Jarusalem Post - July 25

Outlaws over lawmen

In Mizrahi’s case, perhaps Peres should step in.   “The law isn’t justice. It’s a very imperfect mechanism. If you press exactly the right buttons and are also lucky, justice may show up in the answer.” – Raymond Chandler

Anyone with even cursory familiarity with the legal system realizes that justice and fairness are by no means identical to legal strictures. What the law stipulates doesn’t necessarily mesh with what common sense dictates. A truly wise judiciary strives to bridge the gap between the average citizen’s intuition and legal instructions.

Our courts, however, sometimes seem bent on acquiring a reputation for supercilious insensitivity. An emotive case in point is the Supreme Court’s decision last Wednesday to double the prison time to which Hadera police detective Shahar Mizrahi was sentenced last September by the Central District Court.

Mizrahi had been sent down for 15 months, with another 15 months on probation, for the manslaughter shooting of car thief Mahmoud Ghanayem. Mizrahi apprehended Ghanayem in the act, was attacked with a screwdriver and pushed down. Immobilized by an injured ankle, Mizrahi said he shot at Ghanayem as he sped at him in the stolen vehicle, perhaps trying to run him over.

The lower court’s original sentence shocked the police and, claiming self-defense, Mizrahi appealed. So did the prosecution. To the police’s horror, not only was Mizrahi’s conviction upheld, but his jail-time was doubled. The court ruled that there was no significant evidence to back up Mizrahi’s account of what had unfolded.

Chief Justice Dorit Beinisch decreed that “the district court erred by giving more weight to Mizrahi’s personal circumstances and not enough to the value of the life that Mizrahi cut short. It also didn’t consider sufficiently the wider deterrent ramifications.”

Superficially, this may be reminiscent of the Shai Dromi case – in which the Negev rancher shot a Beduin rustler.

But Mizrahi was no vigilante taking the law into his own hands. Therefore, the deterrent of which Beinisch spoke appears aimed at law-enforcement personnel. “With little effort,” she averred, “Mizrahi could have avoided the danger he felt and shot at the car tires or the deceased’s legs.”

However, Judge Menahem Finkelstein, who presided over Mizrahi’s original trial, had argued that the incident evolved so rapidly, there was no time for careful evaluation, especially as the shooting occurred seconds after Ghanayem attacked the policeman with his screwdriver.

BEINISCH MAY have the dry language of the law on her side. The problem is in the application.

A court that doesn’t factor in extenuating circumstances is remiss. Yet here, second-guessing judges downplayed Mizrahi’s subjective sense of acute danger. Given the situation in which he was caught, as the district court judge evidently concluded, he had every rational reason to believe that his life was on the line.

For the Supreme Court to conclude otherwise required the justices to dismiss the instincts of a man on the ground facing an oncoming car – a man who was not operating in air-conditioned chambers, with hours to weigh pros and cons, calculate trajectories and mull over the thief’s legal standing.

When a ruling such as this one, even if it is in perfect accord with the letter of the law, violates the law’s spirit and egregiously offends ordinary folks’ notion of justice, it is – to put it mildly – counterproductive. In the popular perception, the highest court in our land preferred the rights of outlaws to the mission – indeed, the very lives – of lawmen.
In this regard, the case of another officer, Shlomi Asulin, is instructive. Four years ago, Asulin was stabbed with a screwdriver by a Beduin car thief he was attempting to apprehend in Rehovot. Asulin didn’t shoot. He has been in a vegetative state ever since. Indeed, Asulin’s condition was reported to have deteriorated on the very day the Supreme Court doubled Mizrahi’s jail time.

A society that seeks to maintain law and order must ask itself who will protect it if the courts refuse to consider the special combat-like circumstances under which officers sometimes must make split-second lifeand- death calls.

Policemen and -women are overworked and underpaid.

If they additionally feel thrown to the legal dogs, their motivation will be further undermined, and fewer yet will enlist in the service. The consequences for society collectively and each of us individually could be dire.

In Mizrahi’s case, perhaps President Shimon Peres might want to step into the breach.
Source : http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Editorials/Article.aspx?id=182479

Yahoo News - July 25

A Russian milestone: 

1st black elected to office

By KRISTINA NARIZHNAYA

NOVOZAVIDOVO, Russia – People in this Russian town used to stare at Jean Gregoire Sagbo because they had never seen a black man. Now they say they see in him something equally rare — an honest politician.
 

Sagbo last month became the first black to be elected to office in Russia.

In a country where racism is entrenched and often violent, Sagbo's election as one of Novozavidovo's 10 municipal councilors is a milestone. But among the town's 10,000 people, the 48-year-old from the West African country of Benin is viewed simply a Russian who cares about his hometown.

He promises to revive the impoverished, garbage-strewn town where he has lived for 21 years and raised a family. His plans include reducing rampant drug addiction, cleaning up a polluted lake and delivering heating to homes.

"Novozavidovo is dying," Sagbo said in an interview in the ramshackle municipal building. "This is my home, my town. We can't live like this."

"His skin is black but he is Russian inside," said Vyacheslav Arakelov, the mayor. "The way he cares about this place, only a Russian can care."

Sagbo isn't the first black in Russian politics. Another West African, Joaquin Crima of Guinea-Bissau, ran for head of a southern Russian district a year ago but was heavily defeated.

