition which has stable majority in the National Assembly would like to hold on to power even after the judgment of the Supreme Court in the contempt of court case. It may select a new prime minister who is not expected to write the letter for reopening of cases in Switzerland.

The main victim of such confrontation will be democracy whose diminution will also adversely affect the Supreme Court and the opposition.

Shankkar Aiyar
India

This can happen only in India. Consumption is falling, investment is stalled and an economy that needs to grow at least at 9 per cent to preclude social unrest is sputtering at sub-7 per cent. The economy is screaming in distress but the UPA doesn’t seem to be under any stress.

Consider the vignettes of the crisis building up.

• On Thursday, the government informed India that the index of industrial production grew in February by 4.1 per cent. What it did not state explicitly is that industrial output is flailing. Indeed, it has averaged barely 1.5 per cent between October and February, the so-called busy season.

• On the same Thursday, the government told us that while India’s exports grew to $300 billion,

imports ballooned to $485 billion in 2011-12, leaving a gap of $185 billion. India’s current account deficit— estimated at 3.8 per cent of GDP for the year—is worse than what it was in the crisis of 1991.

• In the first week of April, the government’s first auction of bonds devolved on the primary dealers as the market did not find interest rates offered appetizing enough. Mind you, the yield on 10-year-old paper now ranges around 8.78 per cent.

• On March 30, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) informed us that bank credit grew by 19.3 per cent while bank deposits grew by 17.4 per cent, signaling a crunch for funds. Of the `8 lakh crore expected growth in deposits nearly `6 lakh crore will be swallowed by government (Centre and states) borrowings. Liquidity will be tight and the government’s profligacy will crowd out private sector investment.

• In February, the RBI ring-fenced the rupee with administrative measures and propped it up from `54.30 to `48.60 per dollar. In April, the rupee is back at `51.30 per dollar.

The numbers by themselves would scare any regime but not the UPA. Weeks before the Budget, it was informed that GDP growth had been in secular decline for seven successive quarters. Yet, that didn’t stir the regime awake or inspire a growth-oriented budget for 2012.

The UPA has perfected the art of moral equivalence. “How many countries are growing at 7 per cent?” it asks almost petulantly as if the lower growth of others is of comfort to the huddled masses. Questions on rising borrowings and deficit are met with figures of debt to GDP ratio of China. Fall in consumption and investment is blamed on RBI’s high interest rate regime as if the UPA’s failure to rein in inflation had no role. The fragility of the rupee is blamed on rising crude oil prices but it doesn’t accept responsibility for falling investor confidence.

By definition, the political leadership is required to take risks and deliver. The UPA has fine-tuned shifting of accountability and shirking of responsibility into a fine art. Whether it is the state of defense preparedness or the state of the economy, the regime has no answers. Governments are mandated to plan progress and resolve crises. The UPA, instead, has transferred the burden of expectations to institutions. Every episode of public outrage is met with a new contract for off shoring. If the army has been asked to speed up up gradation plans for defense preparedness, the RBI is being bullied to cut interest rates.

The RBI is the regulator of banking, the monetary authority and the banker to the government. In each of its role, the central bank is often in conflict with the other roles. The burden of reviving the economy has now been added to this list of competing compulsions. It is expected to cut interest rates, curb inflation, ensure the success of the government’s borrowing programmer, ensure liquidity, promote investments, stall the fall of the rupee and deliver growth.

Interest rates cannot come down—beyond tokenism—unless inflation comes down and that demands that the government disengages from the policy of profligacy. Investment cannot grow till the government crawls out of the committee rooms and finds the gumption to take decisions and push legislation. Companies sitting on a pile of cash will be happy to invest if the roadblocks are cleared. Over two dozen Bills, ranging from land acquisition to the new companies act, are on the pending list since six years. The rupee cannot be revived unless investor confidence is restored and that will not happen in the atmosphere of policy paralysis or distrust triggered by retrospective legislation.

Fact is, the crisis is unattended and worsening. By all accounts, inflation is bound to rise given the lack of credibility in budgetary estimations, pending fuel price hikes, new MSP for food grains and new costs such as the Food Security Act. Although the government has estimated fiscal deficit at 5.1 per cent, it will most likely close at 6 per cent. And the rupee—thanks to fiscal and current account deficits—in all likelihood will remain weak.

