Comments on issues raised by BBC WHYS

Is Iraq getting better? The statistics say so, across the board.

The figures put as a justification of military success are still unconvincing. They are dealt with in terms of statistics. They seem like figures by a company which was on the brink of bankruptcy but now things look better for it as the deficit has been replaced by profit. On the humanitarian issue, a single life matters. It is said that in BBC Jim Muir report that “The US military admit that around 13% of Baghdad – mainly parts of the huge eastern Shia suburbs, Sadr City, where the Mehdi Army used to hold undisputed sway – remain to be brought fully under control.” This means the potential of future increasing trouble is still there. Admittedly, the US military and administration aren’t crying victory yet but simply things are getting better. Things will get better when security is total and when there is national unity more solid than minor and tribal differences and finally when the ordinary Iraqis start having a better living standard.

The situation in Iraq still remains unpredictable as the figures about violence casualties shouldn’t be seen as the barometer of political success. Iraq is still far from returning to total normality as everyone has to be on the alert. There is still political wrangling among the main sections of Iraq, Kurds, Sunnis and Shiaas about power sharing.

It may be argued that security is a priority for political stability. But the fall in the recurrence of violence won’t quickly be an encouraging sign for the Iraqis to move freely without looking around them. Important personalities still have to be surrounded by heavily armed guards. The green zone remains fortified. Poverty is still roaming making millions malnourished, short of water and electricity. Unemployment is still there while qualified Iraqis, especially doctors, are leaving the country.

Iraqi refugees aren’t going to start coming back to a country still torn and wounded by the scars of past savage violence that claimed hundreds of thousands of people from all sides. This means pressure will remain on neighbouring countries where they have taken refuge, especially Jordan and Syria.

For the US, this doesn’t mean a quick pullout or a substantial reduction in troops and military budget. The Bush administration has apparently achieved this level of violence reduction by having sent 30,000 extra troops and allocating new military budgets in billions of dollars. A steep slide in violence can be advantageous to George Bush who will end his presidency feeling that he has accomplished his mission, regardless of the unpopularity he has got at home and abroad. This can make the job of the new administration easy as it will reap the fruits of Iraq invasion through colossal investments which will keep the US economy going and the US treasury getting back what has been spent on the war.

As the security situation in Iraq is fundamentally the concern of the Iraqis who have been paying for the current crisis in death and injuries, it’s unlikely the demographic aspect of Iraq will be restored to what it was like before the invasion and the start of violence. Baghdad as well as other areas where the Sunnis and the Shiaas used to live side by side will have the aspect of segregated areas.

The apparent improving situation in Iraq can be just a lull as the roots of the currents violence aren’t eradicated. Iraq is still far from having a national security force and army as it is known in stable countries. Currently, the Iraqis forces can’t impose law and order without having coalition forces led by the US on their side. Arms are still in the hands of powerful militias like Moqtada Sadr’s militias or the Mehdi Army. Differences can erupt at any time on the issue of oil revenues and power sharing. Each section is seeking to get more rather than give more through negotiations. Iraq will remain a no-go area in most parts as safety remains a concern. The fact that some American diplomats refused to join the US embassy in Baghdad explains to what extent Iraq is still a dangerous place, especially for the Americans whose army has a heavy presence there.

So in general, the “improving” situation in Iraq can be just good news for the military (the direct target of violence) and the politicians who try to capitalise on it. For Iraq as a country it will need years, if not decades, to get back to normal as the US and its allies will need more years of heavy presence to make sure things are under control according to their political agenda.

Pakistan’s detained opposition leader Benazir Bhutto has called for President Pervez Musharraf to step down.

Benazir Bhutto should be seen as the legacy of her father who was toppled and executed by the military. Times have changed since his death. But she remains in a sort of way the genie that comes out of the bottle from time to time only to create havoc or raise dusts that ought to be left covering what should be covered. May the exile for her was a reflection on how to make a strong comeback after the humiliations she suffered, being a guest in the United Arab Emirates and separated from her husband whose medical condition was affected by years of imprisonment.

Since Bhutto set foot in Pakistan, events started to unfold quickly, from bomb attacks, imposition of martial law by Musharraf to the threat by the Commonwealth Organisation to suspend Pakistan from it.