Crima was dubbed by the media "Russia's Obama." Now they've shifted the title to Sagbo, much to his annoyance.

"My name is not Obama. It's sensationalism," he said. "He is black and I am black, but it's a totally different situation."

Inspired by communist ideology, Sagbo came to Soviet Russia in 1982 to study economics in Moscow. There he met his wife, a Novozavidovo native. He moved to the town about 100 kilometers (65 miles) north of Moscow in 1989 to be close to his in-laws.

Today he is a father of two, and negotiates real estate sales for a Moscow conglomerate. His council job is unpaid.

Sagbo says neither he nor his wife wanted him to get into politics, viewing it as a dirty, dangerous business, but the town council and residents persuaded him to run for office.

They already knew him as a man of strong civic impulse. He had cleaned the entrance to his apartment building, planted flowers and spent his own money on street improvements. Ten years ago he organized volunteers and started what became an annual day of collecting garbage.

He said he feels no racism in the town. "I am one of them. I am home here," Sagbo said.

He felt that during his first year in the town, when his 4-year-old son Maxim came home in tears, saying a teenage boy spat at him. Sagbo ran outside in a rage, demanding that the spitter explain himself. Women sitting nearby also berated the teenager. Then the whole street joined in.

Russia's black population hasn't been officially counted but some studies estimate about 40,000 "Afro-Russians." Many are attracted by universities that are less costly than in the West. Scores of them suffer racially motivated attacks every year — 49 in Moscow alone in 2009, according to the Moscow Protestant Chaplaincy Task Force on Racial Violence and Harassment, an advocacy group.

After the Soviet Union collapsed, Novozavidovo's industries were rapidly privatized, leaving it in financial ruin. 

High unemployment, corruption, alcoholism and pollution blight what was once an idyllic town, just a short distance from the Zavidovo National Park, where Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and President Dmitry Medvedev take nature retreats. 

Denis Voronin, a 33-year-old engineer in Novozavidovo, said Sagbo was the town's first politician to get elected fairly, without resorting to buying votes

"Previous politicians were all criminals," he said. 

A former administration head — the equivalent of mayor in rural Russia — was shot to death by unknown assailants two years ago. 

The post is now held by Arakelov, a veteran of the Soviet war in Afghanistan who says he also wants to clean up corruption. He says money used to constantly disappear from the town budget and is being investigated by tax police. 

Residents say they pay providers for heat and hot water, but because of ineffective monitoring by the municipality they don't get much of either. The toilet in the municipal building is a room with a hole in the floor. 

As a councilor, Sagbo has already scored some successes. He mobilized residents to collect money and turn dilapidated lots between buildings into colorful playgrounds with new swings and painted fences. 

As he strolled around his neighborhood everyone greeted him and he responded in his fluent, French-African-accented Russian. Boys waved to Sagbo, who had promised them a soccer field. 

Sitting in the newly painted playground with her son, Irina Danilenko said it was the only improvement she has seen in the five years she has lived here.

"We don't care about his race," said Danilenko, 31. "We consider him one of us."

Source : http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100725/ap_on_re_eu/eu_russia_black_politician/print

The News - July 24

Cut in budget likely to force HEC to drop 80% of students

Saturday, July 24, 2010 Noor Aftab Islamabad A drastic cut in the annual budget is likely to force Higher Education Commission (HEC) to drop 80 per cent of students for foreign scholarships due to non-availability of required funds, sources told ‘The News’ here on Friday. The data showed that HEC set a target to select 800 students for foreign scholarships in MS, MPhil leading to PhD in universities of US, UK, Canada, Australia, Japan, Singapore, Germany, France and Cuba. The annual PSDP budget for the HEC has been reduced from Rs22.5 billion to Rs15.7 billion and now it is finding it difficult to provide required funds to 640 students for foreign scholarships. Sources said that the HEC has now approached top government functionaries for provision of funds otherwise it would have no option except to deprive hundreds of students of their foreign scholarships. An official said the scheme of foreign scholarships was initiated to supplement HEC’s efforts for provision of adequate number of trained PhD manpower that would ultimately help support technology upgrading, develop high standards of science and technology and meet growing challenges for national economy. He said that a number of scholarships are being offered to scholars to continue their postgraduate studies in the field of economics and finance abroad, adding that the scholarships provide awards for PhD scholarships to universities in leading European and Asian countries with low tuition fees. He said up to 10 per cent of the available seats are reserved to support the PhD level training of candidates, who have been admitted to a group of carefully selected universities in advanced countries based on their expertise in various disciplines. Sources said that currently there are over 9,000 students studying on various scholarships and human resource development programmes, including foreign PhD scholarships in various stages of their progress and an amount of Rs10 billion is required to maintain their monthly stipends, tuition fees and research expenses. The official said the allocated funds for the HEC would hardly enable them to meet expenses of those students already studying on scholarships so it would be difficult to provide more scholarships in the current year. It is pertinent to mention here that Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani assured vice chancellors of 70 public sector universities on February 23 that there would be no cut in financial allocations for the education sector, but unfortunately, the facts appeared contrary to his claim in the annual fiscal budget. HEC Member Operations and Planning Dr. Mukhtar Ahmad told this scribe that they have approached the government and hopefully required funds would be available for foreign scholarships of students. To a question whether they have got any assurance for provision of required funds, he said, “Hopefully we would be able to arrange funds for foreign scholarships.” HEC Executive Director Dr. Sohail Naqvi told this scribe, “Unfortunately we lack required funds for foreign scholarships, but we would try our level best to achieve the target of 800 foreign scholarships this year.” “We have approached the government, but so far it has given no assurance for provision of required funds. If funds are not available then we would have no other option, but to reduce number of foreign scholarships,” he said. To a question, he said, it is not yet clear how much funds would be available in the education sector under Kerry-Lugar Bill, adding, “We hope a portion of funds would also be given for higher education sector in the country.” Source :