Yes, there are exogenous factors affecting the economy. Rising crude prices, uncertainty in Eurozone and the fragility of the recovery in the US economy are concerns. The India Story though is being ruined at home by the UPA regime which is struggling to get its act together.

The burden of expectations has been shifted on RBI Governor D Subbarao. On Tuesday, when he steps out with the credit policy, Governor Subbarao may well consider swapping his sober grey suit for the magician’s robes. The exclamation of “Abracadabra” may probably make more sense than whatever the UPA defines as economic policy.

Shankkar Aiyar is a senior journalist who specializes in the politics of economics

Courtesy: The New Indian Express

Dr. Hasan Askari  

Lahore

  The elected governments at the federal and provincial levels have completed four years and these have entered the fifth and final year of their current tenure. The elections are due in March-April 2013. However, these are expected to be held by the end of 2012.

   The most remarkable achievement of the PPP-led federal coalition government is its survival over the last four years. It was soon after the exit of the PMLN from the federal coalition in August 2008 that rumors began to float from time to time about the collapse of the federal government or that the military or the Supreme Court or both would knock it out. Twice the MQM played its usual game of withholding support to the federal government, creating doubts about its survival.

   At times, the opposition onslaught focused on President Asif Ali Zardari for getting him removed, if not Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani.  Zardari remained a soft target for corruption charges. The opposition leaders continue to entertain the hope that the Supreme Court will adopt some punitive measures against Zardari that will make it impossible for him to hold on to presidency.  The contempt of court case is still going on against the prime minister.

  Amidst all this confusion and uncertainty, Zardari and Gilani, especially the former, have worked quietly to build and sustain political partnerships. Zardari’s opponents have strong negative views about him but the “devil” has to be given credit for his quiet political diplomacy that has produced the longest surviving coalition at the federal level. His political skills and a down-to-earth political management have not only kept the MQM in the coalition along with the ANP that compete with each other in Karachi’s local politics.  The major coalitional success is the winning over of the PMLQ led by Chaudhri Shujaat Hussain that strengthened the coalition and reduced dependence of the coalition on the MQM.  

  Prime Minister Gilani’s political soft-paddling protected the  political boat of the federal government from being rocked by occasional strong opposition waves in the political ocean. His ability to talk to different leaders and appease them has reinforced Zardari’s political initiative.    

  Zardari’s political maneuvering has virtually isolated the PMLN that has no working arrangement with any political party with the exception of some alienated parliamentarians from the PMLQ, often known as the Likeminded group.  However, even this relationship is not firmly established because the Likeminded leaders are playing as hard-bargainers in order to obtain greater political dividends.

   The PMLN has won some stray leaders from the PMLQ but these leaders are not powerful enough to change the fate of the party in their provinces. In fact, they have joined the PMLN in order to find some credible shelter for them.  The new comers do have much chance at the top level in the PMLN because its leadership is already firmly established and these leaders have a well-established track record of standing by Nawaz Sharif during the difficult years of the Musharraf rule.

   The PMLN will have to evolve ways to overcome its political isolation by building partnership with other parties?  It needs to build election-winning support base in other provinces? The PMLN has a poor or non-existent standing in Sindh. In Khaber-Pakhtunkhwa, it has faced political setback due to  the rise of the Hazara-province movement.  In Balochistan, all political parties are weak. Only personalities and tribal chiefs matter and PPP and PMLN would compete for winning their support.  Its attempts to ignite agitation against the federal government in its stronghold of the Punjab will neither topple the federal government nor create a winning coalition around the PMLN.

   The rise of Imran Khan has greater negative impact for the PMLN than the PPPP. The alienated leaders of both parties have got on the PTI bandwagon.  However, the Sharif domain is more adversely affected by Imran Khan’s Islamist, Rightist, anti-America and pro-Taliban rhetoric.

  Another surging political group, the Sunni-Tehrik and its affiliated Barelvi religious groups are talking about entering the electoral fray. They have some support in Karachi and the Punjab. Still another conglomerate of orthodox religious groups, the Defa-i-Pakistan Council, may also try its luck in the elections

  The old and new Islamic parties are not expected to perform well in the elections for a host of reasons that are beyond the scope of this article.  However, these parties can divide the votes in number constituencies in the Punjab where the PPP and the PMLN are evenly balanced.

