~Guns \"n\" poses Will Europe arm China?<\/p>\n
Chinese armed forces do not lack funds for their
\nmodernization: China is booming, and the government is on a
\nmilitary spending spree. What they lack is access to Western
\nweaponry, cut off under sanctions imposed after the 1989
\nTiananmen massacres. They are dependent almost wholly on Russia
\nfor armaments, which limits their modernization program. French
\npresident Jacques Chirac, however, has argued that the ban on
\nChinese sales is \"obsolete\", and the EU is gearing up to end the
\nban.<\/p>\n
Decisions on arms sales are often a balancing act between
\nprofit and strategic interests. Following American unilateralism,
\napparent in its pursuit of goals, Europeans may conclude that
\ntheir strategic interests need not follow America's, hence the
\nswing towards European arms companies tapping the Chinese market.
\nThis is strengthened by the prime movers in lifting the ban:
\nFrance and Germany. It will have implications for India as well,
\nsince our military planning keeps China in mind.<\/p>\n
But two developments have given pause to advocates for
\nlifting. There is a furious backlash in the US Congress, which
\nthreatens not to approve transfers of advanced military
\ntechnology to Europe. President Clinton proposed arms sales to
\nthe Chinese during the 1990s, but Congress had shot it down
\nfearing a change in the balance of power between China and
\nTaiwan, which the US is committed to defend.<\/p>\n
Also, the Chinese National People's Congress has approved
\nlegislation which declares any formal move of independence by
\nTaiwan will trigger a Chinese invasion. The timing provides
\nammunition to those opposing the lifting. The international
\ncommunity has an obligation to keep the two countries off each
\nothers' throats, and some European countries have developed cold
\nfeet.<\/p>\n
Since any lifting must be unanimously approved by all 25 EU
\nmember-states, that puts significant obstacles in its way. The EU
\npresidency is passing to Britain, which holds it till December,
\nand Prime Minister Blair is President Bush's best friend. Which
\nmeans the People's Liberation Army may have to wait for an
\ninfusion of posh European weapons, at least till next year.
\n-- The Statesman, Calcutta<\/p>\n
Proposals for reforming the UN<\/p>\n
More than ever before, internal deadlock is keeping the United
\nNations from fulfilling its prime mandate -- preventing deadly
\nconflict. Secretary General Kofi Annan knows this. His report on
\nproposed fixes, released this week, sets the stage for urgently
\nneeded debate. High on the list must be attempts to forge broad
\ninternational agreement on terrorism and the use of pre-emptive
\nforce -- areas where lack of accord has eroded the UN's
\nauthority. The challenge of Security Council reform, however,
\ncannot be underestimated. The two formulas now on the table add
\nvarying numbers of permanent and nonpermanent members. Neither
\nproposal tackles the main reason the grouping is so
\ndysfunctional: Five of its members wield veto power over all
\nresolutions, ensuring that the body has become a tool of power
\npolitics, not a weapon of peace.
\n -- South China Morning Post, Hong Kong<\/p>\n
Reforming the UN<\/p>\n
The reforms proposed by UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, are
\nof great significance, though they are bound to be controversial.
\nSince the end of the cold war in the early nineties, the need for
\nreform of the UN has been generally recognized.<\/p>\n
No measures were taken then to revamp the world body because
\nno pressure was felt to address such a sensitive issue. The
\nAmerican invasion of Iraq in blatant disregard of the UN created
\nthat sense of urgency in 2003. Hence this recommendation by
\nAnnan.<\/p>\n
The secretary general has appealed to the member states to
\nconsider it and adopt the recommendations by September when a
\nworld summit will be held in New York to observe the 60th
\nanniversary of the United Nations. The dissent being voiced
\nnotwithstanding, one hopes the reforms will be accepted to make
\nthe UN a more effective body than it is at present.<\/p>\n
The proposed reforms touch a number of vital issues. Some of
\nthem such as strengthening human rights, boosting development and
\na thorough overhaul of the UN bureaucracy are not contentious.<\/p>\n
The need has long been felt to streamline the UN bureaucracy,
\nmake governments fulfill their earlier commitment of providing
\n0.7 per cent of their GNP for development aid and change the
\ncomposition of the human rights body. But the two issues that are
\nalready being hotly debated are the composition of the Security
\nCouncil and the rules to determine when states can go to war to
\nprotect the people's freedom to live in dignity.<\/p>\n
The idea of expanding the Security Council is universally
\nrecognized. With the UN members having grown from 51 to 191 in
\nthe wake of the era of decolonization, it is logical that its
\nexecutive arm should also expand. But the moot question is, how?