http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=252532

The News - July 24

Resistance personified

Saturday, July 24, 2010 Farooq Sulehria Afghan leader Malalai Joya is resistance personified. She is the most vocal critic of both US occupation of Afghanistan and the ruling warlords. At the same time, she speaks dismissively of the Taliban: "Their violence is no resistance". However, Malalai Joya hardly grabs headlines in the Pakistani media that often glorifies the mindless violence of the Taliban. But she is a household name in Afghanistan and a known figure internationally. She was called "Afghanistan's most famous women" by the BBC a few years ago. Last April, she was ranked among the 100 most influential people of the world by Time Magazine. But Time asked Dutch-Somalian author Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who is known for her Islamophobic views, to make the announcement. Now settled in the US, Hirsi Ali distorted Joya's image in her malicious announcement by saying: "I hope in time [Joya] comes to see the US and NATO forces in her country as her allies. She must use her notoriety, her demonstrated wit and her resilience to get the troops on her side instead of out of her country". A furious Joya reacted strongly. In her counter-statement, she said: "Time has painted a false picture of me and does not mention anything at all about my struggle against the occupation of Afghanistan by the US and NATO, which is disgusting. In fact, everyone knows that I stand side-by-side with the glorious antiwar movements around the world and have proved time and again that I will never compromise with the US and NATO who have occupied my country, empowered the most bloody enemies of my people and are killing my innocent compatriots in Afghanistan". Joya earned a mark back in 2003 at the Loya Jirga (Greater Assembly) convened to ratify Afghanistan's new constitution. Unlike the US-sponsored, clean-shaven fundamentalists, Joya was not nominated by Karzai. She was elected by the people of the Farah province to represent them at the Loya Jirga. The Jirga was chaired by Sibghatullah Mojaddedi who, at the very outset, told the women delegates: "Even God has not given you equal rights because under His decision two women are equal to one man". Joya had bravely organised underground girls' schools in Herat when the Taliban's terror drove millions into exile. Mojaddedi's patriarchal admonition could not intimidate Joya. She stunned the Loya Jirga and the press members present to cover the occasion by delivering a three-minute, hard-hitting speech, exposing the crimes of the warlords running the Loya Jirga. A befuddled grey-bearded Sibghatullah Mojaddedi, on hearing Joya, screamed in anger and called her 'infidel' and 'communist'. Others also shouted at her. But before she was silenced by an angry mob of warlords, with her single, but timely, act she had electrified Afghanistan. When she criticised the warlords at the Loya Jirga, even 'Viceroy' Zalmay Khalilzad -- the then US envoy to Afghanistan -- was upset. "Joya", Khalilzad chided, "had overstepped the framework of politeness". She wrote a letter to Khalilzad, saying: "If these criminals raped your mother or daughter or even your grandmother, or killed seven of your sons, let alone destroyed all the moral and material treasure of your country, what words would you use against such criminals and puppets that will be inside the framework of politeness and respect?" In the meantime, three fateful minutes at the Loya Jirga changed the course of Joya's life. In her native province of Farah, locals wanted her to represent them in elections. It does not merely take guns and dollars to contest an election in Afghanistan. Joya had none. Still, she contested and was elected to parliament in 2005. Danish filmmaker Eva Mulvad immortalised Joya's courageous election campaign and subsequent victory in her documentary "Enemies of Happiness". Aged 25, Malalai Joya was the youngest Afghan MP. More importantly, she proved herself to be the bravest MP. On the floor of parliament, she emerged as the strongest critic of US occupation and the Taliban- and mujahidin-dominated Karzai regime. Hence, at almost every parliamentary session she attended, she had her hair pulled, was attacked physically and called names by her 'Islamist' colleagues. She was even threatened with rape on the floor of the house. In one case, the warlords bussed in thousands of men to Kabul to march and demand "Death to Joya". Niaz Mohammad Amiri, a member of Abdul Rasul Sayyaf's Wahabist party, would never miss an opportunity during parliamentary sessions to call her a prostitute. Flyers were distributed calling her prostitute, communist and anti-Islamic. "Among the worst was a leaflet that showed a photograph of me without my headscarf, falsely saying that the picture was taken at the Loya Jirga. Underneath was the awful slogan: she took off her scarf at the Loya Jirga, she'll take off her pants in parliament", Joya noted in her book Raising My Voice that has recently come out. Once she was abroad on Valentine's Day. It was propagated that she was abroad to celebrate Valentine's Day. In her two years in parliament, she never once had the chance to complete her speech without her microphone switched off. But even her half-delivered speeches were hard to tolerate. Hence, she was suspended from parliament. Her suspension has been widely criticised. From Noam Chomsky to Naomi Klein, a host of noted people have signed the petition for her reinstatement. She now leads an underground life. To hide her identity, she wears the burqa which she otherwise hates. In view of her previous experience, she has decided not to contest elections scheduled for September this year. The writer is a freelance contributor. Email: mfsulehria@hotmail.com Source :

http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=252624

UNB Connect - July 24

Experts urge stronger diplomacy over water

Dhaka, Jul 24 (UNB) – Water experts at a conference on Saturday stressed the need for combined efforts to unite the nation for realizing the potential of its water resources by mitigating the effects of India’s moves to construct dams on major international rivers.