  To the good luck of the two major political parties, especially the PMLN, the PTI is unable to sustain its upswing; it is now moving in a straight line. With the gate-crashing by the activists from other political parties, the PTI now looks like any other Pakistani political party. It is strong in rhetoric and criticism of the PPP and the PMLN but does not offer a credible alternate plan of action for making up the governance and management failures by the PPP and the PMLN governments

    Uncertainties are going to persist because the military continues to be a powerful political player and flexes its muscles that cause problems for the federal government.   Uncertainties will also be caused by the hard hitting approach of the Supreme Court as it criticizes all major political parties and federal and provincial governments.  

  No political party is expected to sweep the next general elections. Power will be exercised by the parties that have greater capacity to build political partnerships. This means political of compromise and accommodation will continue and the performance of the provincial and federal governments is not expected to improve significantly.

Tim Hudak

Tim Hudak is the official leader of Opposition at Ontario legislature

With eight provinces and the federal government in deficit, political leaders across the country are faced with a similar challenge: How do we encourage job creation while regaining control of spending? The responses vary. Some have taken immediate action, while others, like Ontario, have moved at a glacial pace.

In the province that has long been an economic leader, 600,000 men and women are now unemployed. Yet, this week’s provincial budget will neither stimulate the economy nor aggressively attack the deficit. In the next year, the deficit will remain constant, leaving a staggering $15.2-billion gap between revenue and spending. Job creation is forecast to decline.

In New York this month, I met financial experts to discuss Ontario’s debt. Their advice is consistent with the way I would have approached the problem. For starters, I would not have accepted anemic private-sector growth or a slow response to a looming $30-billion deficit.

Businesses can invest anywhere in the world. If they’re going to come to Canada, they’ll look for a few basic things. They want a credible plan to eliminate deficits and get debt under control, and they want a competitive tax environment. Businesses realize that governments burdened with debt won’t be able to create a competitive tax climate and build and sustain infrastructure – two key things that attract investment, expansion and new jobs.

They need low tax rates, so they can retain more of their earnings to expand and hire. They want certainty about government tax policy, too, so the rules don’t change partway through the game. In Ontario, for example, this week’s budget would abandon a promised business tax cut. That’s not how you build an economy. A recent estimate by a leading economist said this measure alone could result in a loss of 30,000 jobs over 10 years. A higher tax burden than businesses had planned for amounts to a tax increase.

Affordable energy is another cornerstone of growth. The provinces that have taken steps to assure a steady supply of power at fair rates are well positioned for growth. Those like Ontario, where power rates are being driven up by subsidies that pay wind and solar producers between two and 10 times the going rate for energy from conventional sources, are not.

We need to pay attention to what’s happening in the world. One of the key factors in Germany’s success, for example, has been a strong apprenticeship system. I have advocated an aggressive apprenticeship plan for Ontario. The failure to act on this has left good skilled trades jobs unfilled.

Growth won’t happen unless government gets the fundamentals right. Our priority must be policies that create the conditions for growth, and that has to be accomplished while making significant structural changes. We can’t cut our way to prosperity; we need to grow our economy, too.

Every day that government puts off difficult decisions adds to debt and narrows our room to manoeuvre in the event of a sudden economic shock. This has been Greece’s sad experience.

The challenges facing Canadian governments may vary, but the underlying principles are the same. When governments control spending, ensure responsive regulation and keep business taxes low, labour markets flexible and energy affordable, jobs and growth will follow. Some provinces realize this, and will pull out of deficit sooner than Ontario. Their next challenge will be to tackle accumulated debt.

As Canadians, we need to reframe the deficit and debt issue. This is not just about government. It’s about the economy, jobs and prosperity.

Courtesy: The Globe and Mail

Dr. HasanAskari

Lahore

   An international conference was held in Seoul, South Korea, on March 26-27, 2012, to address the question of security and safety of nuclear materials against terrorist threats and other security challenges. This was the second Global Nuclear Security Summit which was attended by 53 countries and 4 international organizations.

  The Nuclear Security Summit at Seoul was a follow-up of the first summit conference held in Washington, D.C. in April 2010 on the initiative of President Barack Obama. The first conference was a success in the sense of developing a broadly based consensus on greater international cooperation and more effective efforts by individual countries to ensure the safety and security of nuclear weapons and related radio-active materials.