\nPreviously, the number of non-permanent rotating members was
\nexpanded from six to ten. This time one option calls for a an
\nincrease of nine rotating members with eight of them being
\nassigned a semi-permanent status, while the other provides for
\nsix new permanent members - although without a veto - and three
\nnew rotating members.<\/p>\n
This, it is felt, will create new centers of privilege which,
\nunderstandably, those denied a share in it would resent. Another
\nissue that will be questioned is the rule that when a state is
\nunable or unwilling to protect its citizens against genocide or
\ncrimes against humanity, collective action can be taken against
\nit under the UN Charter. It is the mechanism to determine the
\nneed for UN action that is likely to prove contentious.<\/p>\n
It now depends on the collective wisdom of the UN members that
\nthey work for a consensus on the proposed reforms. The fact is
\nthat the basis of the UN was the tacit recognition of the post-
\nwar power realities in 1945.<\/p>\n
Rationally this concept should keep pace with the changes in
\nthe international power equilibrium today. Though this may not be
\nfully reflected in the reformed UN, it would at least be a move
\nin the right direction.
\n-- The Dawn, Karachi<\/p>\n
Bogus UN Human Rights Commission<\/p>\n
The six-week charade known as the UN Human Rights Commission's
\nannual session has begun. So, too, has the wheeling and dealing
\nby the world's worst human rights offenders to avoid any rebuke.
\nNotorious violators like Cuba, China, Egypt, Eritrea, Nepal,
\nPakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Zimbabwe sit on the commission
\nthis year. This virtual hall of fame of abusers bands together to
\nfend off any complaints. In the process, they have destroyed the
\nUN commission's moral authority to render any judgment on human
\nrights. Last year, the panel welcomed Sudan as a member even
\nafter Secretary General Kofi Annan had likened government-
\nsponsored atrocities in Sudan's Darfur region to \"ethnic
\ncleansing.\" The UN Human Rights Commission must be cleansed of
\nviolators, and a strong human rights record should be a
\nrequirement for membership.
\n-- Miami Herald, Miami<\/p>\n
Qatar attack spotlights threat to Gulf<\/p>\n
Until now the smaller Gulf states -- Qatar, Bahrain and the
\nUnited Arab Emirates -- have been able to isolate themselves from
\nthe insurgency in Iraq and the terrorist campaign in Saudi
\nArabia. The smaller Gulf states have a vital dependence on the
\nWest -- for their defense, for their oil exports and,
\nincreasingly, for the tourist and real estate markets that are
\nbecoming as crucial as oil to local economies. Qatar has been
\nmoving rapidly down a reform path. The ruling family is toying
\nwith political pluralism, Al Jazeera has been given the freedom
\nto pioneer uncensored satellite broadcasting and Western
\ninvestment is encouraged: All anathema to al-Qaeda and Islamist
\nobscurantists. The West's offers of discreet help against
\nterrorism should be readily accepted, and steps should be taken
\nto reassure a nervous foreign community before any disastrous
\nexodus begins.
\n-- The Times, London
\n.<\/p>\n
Palestinian factions' peace talk<\/p>\n
That the leaders of Palestinian factions are so actively
\nengaged in negotiating a truce with Israel is both a positive
\nstep in the peace process and a sign of political maturity on the
\npart of militants. At this juncture, the factions seem to
\nrecognize that there are alternative ways to confront the
\nconflict with Israel. In today's international climate of the
\n\"war on terror,\" acts of violence directed at civilians are
\nincreasingly viewed as intolerable. The only way for the
\nPalestinians to gain friends now that the United States has
\nopened its door to the Abbas government, is to demonstrate that
\nthey are among the parties willing to participate in dialogue.
\nThe Palestinian factions are wise to join President Mahmoud
\nAbbas's efforts to forge a truce. In essence, they are calling
\nPresident George W. Bush's bluff. Time will tell whether Bush and
\nIsrael are also committed to peace.
\n- Daily Star, Beirut<\/p>\n
Wolfowitz candidacy for World Bank<\/p>\n
European governments badly wanted the World Bank to be led by a
\ndovish figure like Colin Powell, the former secretary of state;
\nthat would have been welcomed as evidence of the more
\nmultilateralist approach his successor, Condoleezza Rice, has
\npromised. Nongovernment organizations fear that Paul Wolfowitz's
\nfree market outlook, combined with existing U.S. interest in
\ndownsizing the bank, could run counter to development policy-
\nmaking trends under the admired departing president, James
\nWolfensohn. Some worry that Wolfowitz's strong emphasis on human
\nrights may complicate relations with China. What is crucial is to
\ncontinue the focus on poverty reduction that -- in a hopeful sign
\n-- was begun by Robert McNamara, the former U.S. secretary of
\ndefense who was also a hate figure before he took over in 1968.
\n- The Guardian, London<\/p>\n
A treaty against tobacco use<\/p>\n
Campaigns for nonsmokers' rights and against smoking have had
\nmuch success in the United States and in parts of Europe. But
\nelsewhere, they still have a long way to go. U.S. tobacco
\ncompanies aren't helping much. They generate more than $62
\nbillion in annual revenues, and more of that is being made in
\nforeign markets where antismoking efforts are generally weak. If
\nthere's hope that antismoking efforts might gain ground, it's
\nfound in the Global Tobacco Treaty, which became international
\nlaw last month. Of 168 signatories, an amazing 59 countries
\nalready have ratified it -- meaning those countries will take
\nstronger antismoking steps. The United States though, hasn't
\nratified the treaty. It needs to, soon. A country keen on
\nexporting democracy should be just as keen not to export the
\naddiction and health issues surrounding tobacco use.