They said that although the source of all principal rivers of Bangladesh are outside the country, depending on the upstream water for their flow, India is planning to build dams in upstream areas of the major rivers including Barak.
The International Farakka Committee (IFC), New York Inc, organized the day-long conference titled ‘Water Problems of Bangladesh: National and Regional Perspectives’ at National Press Club in the city today.


IFC chairman Atiqur PK Eusufzai presided over the session while Former UN Environment Specialist and water expert Dr SI Khan presented a keynote paper at the conference.


Former DU VC Dr Maniruzzaman Miah, former KU VC Prof Abdul Quadar Bhuiyan, former State Minister for Foreign Affairs Abul Hasan Chowdhury,  DU Prof Dr Asif Nazrul Islam, Dr Zaffarullah Chowdhury, editor of the New Nation Mostafa Kamal Majumdar and Journalist Sadeq Khan spoke on the occasion.


Speaking at the conference, Dr SI Khan said there are some 54 international rivers in the South Asia region, from which India has withdrawn water from 42 rivers by constructing dams on them.


“Although the majority of the water of these rivers come from Nepal and Bhutan, India is trying to use all of the water by overlooking the interests of neighboring countries,” he said.


On India’s move to construct Tipaimukh Dam on Barak river, Dr Khan said if the India government implements the proposed Tipaimukh Dam, 60 percent of the area of the country’s Meghna basin will be affected by desertification, and salinity will rise to affect the area up to Sylhet town.


He urged the government to pressure the neighboring country for ideal sharing of the water of another common riverm, the Teesta, as per the water treaty signed by the two countries earlier.


Dr Khan suggested the formation of a committee involving UN water experts to demolish the Farakka dam built by India to save the country’s north-western part from desertification.


Blaming the political parties, Dr Asif Nazul said that no successive government could play any sort of comprehensive role in realizing our water and water resources from India.


“We are not a foolish nation. But whoever governs the country, either they are foolish, selfish or unpatriotic,” he said.


He urged the upcoming generation to come forward and take the responsibility upon their shoulders for solving the longstanding regional water problems.     
About 92 percent of the catchments area of the Ganges, Brahmaputra and Meghna (GBM) rivers are located outside Bangladesh while the GBM river basin is around 64 percent in India, 18 percent in China, 9 percent in Nepal, and 3 percent in Bhutan.


It is estimated that the catchments area of the Ganges, Brahmaputra and Meghna rivers is 12 times the size of Bangladesh.


Source : http://www.unbconnect.com/component/news/task-show/id-26163

Jerusalem Post - July 23

Eiland: Flotilla was preventable

’There were political courses of action available’

Maj.-Gen Giora Eiland said it was possible to prevent the May 31 flotilla to Gaza by political means, speaking in an interview with Reshet Bet Friday. 

"Three months before the flotilla there were many courses of action which could have prevented it," said Eiland, head of a military commission charged with conducting an internal investigation of the Gaza-bound flotilla, which was boarded by Israeli commandos and left nine Turkish citizens dead.

Eiland suggested Israel "could have opened the Gaza crossings in advance, before the Turkish flotilla."  The crossings were expanded to allow more aid to go through, but this was only done in the wake of international pressure after the flotilla.

The general also said Israel knew in advance about the changing political winds in Turkey and tightening ties with the IHH, the organization behind the flotilla. However, he thought this only strengthened Israel's resolve to continue with the predicted course of events, which led to the boarding of the Mavi Marmara, flagship of the flotilla. 

The Eiland Commission's report concluded that a series of operational and intelligence mistakes led to the raid in late May aboard the Mavi Marmara.

The 100 page report listed a number of “mistakes” that had been made in the planning stage of the operation. Eiland, a former head of the IDF’s Planning Division and the National Security Council, said that he did not find any negligence in the planning and implementation of the operation. He also made it clear that there was a difference between “operational failures” and “operational mistakes” and that he had only found mistakes, not failures.

“There were mistakes, also on the high military levels, but happily, they were not the result of negligence,” Eiland said.

He slammed the navy for not preparing a "Plan B," instead choosing to board the flotilla despite heavy presence of activists on board. 

The Israel Navy went on high alert Thursday in preparation for another flotilla, amid forecasts that two vessels from Lebanon were preparing to depart for the Gaza Strip in an effort to break the blockade by the end of the week. 

Two ships are expected to depart Tripoli on either Friday or Saturday to try and break the blockade. One of the ships is carrying women and the other is carrying journalists.

Source : http://www.jpost.com/LandedPages/PrintArticle.aspx?id=182362

The New York Times - July 22

There’s Only One Way to Stop a Bully

By SUSAN ENGEL and MARLENE SANDSTROM

 

HERE in Massachusetts, teachers and administrators are spending their summers becoming familiar with the new state law that requires schools to institute an anti-bullying curriculum, investigate acts of bullying and report the most serious cases to law enforcement officers.