  President Obama was the key figure in the second Nuclear Security Summit in Seoul, South Korea, who also visited Demilitarized Zone that separated South Korea from North Korea.  Two countries that have reasonably developed nuclear programs, that is, Iran and North Korea, were not invited to the conference. These countries were not targeted for criticism in the conference, although President Obama talked of both countries in his separate address to a university in Seoul. He also talked of reducing American nuclear arsenal through negotiations with Russia.

   Pakistan participated in both Nuclear Security Summits. Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani led Pakistani delegation in both conferences in April 2010 and March 2012.  

  Pakistan is one of seven declared nuclear weapons states. It did not acquire this capability for international status, prestige or belligerent designs.  Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program is India-focused; meant for securing itself against a bigger military adversary.  Had India not exploded nuclear devices on May 11 and 13, 1998, Pakistan would not have gone for nuclear explosions two weeks later. It would have preferred to continue with the policy of nuclear ambiguity: no nuclear weapons despite having the capability to make them.

  The induction of nuclear weapons in South Asia in May 1998 on the initiative of India enabled Pakistan to neutralize India’s superiority in conventional weapons to a great extent. Therefore, nuclear weapons are integral to Pakistan’s security system.

  Nuclear weapons are not meant for use because they cause devastating havoc that there is no winner of a nuclear war. However, these are meant to deter the adversary from engaging in conventional military adventurism.

  The question of safety and security of nuclear weapons, fissile material and radioactive substance has always been a major concern of the international community.  This issue attracted much attention after the breakup of the Soviet Union in December 1991 and emergence of independent republics in Central Asia. Some of these republics had Soviet nuclear installations and material. Their accounting and security became a major concern of Russia and major western countries. There were reports of instances of smuggling of radioactive material from Russia and Central Asia. Another concern pertained to those nuclear scientists that lost their jobs due to disintegration of the Soviet Union.

   The concern about safety and security of nuclear material acquired much salience after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, especially when, in October 2001, Osama bin Laden expressed strong interest in nuclear weapons in an interview with a Pakistani journalist.

  Pakistan has given the highest importance to safety and security of nuclear material of all kinds and nuclear installations by setting up an effective Command and Control System in 2000. With an effective National Command Authority (NCA) and Pakistan Nuclear Regulatory Authority (PNRA) and updating of technological and professional control with the help of friendly countries, Pakistan has a reliable nuclear security system.  During the last couple of years, Pakistan has also introduced legislation and administrative measures to control export of nuclear related material.

  Since April 2010, the international community is giving greater attention to safety and security of nuclear materials. On the U.S. initiative, first global nuclear security summit was held in Washington, D.C. in April 2010. The second global nuclear security summit was held in Seoul, South Korea on March 26-27, 2012.

  While highlighting the need of strengthening the IAEA for ensuring nuclear safety and security against the backdrop of the Fukushima reactors incident (2011), Pakistan emphasized the need of each country’s sovereign decision to adopt specific measures for safety and security.

Pakistan’s Prime Minister, Yousaf Raza Gilani, highlighted the steps taken by Pakistan for securing its nuclear materials and installations. He informed the Summit Conference that Pakistan would soon be installing nuclear detectors, called Special Nuclear Material Portals, on its international border points of entry and exit to detect movement of radioactive material.  

The Prime Minister informed that conference that Pakistan carried out “comprehensive stress tests” of its nuclear power plants after the Fukushima reactor accident. It may be mentioned here that Pakistan has established a Centre of Excellence for conducting special courses on nuclear security, physical protection and personal reliability and related matters. This training will soon be open non-Pakistanis.  

It goes to the credit of the U.S. administration that it was able to collect important world leaders at one place who fully shared U.S. concern about the safety and security of nuclear materials. All the participating countries recognized that if nuclear weapons and materials cannot be totally eliminated altogether, they need to work together within the framework of established international organizations like the UN and the IAEA to encourage all states possessing nuclear materials to ensure their safety and security including control of exports and imports of such materials.    

M. Serajul Islam

Bangladesh

There is a perceptible change in stance in the way the AwamiLeague leaders are talking about India in recent days. In her recent speech in Sylhet, the prime minister has stated in forceful terms that Bangladesh would oppose the construction of the Tippaimukh dam if it goes against the interest of the country.   