Benazir Bhutto should be seen as the future saviour of democracy in Pakistan. She seems to be among the few who have great charisma to put a stiff challenge to Musharraf. Ironically, in this Muslim country, Benazir, as a woman, is seen to have more courage to say no to Musharraf in defiance to his martial law and army. Maybe Musharraf’s mistake was to drop all the previous charges against her which were the reason for her eight years exile and an impediment to her safe return to her country.

Musharraf seems to be far from keeping to his words. He seems to be blowing hot and cold. He promised to step down as the head of the army if elected president. Once elected, he imposed martial law to keep as head of state and army chief. He imposed house arrest on Benazir Bhutto only to lift it shortly later. Then he sent hundreds of troops to surround her house to prevent her from leading public protests to his rule He declared elections to be held in February to change his mind for January. Pakistan seems to be living under Musharraf’s whims in the absence of democratic institutions. His rule is a striking example of one-man-show politics.

But it seems both Benazir and Bhutto as a heavy force should work jointly for the best of Pakistan. There should be democratic elections run in normal circumstances and not through martial law and the imprisonment of opposition members. Once the elections are over, the army should work for sustaining security and peace. As long as the army is the arbitrator in political matters, democracy will be weakened. Self-seeking politicians will ally themselves with the strongest side, currently the military, leaving democracy activists exposed to the threat of arrest and imprisonment. Maybe Pakistan military rulers should look to Turkey which succeeded in making a balance between military and civilian powers.

In a BBC interview, late King Hussein of Jordan was asked about the future of the Hashemite/ Jordanian monarchy. He wisely responded that the survival of Jordan was more important than that of the monarchy. Good politicians should think about what is best for their country and not just about the survival of the oligarchy they have created through their ferocious grip on power.

Musharraf is now responsible for the present situation in Pakistan through the policies he undertakes. Benazir is having a message for the future. It remains to see how she can be a successful leader in a volatile country, whose leaders are known to end their terms either by being overthrown and sent to exile like Nawaz Sharif or by death through accident as it was the case of Zia Ul Huq or execution as it was the single case of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.

Listen to the BBC WHYS show on this issue.

Spain’s King Juan Carlos told Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez to ” shut up” as the Ibero-American summit drew to a close in Santiago, Chile.

Chavez should learn to be diplomatic, especially when talking in public about politicians with whom he totally doesn’t see eye to eye. Summit conferences shouldn’t become a theatre where speakers rival to be on spotlight in the media by uttering pejorative terms. In North Africa, the Libyan leader Gaddafi is known for his bizarre behaviour and speeches. When he was in Belgrade in the 80s, he brought with him 10 she-camels to drink their milk. He seems to have matured politically by refraining from such behaviour. Gaddafi once described late American president Roland Reagan as a cowboy to which he replied by describing him as the stray dog of the Middle East.

Saddam in his war of words with the USA and UK sparked disparaging terms. His former minister Tarik Aziz described USA as an elephant followed by UK the rat. Tony Blair once said that Saddam should be put in cage.

In 1991, after Iraq invasion of Kuwait there was an Arab foreign ministers conference. During lunch in this conference there was exchange of nasty words between the delegates as well as the throwing of plates at one another. In another Arab summit, there was footage of Gaddafi angrily addressing Egyptian Husni Mubarak asking him to go to hell. In 2003, there were angry exchanges between the head of the Iraqi delegation and that of the Kuwaiti delegation at the Arab League conference. So history of violent exchanges at summits and conferences isn’t short at least in the Arab world.

Once late Moroccan King Hassan II was asked by a Spanish journalist to give his opinion about the relations between Morocco and Spain. He replied that the Moroccans and the Spanish had the same temperament. They easily get hot under the collar. The same, in my opinion, can be said about the Arabs and people from the Mediterranean region. After all, people in Latin America are originally from this part of the world. It’s no wonder if there are hot exchanges between them. After all the Spanish and the People in Latin America are cousins.