This new law was passed in April after a group of South Hadley, Mass., students were indicted in the bullying of a 15-year-old girl, Phoebe Prince, who committed suicide. To the extent that it underlines the importance of the problem and demands that schools figure out how to address it, it is a move in the right direction. But legislation alone can’t create kinder communities or teach children how to get along. That will take a much deeper rethinking of what schools should do for their students.

It’s important, first, to recognize that while cellphones and the Internet have made bullying more anonymous and unsupervised, there is little evidence that children are meaner than they used to be. Indeed, there is ample research — not to mention plenty of novels and memoirs — about how children have always victimized one another in large and small ways, how often they are oblivious to the rights and feelings of others and how rarely they defend a victim.

In a 1995 study in Canada, researchers placed video cameras in a school playground and discovered that overt acts of bullying occurred at an astonishing rate of 4.5 incidents per hour. Just as interesting, children typically stood idly by and watched the mistreatment of their classmates — apparently, the inclination and ability to protect one another and to enforce a culture of tolerance does not come naturally. These are values that must be taught.

Yet, in American curriculums, a growing emphasis on standardized test scores as the primary measure of “successful” schools has crowded out what should be an essential criterion for well-educated students: a sense of responsibility for the well-being of others.

What’s more, the danger of anti-bullying laws, which have now been passed by all but six states, is that they may subtly encourage schools to address this complicated problem quickly and superficially. Many schools are buying expensive anti-bullying curriculum packages, big glossy binders that look reassuring on the bookshelf and technically place schools closer to compliance with the new laws.

But our research on child development makes it clear that there is only one way to truly combat bullying. As an essential part of the school curriculum, we have to teach children how to be good to one another, how to cooperate, how to defend someone who is being picked on and how to stand up for what is right.

To do this, teachers and administrators must first be trained to recognize just how complex children’s social interactions really are. Yes, some conflict is a normal part of growing up, and plenty of friendly, responsible children dabble in mean behavior. For these children, a little guidance can go a long way. That is why the noted teacher and author Vivian Paley once made a rule that her students couldn’t exclude anyone from their play. It took a lot of effort to make it work, but it had a powerful impact on everyone.

Other children bully because they have emotional and developmental problems, or because they come from abusive families. They require our help more than our punishment.

The kind of bullying, though, that presents the most difficulty in figuring out how and when to intervene falls between these two extremes: Sometimes children who aren’t normally bullies get caught up in a larger culture of aggression — say, a clique of preadolescent girls who form a club with the specific function of being mean to other girls. Teachers must learn the difference between various sorts of aggressive behaviors, as well as the approaches that work best for each.

Most important, educators need to make a profound commitment to turn schools into genuine communities. Children need to know that adults consider kindness and collaboration to be every bit as important as algebra and reading. In groups and one-on-one sessions, students and teachers should be having conversations about relationships every day. And, as obvious as it might sound, teachers can’t just preach kindness; they need to actually be nice to one another and to their students.

Teachers also need to structure learning activities in which children are interdependent and can learn to view individual differences as unique sources of strength. It’s vital that every student, not just the few who sign up for special projects or afterschool activities, be involved in endeavors that draw them together.

Look at Norway, where the prevention of such incidents became a major emphasis of the school system after three teenage victims of bullying committed suicide in 1983. There, everyone gets involved — teachers, janitors and bus drivers are all trained to identify instances of bullying, and taught how to intervene. Teachers regularly talk to one another about how their students interact. Children in every grade participate in weekly classroom discussions about friendship and conflict. Parents are involved in the process from the beginning.

Norway’s efforts have been tremendously effective. The incidence of bullying fell by half during the two-year period in which the programs were introduced. Stealing and cheating also declined. And the rate of bullying remains low today. Clearly, when a school and a community adopt values that are rooted in treating others with dignity and respect, children’s behavior can change.

Indeed, our analysis of successful bullying-prevention programs across the United States and abroad reveals that the key common factor is their breadth: both in terms of the people who participate and of the deep connection between specific policies and the larger social ethos of the school community.

Involving the legal system makes a strong statement that a society won’t tolerate bullying. But for laws like the one in Massachusetts to succeed, they have to be matched by an educational system that teaches children not only what’s wrong, but how to do what’s right.

Susan Engel is a senior lecturer in psychology and the director of the teaching program at Williams College, where Marlene Sandstrom is a professor of psychology.

Source : http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/23/opinion/23engel.html?_r=1&ref=global&pagewanted=print

Dawn - July 24

Making Success Fail

By A. G. Noorani

The best course before India and Pakistan is to revive the jettisoned accord now by making a joint announcement to hold talks on the issues which were agreed on July 15.

THE India-Pakistan foreign ministers’ meeting on July 15 raises six questions. What was its main purpose? How did they try to fulfil it? What derailed a meeting which nearly succeeded? What impact did Indian Home Secretary G.K. Pillai have? And also the press conference? Finally, how do we proceed from here to fulfil the remit which Prime Ministers Manmohan Singh and Yousuf Raza Gilani gave the foreign ministers at Thimpu on April 29?