\n-- Christian Science Monitor, Boston<\/p>\n
Distressed foreign job seekers<\/p>\n
Poverty in Bangladesh has been exploited in many ways. One
\nrecent example, where unethical and conscienceless persons not
\nonly ripped off the gullible and the poor but also sent many of
\nthem to their deaths, came to public attention through two
\nappalling incidents that cost the lives of 24 Bangladeshis in the
\nspace of a month.<\/p>\n
In both the instances Bangladeshis seeking livelihood abroad
\nwere made the victims of diabolical designs of some unscrupulous
\namong the manpower and travel agents both at home and abroad.
\nEach of the unfortunate victims had to pay between six and eight
\nlakh takas for the elusive employment overseas.<\/p>\n
It is no secret that exploitation of the job seekers has
\nbecome rather commonplace in the freewheeling and dealing
\nenvironment of manpower business in Bangladesh. Many, finding no
\njob opportunity in Bangladesh, fall victim to the lure and
\nenticement of the eldorado and the corrupt machinations of
\nmanpower agents, only to be left high and dry, some literally on
\nthe high seas. Those lucky to survive the ordeal returned home
\nbut only as paupers.<\/p>\n
In our eagerness to export manpower, the laxity in oversight
\nof the agencies, in some cases deliberate due to the collusive
\narrangements of the relevant government organisation and the
\nmanpower recruiting agencies, becomes a recurrent feature. The
\nwrong doings and the shortcuts that the recalcitrant recruiters
\nresort to make it imperative that constant vigil is maintained by
\nthe government agencies on their activities.<\/p>\n
We feel that the problem needs to be addressed in a
\ncomprehensive manner and there are at least three ways in which
\nthis can be done. First, exemplary punishment must be meted out
\nto those found involved in this sort of manpower business which
\nis tantamount to trafficking in persons. Second, there is need
\nfor stringent monitoring of all manpower related activities.
\nBasically, there is need for building awareness at the village
\nand ward levels about all aspects of foreign employment including
\nthe traps laid by the racketeers to induce the credulous out of
\ntheir homes and cheat them out of their money.<\/p>\n
The ministry for expatriate welfare may consider forming a
\nspecial cell in this regard to spare Bangladeshis the fate that
\nsome of their compatriots have had to face recently.
\n-- The Daily Star, Dhaka<\/p>\n
America's bad choices<\/p>\n
Nominations to two important posts by the U.S. government, one
\nfor its ambassador to the United Nations, and the other for
\npresident of the World Bank, have provoked widespread concern,
\nnot least because both the candidates are known hawks in
\nPresident George W. Bush's administration.<\/p>\n
John Bolton's nomination as U.S. envoy to the UN and that of
\nDeputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz to head the World Bank
\nhave rung quite a few alarm bells all over the world.<\/p>\n
The Voice of America reported last week that Mr Bolton,
\ncurrently under secretary of state for arms control and
\ninternational security, had said in 1994 that if the UN
\nsecretariat building lost 10 stories it \"wouldn't make a bit of a
\ndifference\". As for Mr Wolfowitz, his record, especially on how
\nAmerica deals with the rest of the world in the post-Sept. 11
\nperiod, is anything but encouraging.<\/p>\n
Right after the tragic events of Sept. 11, he was one of the
\nfirst senior officials who advocated that the U.S. attack Iraq.
\nThe arguments used were Saddam Hussein's alleged links to Al
\nQaeda -- an allegation which the U.S. government later admitted
\nit was unable to prove, and the existence of so-called weapons of
\nmass destruction in Mr Hussein's arsenal -- another claim that
\nhas since fallen by the wayside.<\/p>\n
In fact, he told the American magazine Vanity Fair in an
\ninterview that \"for bureaucratic reasons we settled on one issue,
\nweapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason
\neveryone could agree on\".<\/p>\n
When America eventually did invade Iraq, Mr Wolfowitz's
\nadvocacy for it was among the most ardent. Asked to explain
\nbefore Congress the still missing WMDs, Mr Wolfowitz said that
\nintelligence \"is an art not a science\" and insisted that he had
\n\"not misled anybody\".<\/p>\n
His style of working as the U.S. defense department's No 2 man
\nhas been indicative of the arrogance and hubris that seem to be
\nthe hallmark of the Bush administration. To nominate such a
\nperson to head the foremost multilateral lending institution in
\nthe world, whose actions, policies and initiatives have a
\nprofound impact on the developing world, is an ill-advised move
\non the part of the U.S. government.
\n-- The Dawn, Karachi<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/guns-n-poses-will-europe-arm-china-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}