Earlier, when the new Indian high commissioner had made his courtesy call on her, the prime minister asked India to conclude the Teesta deal quickly; to include Bangladeshi experts in any study for constructing the Tippaimukh dam and to reciprocate to the gestures that Bangladesh has made for improvement of bilateral relations. She also asked India to take concrete steps to stop the killing of innocent Bangladeshis on Bangladesh-India border.        

Bangladeshis are pleasantly surprised that the prime minister is talking about her displeasure with the Indian government for they were getting accustomed to this government’s eagerness to please India even before they asked. Foreign Minister DipuMoni who encouraged people hitherto to consider it their national duty to please India mustered the courage to decline the Indian offer to deal with Bangladesh’s case with India bilaterally on demarcation of the maritime border.

Nevertheless, the voice of disapproval with India is still not as forceful as most people would like. On the proposed Tippaimukh dam, the bipartisan consensus in Bangladesh among the people is that it would bring disaster to the country. To those who are aware about the conventions concerning international rivers, India’s decision to build a dam nearly 170 meters high is a major violation. An upper riparian of an international river can only build such structures unilaterally if their height is limited up to 15 meters.         

The landmark decision at Hamburg by ITLOS has been received by the people of Bangladesh on a bipartisan basis as one of the best piece of news since we became independent. The news was particularly welcome as Myanmar and India through the equidistant principle had threatened to take away a major portion of our access to the Bay of Bengal. The way the two countries had intended to draw the line refused to take into consideration the concave nature of our coast and our population as well as the need for our people to have adequate access to the sea.

Given their consensus view against Tippaimukh, the people of Bangladesh expected the prime minister to tell the Indians that their decision is arbitrary and against the interest of Bangladesh. Instead, the prime minister in her speech at Sylhet seemed not yet convinced that the dam would be a nightmare for Bangladesh. She appeared still convinced that India would not do anything without consulting Bangladesh. She asked people not to worry over it and assured them that Bangladesh would raise the issue in the JRC.         

The foreign minister in rejecting the Indian offer for bilateral resolution of the maritime boundary issue also hesitated to displease India completely. She also held out the possibility of bilateral consultations if India accepted the principle of equity. At a time when most Bangladeshis have taken the Hamburg decision as a prelude to a similar decision at the Hague, the prospect of also talking with India bilaterally as the foreign minister has hinted has frustrated many who, going by the history of Bangladesh-India bilateral relations, feel that such a step would be walking into a trap particularly when they have very little confidence in our negotiation team.

The prime minister and her foreign minister, by their respective statements, have nevertheless acknowledged that India has emerged as a political card with both mainstream parties now preparing their respective strategies for the next elections due in two years’ time. India’s failure to deliver on the issues of sharing the waters of the common rivers, stopping the Tippaimukh dam and killing of innocent Bangladeshis by the BSF on the Bangladesh-India border has enhanced the anti-Indian feelings in Bangladesh. Bangladeshis have been particularly disappointed that India has not tried to resolve these critical issues after promising to do so, on reasons that are not very convincing. The fact that India has accepted Bangladesh’s concessions on the important issues of security and land transit that Sheikh Hasina provided at great political risks and so far has failed to reciprocate has made many curious about what India has in mind.          

The Awami League has now realized that they have negotiated with India without doing their homework. They just convinced themselves that India would not disappoint the Awami League government. That has not happened. Border killings have not stopped. India went ahead and decided to sign a contract to build the Tippaimukh dam leaving Bangladesh to learn of it from the website of the Indian Ministry of External Affairs.
There are some who supported the AL’s move to make unilateral concessions to India in the belief that India would open its market to Bangladesh and make it the connectivity hub of the region. These people, mostly economists, have not bothered about issues of water, land border, Tippaimukh or killings at the border. Unfortunately for them, the economic benefits are not coming fast enough. India has already become an issue in the context of the 2014 elections.        

The AL’s dissent is expected to increase in the time ahead because India is now in no position to deliver what Bangladeshis legitimately expect from it. There is talk of an election in India within a year following the recent provincial elections. This will further delay for India to deliver on promises, of course if they had the honest intent to deliver in the first instance, which in turn will only increase anti-Indian feelings in Bangladesh that the AL can now overlook only at its political peril.       

The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan. 