No joint statement was issued but Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao’s statement on April 29 and Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi’s the next day shed ample light. He said, “There has been a trust deficit and we have to bridge it. It can be done through CBMS [confidence-building measures]. It will not happen in a day. It is a process.” Also, “We have Kashmir, Sir Creek, Siachen, water dispute, trade relations and terrorism as the major issues” to discuss.
Ms Rao said that the prime ministers “focused on the renewal of dialogue” to “restore trust and confidence” and “the searchlight is on the future and not on the past”. She revealed that Dr Manmohan Singh had, indeed, expressed his concerns about Lashkar-iTaiba founder Hafiz Saeed, the slow progress in the trials in Pakistan of the Mumbai cases, and the increase in infiltrations across the Line of Control (LoC). She said “all issues of concern will be discussed”. Both agreed that the dialogue mattered, not its “nomenclature”.
If the prime ministers raised the dialogue to the political level (the foreign ministers’), it was because they wished to proceed with a political dialogue on the pending issues without minimising the Mumbai blasts issue. Defining India’s policy, on June 13, Ms Rao mentioned “one dilemma. How do we deal with the persistent threat of terrorism” and urged Pakistan to “act effectively” against the terrorist groups. She spoke of the political dialogue as well. “We also have to reaffirm the progress made…in the composite dialogue or back-channel diplomacy.” In Islamabad on June 24, she said, “We must avoid stock phrases like ‘road map’.” At the “joint press stakeout” both sides were optimistic.
On June 26, Home Minister P.C. Chidambaram went to Islamabad and was convinced that the Interior Minister Rehman Malik and he “understood the situation and agreed that we should address the situation with the seriousness it deserves”. Mr Malik assured the visitor that India would not be disappointed with his replies to its queries on terrorism.
Born with a foot in the mouth, on July 13 Home Secretary G.K. Pillai talked about the alleged ISI role in the Mumbai blasts. In Islamabad on July 14 the foreign minister, S.M. Krishna, said in a prepared statement “I look forward to receiving feedback on the issues raised by our home minister” — less than three weeks earlier. Referring to Headley’s disclosures he said: “We naturally expect a response from Pakistan. I am here to find out what that response is.” He repeated this in his opening state ment at the conference. His emphasis went beyond the Thimpu remit. The matter was under discussion between the home ministers. Pillai created a nasty ripple in the pond, Krishna muddied the waters somewhat; but not altogether. For, all the pending issues were discussed; significant accord was arrived at; yet differences remained. These, however, fouled the atmosphere. A joint press conference is held only if there is total or near total accord and there is a relaxed atmosphere. Neither condition existed. Even so, the foreign ministers nearly pulled it off. An unwise diversion on infiltrations triggered off ugly sparring at the press conference.
That should neither obscure the gains nor impede the process. Mr Qureshi said, “We had a discussion on all the issues that are of importance whether it is terrorism, Jammu and Kashmir, the recent developments in Jammu & Kashmir, Sir Creek and Siachen.” He said that the progress made in the last four years should not be brought to “naught”. This confirmation of the progress in the back-channel is no small gain. He looked forward to India’s written proposal on Sir Creek which had been made verbally earlier. He assured Mr Krishna that Pakistan would “very seriously” take steps on the leads provided on the Headley interrogations and take steps to hasten the trial of the Mumbai blast cases. “We have made progress on Kashmir-related CBMs.” At his press conference the next day Mr Qureshi admitted that they had “reached agreement on many issues”. He remarked, “It is the nature of IndiaPakistan talks that whenever there is progress there is always a last-minute hitch. There was no hitch from Pakistan’s side.” The claim is not valid. He was impatient and that was reflected in his rude reference to directions from New Delhi. You don’t say that if you are to meet again. He shed the patience he had advised at Thimpu.
There lay the rub. They had agreed to meet in December. Officials had successfully drawn up a ‘calendar’ of dates for talks on all issues by designated secretaries, till December — water resour ces, trade, Sir Creek, visas, cross-LoC trade, exchange of prisoners, release of fishermen, enhancing people-to-people contact and visits by MPs. The foreign ministers were to review progress in these talks in December. Mr Qureshi insisted on including Kashmir and Siachen in the calendar for “substantive talks”. India agreed to do so “at an appropriate time”. The talks broke down on this fatuity, brilliantly described by Mr Iqbal A. Akhund in his Memoirs of a Bystander. Indians and Pakistanis revel in cleverly playing a game of words; “all the more so because they play it in a foreign language”.
The matter could have been resolved simply by agreeing to hold talks on them in December dropping both “substantive” and “at an appropriate moment”.
The best guarantee of accord is not a calendar of talks but generation of what lawyers call a “negotiating frame of mind.” On July 20 Mr Krishna said, “I have invited Foreign Minister Qureshi to visit India in the later part of the year so that we can take it up from where we left in Islamabad.” On July 22 he paid warm personal tributes to Mr Qureshi who said on July 21 that he was prepared to walk the “proverbial extra mile”. The best course is to revive the jettisoned accord. That can be done now by a joint announcement to hold talks on the issues which were agreed on July 15. Why wait till December? ¦ The writer is an author and a lawyer.

Source : http://epaper.dawn.com/ArticleText.aspx?article=24_07_2010_007_003

Dawn - July 24

The Wait for Messiah

By Irfan Hussain

OLDER readers will recognise this mantra from the past: “South Korea stole our first Five-Year Plan.” According to this urban legend, when a Korean was accused of this petty larceny by a Pakistani, he retorted: “Yes, but we implemented it.” The other pat on the back we give ourselves is about how PIA helped establish Air Malta and Emirates. I suppose that’s how those who have failed comfort themselves after having been knocked out of the league many years ago: in our period of decline, we sit around, reminiscing about the good old days.