NilanthaIlangamuwa

New Delhi

The Government of Sri Lanka announced just three days after the UN resolution on Sri Lanka, adopted at the 19th session of the Human Rights Council (HRC) in Geneva that it will implement only feasible recommendations made in the report by the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC). However the Minister of Irrigation and the leader of the house, Mr. NimalSiripala de Silva, did not specify what kind of recommendations the Government considers to be feasible. In addition to that the Minister disclosed, that the government had decided to implement those recommendations long before the international community demanded that it do so.

This is none other than an old hide and seek political experiment in the Rajapaksa’s political laboratory that is trying to bamboozle the people and the international community yet again. This is also the game the regime has played with the Constitution of Sri Lanka, to make it a tool of social control, and an instrument to undermine people’s rights. The picture is quite clear; our politicians’ advantages are always the people’s disadvantages. In other words, the goals and the two never overlap.

In a press conference in Colombo, the Minister for the External Affairs, Mr. GaminiLakshmanPeiris, recommended that the Government of Sri Lanka should not fear the UN’s sanction against the country, after the UNHRC adopted the resolution at Geneva. His logic confirms his child-like knowledge of basic strategies in foreign policy of other countries. Instead of accepting failure of the regime’s whole process of conning each other, he has created a new kind of arithmetic logic to accept the termagant policy of the regime.

Not surprisingly the UN is not going to promulgate economic sanctions against Sri Lanka just after it adopted the resolution because this is primary stage of the resolution and is the beginning of the ‘red alert’ against this country. There is no doubt that the government would not have received even those 15 votes if the bumptious lying government had exposed itself by denial of all LLRC recommendations in Geneva. Almost all countries excluding China, and Russia, who voted for Sri Lanka, did so because of their presumptions regarding the LLRC recommendations and distrust/anger against US policy makers who made the situation look bad. This is not a victory, but a shame on the government’s militarization of domestic and foreign policy.

There is no doubt that our politics is based on vendetta and racial nihilism. A few politicians did try the art of politics but were quickly eliminated by the more powerful parties. As a result of that elimination of political wisdom, we have allowed racial elements to alight the country with the fire of barbarism. Today, the problem in this country is how to bring order to a disordered social structure and to implement the Common Law that primarily accepts that everyone is equal before the law. But the current regime has created a “dope patriotism” force towards denial of social justice, where they carpeted the space to play the power-ball game without any hindrance.

We do not have to go beyond our borders to know about the social destruction and agony of the people in the country. It’s before us and we are seeing it as part of our daily life. It was reported on the same evening when the Minister of External Affairs and others who participated in the diplomatic blundering operation in Geneva, held a press conference to express their bumptious dopey views, that the ruling party regional politician was abducted, severely tortured and then dropped by the roadside. He is former Western Provincial Councilor and a bother in law of the Minister of Postal services, Mr. JeevanKumaranatunga.

During the first week of this month an attempt was made by the team of the Sri Lankan Army in a white van, to abduct the president of the Kolonnawa Urban Council. But we saw no investigations of the Sri Lankan army members who were involved with that plot due to political interferences. What would be a feasible recommendation to prevent these kinds of tragic criminal activities?

Here is what the LLRC recommended on criminal investigation, “there were strong concerns among members of public who made representations that criminal investigations, law enforcement, and the police administration have been adversely affected due to political interference resulting in an erosion of confidence in the criminal justice system.” (LLRC report- page 339) The government’s behavior clearly confirms that denial of any kind of genuine investigation and acceptance of most of the recommendations given by the LLRC, will not be seen by the regime, as being feasible. Eventually the Government will undermine the people as planned earlier. If the government tries to solve the economic meltdown through ransom, then the dream for ‘wonder Asia’ will become ‘untenable Asia’.

The Central Bank, on Tuesday said that the Government is struggling to reduce the 1 billion dollar deficit as exports dip. The news report quoting the Central Bank, said that, “external trade in 2012 has begun with a nearly 1 billion U.S. dollar trade deficit due to a mixed performance with subdued exports and high imports”. Perhaps the country’s economy is already under fire due to wastage of public money for the mess of pottage projects, under the name of mega development to wonder Asia, and devaluation of local currency. It will be worse than earlier in coming weeks.

What the people have to do is to restore the rule of law, to place the government back in the cage of law. Another thing is to stop falling for the myth of “dopey patriotism” which is eliminating all possibilities of actions against an unlawful abused power which cannot be questioned. It will not come as a surprise to anyone if the government says: “There are no feasible recommendations in the LLRC report to implement”.

Courtesy: Sri Lanka Guardian

EARLY LIFE

• Born in Ottawa on October 24^th, 1954 to an Irish Canadian father and French Canadian mother. He is the second oldest of ten children. He was raised in Laval, North of Montreal.
• Went to Laval Catholic High School. Was actively involved, through a school group, as a volunteer in many social and community causes.

EDUCATION AND PERSONAL LIFE

• Holds degrees in Civil Law (B.C.L.) and in Common Law (LL.B).
• In 1975-1976, the final year of the B.C.L. program, Mulcairwas elected President of the Law Students Association and sat on the council of the McGill Student Union.
• Married to Catherine Pinhas, a psychologist and French citizen, with whom he has two grown sons, Mathew and Greg.
• The couple moved to Quebec City in 1978 with their son Matthew. Mulcair worked first in the Legislative Affairs branch of the Justice Ministry and later in the Legal Affairs Directorate of the Conseil de la langue francaise.

POLITICAL CAREER

• During his time at the Conseil de la langue française, Mulcair served as the union delegate and later was elected the Secrétaire de section of the (SPGQ) Syndicat des Professionnels et Professionnelles du Gouvernement du Québec (The Union of Quebec Government Professional Employees).
• In 1985, Mulcair began a private law practice and was named the reviser of the statutes of Manitoba following the Supreme Court ruling in the Manitoba reference case. He worked regularly in Winnipeg over the next two years.
• In 1986, his political mentor, Claude Ryan, named MulcairCommissioner on the Commission d’Appelsur la langue d’enseignement.
• At the end of 1987, Mr. Ryan proposed that Mulcair be named President of the Quebec Professions Board (Office des professions du Québec); a position he held until 1993.
• As President, Tom introduced wide-ranging reforms to make disciplinary hearings more transparent and successfully led a major effort to have cases of alleged sexual abuse of patients dealt with decisively.
• During his tenure at the Quebec Professions Board, Mulcair became the first Canadian elected to the Board of Directors of the Council on Licensure Enforcement and Regulation.
• In early 1994, upon the resignation of the sitting member of the National Assembly for Chomedey, Lise Bacon, the Quebec Liberal Party sought Mulcair’s candidacy. His run in the by-election turned into a race in the general election that was soon called. On September 12^th, 1994 he was elected the Member of the National Assembly for Chomedey, his old home-town in Laval.
• Re-elected in 1998 and served as Deputy House-Leader of the opposition. He was successively Justice Critic and Industry Critic.
  • In 2003 Mulcair was elected provincially for the third time and named to Cabinet as Minister of Sustainable Development, Environment and Parks.
  • Served as Minister until 2006. While minister, Mulcair took a tough stand on enforcement of environment laws and regulations. He also introduced wide-ranging legislation on sustainable development and carried out a 20-city tour of Quebec on the issue.
    • During a Cabinet shuffle, Charest offered Mulcair the position of Minister of Government Services in the Quebec government, and Mulcair chose to resign from cabinet rather than accept the apparent demotion. There was speculation that his contrary opinion on a project that would have transferred lands in Mont Orford Provincial park to private condominium developers led to his removal as Minister of Sustainable Development, Environment and Parks.
    • On February 20, 2007, he announced that he would not be a Liberal candidate in the 2007 Quebec general election.
    • On September 2006, Jack Layton invited Mulcair to Quebec City to address delegates at the NDP’s convention on the subject of Sustainable Development.
    • In early 2007, Jack Layton named Tom Mulcair his Quebec Lieutenant. After Mulcair’s victory in the Liberal stronghold of Outremont, he also named him Co-Deputy Leader of the NDP.
      • Federal NDP Leader Jack Layton died on August 22, 2011, following a battle with cancer, and was honoured with a state funeral. Mulcair stated that Layton’s death had hit him exceptionally hard, and that while he was considering a federal NDP leadership bid, he would need several weeks to make up his mind on that decision.
      • Mulcair declared his candidacy for the federal NDP leadership at a press conference in suburban Montreal on October 13, 2011. He attracted the support of 60 of the 101 other federal NDP MPs, including Robert Chisholmand Romeo Saganash, the only two to have dropped out of the leadership race.