Younger Pakistanis may find it hard to believe, but there was a time when Pakistan was held up as a model of development. India, constrained by its tightly regulated economy, was plodding along on what was called the ‘Hindu rate of growth’. Buoyed by foreign aid, then quite efficiently utilised, and with relatively liberal economic policies, Pakistan grew at a respectable rate that gave economists the widespread expectation that soon, the country would reach the take-off stage.


In the mid-1960s, a Turkish friend who worked for one of his country’s financial institutions told me that Pakistan’s Industrial Development Bank (IDBP) was cited as an exemplary state-sector enterprise in his organisation. As a young student, I remember feeling quite proud of my country. What institutions do our young people have to be proud of today?


In 1963, I drove from Germany to Pakistan with some friends over a series of steadily deteriorating roads. In Iran, we came across a metalled road 100km or so before and after Tehran. The rest were unpaved dirt roads. Poverty was so widespread that workers in eastern Iran would beg us for a box of matches.


When we crossed into Pakistan, it was like entering a developed country: although the roads in Balochistan were also unpaved, they had been neatly graded and properly marked. The border rest-house where we spent the night was adequate, and we were cooked a hot meal. Sleeping in the open under a brilliant, star-speckled sky, it felt good to be back.


So what happened to derail this success story? The short answer is 1965. This brief, pointless war, needlessly provoked by Pakistan, destabilised Ayub Khan’s government, and set in motion a chain of events that had farreaching consequences that haunt us still. Without getting into the causes leading up to this military disaster, I do see it as a hinge moment in our history.
Although the economy has grown in fits and starts since then, governance and institution-building have recorded a steady and terminal decline. Internationally, we are toxic, with our geopolitical location, our nuclear arsenal and our scary jihadi threat the only reasons why we figure in the calculations of other countries.


Many Pakistanis are convinced that if only we would get a good leader, everything could be fixed. Scores of readers have emailed me over the last couple of years, complaining about Asif Zardari. “What have we done to deserve him?” they moan. It’s almost as if they think some celestial figure should parachute down to take over. The reality is that all the actors are on the political stage, and we know what the options are.


A sizeable chunk of our chattering class is convinced that once Zardari quits the scene, rivers of milk and honey will start flowing again.


Considering that his predecessors in the presidency include such stellar figures as Ghulam Ishaq Khan, Farooq Leghari and Pervez Musharraf, it is difficult to understand how Zardari can do any worse. Indeed, whatever his many detractors say about him, his performance in office has been far better that anybody could have hoped for.


Of course, the inevitable allegations of graft swirl around this government, as they have around every elected civilian government in the past. The only reason military rulers have been spared this scrutiny is that our media moguls know better than to take on the generals over such a sensitive issue. Mere politicians, of course, are fair game. The wildest, most unfounded charges against them can be amplified in the megaphone that is the electronic media today.


Political discourse in Pakistan today resembles a Roman amphitheatre where gladiators fight and die before a mob baying for yet more blood. In this hysterical environment, it is next to impossible to initiate and sustain a sensible discussion on the real issues. When people get used to a steady diet of raw meat, it’s not easy to convince them that vegetables are good for them.
Thus, deadly serious matters like religious extremism and violence, illiteracy, poverty, the need for clean drinking water, rapid population growth, the degradation of our urban and rural environment and the water crisis are impatiently swept aside by the public and the media. What counts most to them are the NRO, the 18th Amendment, allegations of graft and the comings and goings of politicians, judges and generals.


This national preoccupation with peripheral issues lets the government off the hook. When the political discourse is diverted away from our pressing problems, the administration is under no pressure to deliver. While civil society is ready and willing to agitate for judicial independence and against the NRO, it does not show the same energy and zeal to take to the streets to demand better governance. I suppose ‘Go, Musharraf, go!’ makes a better slogan than ‘Clean drinking water for all!’ One reason for these warped priorities is that we seem to prefer to talk about abstract issues rather than mundane ones. For our educated middle class, access to clean drinking water is not the problem it is for millions of deprived Pakistanis. Ditto for education and health services as they can generally afford not to rely on creaking state facilities.


In most societies, pressure for change comes from an educated middle class. Until this class feels strongly enough for the country’s masses to demand an improvement in their lives, little will change. Currently, our civil society’s problems are more to do with the courts and government departments, so their focus is on reforming them. The media’s concern is to improve circulation and audience figures, so they whip up sudden squalls in the teacup about non-issues. And we lap up these little dramas and express our indignation in the comfort of our drawing rooms.


Meanwhile, in the real world, children starve quietly, or grow up stunted, unloved and malnourished in a hostile world. Uneducated, they have little chance of finding a job. But at least we have the consolation of being blessed with an independent judiciary. irfanhusain@gmail.com

Source : http://epaper.dawn.com/ArticleText.aspx?article=24_07_2010_007_004

Dawn - July 24

A Second Term for General Kayani

IT was the worst-kept secret in the country: Prime Minister Gilani’s announcement that army chief Gen Kayani is to be granted an extension in service came as a surprise to no one. The only thing that could be termed a little surprising was the length of the extension. Gen Kayani has effectively been handed a second three-year term, instead of a shorter extension. At this point, with the army’s strategy in the fight against militancy not as transparent as could be hoped for, it is difficult to comment on what Gen Kayani’s extension will mean for the specifics of that war. However, while there should be no doubt that winning the war against the militants is essential to the survival of this country as we know it, Gen Kayani’s extension must not be seen only through that prism.