On the fourth and final ballot, Thomas Mulcair was elected NDP leader with 57.2% of the votes.

Dr. Hasan Askari
Lahore

Most Pakistanis want Pakistan to be the most powerful and prosperous state in the world. They want to live in prosperity, comfort and security with ample opportunities for their children to move ahead in the society. 

  There is nothing wrong in preparing a wish list or dreaming about an ideal situation.  However, if a state and society live only by a wish list and do not want to put their dreams to a reality check, they would feel frustrated for failing to realize the wish list.

   Pakistan can realize most of its wish list and function as a normal state in world community with stable economy provided its policy makers and the politically active circles moderate their wish list keeping in view their actual capacity and resources. They will have to change their mindset from sermonizing others on what should be done and stop waiting for some “sincere leader” to appear for solving their problems. 

  Pakistan will have to seek strength from within its boundaries. It should adopt a low and quiet profile at the global level and work for peace and stability on its border. A low key foreign policy has to be distinguished from isolation. Pakistan cannot afford to be isolated at the global level. It must stay engaged with the rest of the world, especially the major powers. But, it must not get involved in the problems and issues of others that do not directly affect its interests. This will give enough time Pakistani leaders to devote fully to internal problems.

  Pakistan should learn from China’s strategy of modernizing its economy and strengthening itself internally. It has defused tension with all bordering states. It has put aside (not abandoned) its territorial dispute with India. The volume of China’s trade with India is bigger than its trade with Pakistan. It has also developed trade relations with Taiwan and improved relations with other neighbors so that it is able to devote fully to building its economy and strengthening economic ties with the rest of the world. It is expected to continue with this policy to keep its economic development rate in double digit for the next decade or so. This will enable China to project itself effectively at the global level at a later stage.

  Pakistan should postpone its political agenda beyond its border for a decade and devote fully to internal issues and problems. Four issues have to be on the top of the priority list: revival of the economy and international trade, control of religious extremism and militancy, reduction of socio-economic inequities and greater emphasis on quality education and health facilities.

  The 21^stcentury is the era of knowledge, especially science and technology, greater movement of people, goods and services across territorial boundaries of the states and the welfare of people. Pakistan should acquire these currencies of power in the coming decades rather than nurturing Islamic militant groups that have transnational ideological and political agendas.

  This calls for toning down anti-America hysteria in Pakistan.  As the Islamic parties and militant groups have found themselves under strong pressure from the U.S. policy in Pakistan and Afghanistan since September 2001 they have turned against the U.S. It is interesting to note that all Islamic parties were generally pro-America and they benefited from American supply of funds and weapons in the 1980s for building up Afghan-Islamic resistance in Pakistan. No Islamic party argued then that the U.S. is enemy of Islam.

  Now, the interests of Pakistan’s Islamic parties have conflicted with the U.S. because the U.S. wants to subdue the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. These Islamic parties argue that if the U.S. leaves Afghanistan all problems of Pakistan will be resolved. This is a naïve solution of complex regional and global problems. Pakistani Taliban have never attacked American target. They target Pakistani state and people in order to dominate them. Their efforts for power and control in Pakistani territory would continue after the exit of the U.S. from Afghanistan.

  This week Pakistan’s Parliament has discussed the security and foreign policy issues for evolving a framework for revising Pakistan’s relations with the U.S. The federal government wants to pursue balanced relations on mutually beneficial terms. However, the Islamist groups somehow want to sever Pakistan’s ties with the West in general and the U.S. in particular. Alternatively, they want the rest of world to pursue foreign policy as demanded by them.

   Pakistan cannot isolate itself from the international community. The success of foreign policy depends on identifying common and shared areas of cooperation. Pakistan will also have to improve its relations with India, expand ties with Iran and seek a friendly Afghanistan. It needs to have good working relations with other countries with a view to its national interests. This cannot be possible with internal socio-economic development and harmony and peace on Pakistan’s borders.

   Do not expect other countries to pursue policies to Pakistan’s satisfaction. The Pakistani civilian and military leaders will have to adopt a realistic approach to put Pakistan’s economic and political house in order based on a down-to-earth reality check of the resources and capacity. Its domestic and foreign policy effort should give primacy in terms of policy-measures to enhance its internal economic strength, political stability and harmony. This can secure Pakistan against external “conspiracies” and enable it to play an active global role at a later stage.