Like it or not, the extension does not reflect well on the army as an institution. It is almost an article of faith that the Pakistan Army is the only viable, strong and vibrant institution in the country. Whatever Gen Kayani’s intimate familiarity with the present state of affairs and whatever his unique understanding of the situation, a strong institution should be able to withstand the retirement of one man, however experienced. A compelling example of institutional concerns coming before individuals was provided recently by the US, where the architect of the present American counter-insurgency strategy in Afghanistan was replaced. This in the middle of a war that is by all accounts going badly for the US. Here in Pakistan, the public is constantly told that the internal security situation has improved, that the TTP is on the back foot, that progress, while slow, is real and meaningful.


If it seems difficult to reconcile the idea of a strong institution having depth in talent and leadership with the ‘indispensability’ of a single man, then that’s because it truly is. Step back from the specifics of the present case and consider this: why does the principle of a regular change in leadership of the army even exist? It is not simply to give another general a go at the top slot. Regular, scheduled changes in leadership are in fact meant to keep institutions vibrant and strong. That there are ‘special circumstances’ at the present time is not fully convincing either. Externally, the uncertainty in Afghanistan, the intransigence of India, the unpredictability of the Americans — all these circumstances have existed before, and the country has survived them.


Internally, the fight against militancy is going to be a long, hard slog, the public is constantly told, with many years or perhaps even a decade and a half needed to see out the threat. How does a three-year extension affect that long-term course? Lest we forget, it was just a few years ago that another general believed in his indispensability and trampled over the constitution for a second time, and yet, here the country is still surviving, perhaps even better off since the dark days of Gen Musharraf’s drawnout exit.


Having said that, it is the decision of a democratically elected government to hand Gen Kayani his three-year extension. The public does not know yet, perhaps it never will, if the decision was a total capitulation or the result of a quid pro quo. Nevertheless, the government’s decision stands as a legal and effective one and should be accepted as such. Therefore, we wish Gen Kayani success in his second term and take this chance to remind him of the oath he has taken under the constitution. “I do solemnly swear that I will bear true faith and allegiance to Pakistan and uphold the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan which embodies the will of the people, that I will not engage myself in any political activities whatsoever and that I will honestly and faithfully serve Pakistan in the Pakistan Army as required by and under the law.”

Source : http://epaper.dawn.com/ArticleText.aspx?article=24_07_2010_007_001

The Onion - July 22

We Will Never Be United As A Nation As Long As There Are Other People Besides Myself

BY KURT BARNHURST 

This is a difficult time in our nation's history. There is a rift—a deep, enduring wound—among the people of this once-great land, and while I'm not sure it will be healed in my lifetime, I do not think all hope is lost. I believe change is possible, but the road will be long and difficult. The truth is, this nation can never be united as long as it is home to people other than myself.

The entire population of the United States and I simply can't see eye to eye on many of the key issues facing this country, and that is what tears us asunder. There are two Americas, and unfortunately, I'm the only person alive who is truly able to see things from my point of view. Thus we have a long way to go before our nation becomes a nation of Kurts.

And that saddens me.

There are some who will call me unpatriotic, but they are wrong. I love America, I cherish our way of life, and I have always believed there is room in our democracy for everyone to think and act the same way I do. Every man, woman, and child in this country is free to be just like me. It is no mere privilege—it is the God-given right of every American.

One day, people will realize that fostering a worldview identical to my own is the most sensible course of action. From where I stand, it's the only course of action.

In the meantime, there are a terrifying number of opinions out there that are not mine. Many of them are held by people I haven't even met. Even more alarming, I would estimate that, on average, non-Kurt-Americans probably share my specific perspective on fewer than five out of every 10 matters of political, ethical, and cultural importance. How can we as a nation move forward if millions upon millions of people in this country can't get on board with even half my agenda?

For example, I have spoken to many who disagree with my proposal that I be exempt from toll-booth charges on our nation's highways. This to me is the height of narcissism. If they put themselves in my shoes for three seconds, maybe they would appreciate the value of a traffic lane built exclusively for my use that I could speed through while cranking the Flaming Lips and waving to everyone in line as I pass.

But alas, these people are unable—or unwilling—to put aside their selfish motives and defer to mine.

There are 310 million people in this country who are not me. But deep down, all of us really want the same thing: to bridge the gaps that divide us, to live in peace and harmony. It can happen, but it's going to take some major concessions from everyone who isn't me. It's going to take everyone coming together, shutting their opinion-holes for once, and doing exactly what I want, when I want it.

Because the time for me is now.

I'm not naïve. I realize there are many Americans who have no interest in letting me do their thinking for them. Well, perhaps they should move to France or Bulgaria or some other country that isn't inhabited by me.

It's like my daddy always said: America: Love me or leave it

Source : http://www.theonion.com/articles/we-will-never-be-united-as-a-nation-as-long-as-the,17764/