Concerning Chavez’s description of former Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar as ‘fascist, he should have respect for the Spanish delegation, including the king. There are other terms to describe him without offending anyone. By saying so, this implies King Juan Carlos was behind his fascist policy and so the whole Spanish regime is fascist, as well. Maybe Chavez wants Spain to return to the rule of Franco regime so he can find a great ally in southern Europe to counterattack the improving relations between France and the USA.

Chavez considered his statement as a part of free speech. But considering his closure of TV station RCTV channel just contradicts his statements. He said he wouldn’t be silenced but he he’s free to silence his opponents. It’s better to use diplomatic terms for political effect. Using words just to attract the attention of the media and to get ordinary people talk isn’t the best way to do politics. In democratic societies such remarks are left to free media which is allowed to poke fun at anyone or make them look the ugliest. Heads of states should be above using terms which self-respecting and shrewd politicians refrain from using face to face with their opponents.

A leading Australian nutritionist has urged airlines to charge obese passengers more for their seats.

Fat people can be embarrassing for their neighbours on planes. Passengers, although using common transport, need privacy. So sitting next to a very fat passenger gives the impression of being surrounded by a towering body which can even eclipse free view.

In the USA, the CNN reported some years ago the case of two fat black women companions who had complained about being obliged to pay double ticket each. They asked to pay for three tickets instead of four but this was refused. The airliner carrying them said that policy wasn’t enforced in internal flights but just on international ones.

As airliners have lenient policies towards the handicapped, it should have the same policy towards fat people as long as this doesn’t pose a problem to the passengers or affect the weight limits an aircraft has in transporting goods and people. There are some scientific researches showing that obesity can be genetic. So such fat people shouldn’t have double punishment: living with the medical consequences of their obesity and paying double for flights. After all, none of us choose to have an unpopular and unhealthy shape.

As a compromise, I suggest that airliners should “penalise” fat people through their luggage. If a fat person weighing, say, 120 kilogram and the normal weight should be 80 kilogram, they should carry only light luggage with them or they should pay double for the 40 kilograms of luggage weight if they have a heavy one instead of paying a double ticket. I know this sounds illogical.

But forcing people to pay double ticket to reduce weight won’t have the desired effect. There can be many fat people who rarely take a plane. Others used to taking first class will circumvent this penalty by taking second class. They can’t have the same comfort but at least they won’t feel they have paid double. So this decision to double the fee can be just symbolic. Its effect or popularity should be measured if it is implemented in other means of common transport like buses and trains, underground metros. Perhaps the most strident measure can be if fat people are given an ultimatum to reduce weight or they will lose their jobs or if recruitment for a job is based on weight.

Members of the Women’s Institute (WI) in Hampshire have said they want to see brothels legalised in the UK.

Legalising prostitution will remain problematic in many countries as this will be against their upheld cultural values. It will mean encouraging sexual freedom as a trade whereby the body is the item. Prostitutes are still a source of shame to their families. In some Middle Eastern countries women (married or unmarried) are killed for the family’s honour just because they seen or suspected of having an affair. In such countries, prostitutes should at least practise their profession away from home. In the Gulf States like Bahrain, United Arab Emirates, there seems to be a shortage of local prostitutes, so prostitutes are imported from other Arab countries like Egypt, Lebanon and Morocco. Some women go there of their own free will. Others are lured in going there by being offered in their home countries jobs like maids, hairdressers or waitresses to find themselves trapped into a prostitution network. Ironically, these countries posing as conservative and even strictly Islamic never officially admit such practices or they have thousands of prostitutes, especially from Arab and Asian countries.

Legalising prostitution in countries where sexual freedom is taken for granted needs other legal measures, like prostitutes displaying different prices for their different services, declaring their income, and getting social security like anyone practising a trade legally. They can be self-employed or create an association that can grow into a big company. We may hear in the future of prostitution international conferences where prostitutes exchange experiences on how to make their work more appealing. But one of the drawbacks of this profession is that the majority of prostitutes have to retire in their early forties, a relatively early age. Not being skilled in any work they will have to live on a pension and/or the money they have saved from their trade.

If this job is legalised, it means it won’t be criminal to deal with it as a trade. This means there will be qualification centres for prostitution giving would-be prostitutes advice on how to practise their trade safely without running the risk of falling into the paws of networks that will exploit them without guaranteeing them any rights.

One last point, society shouldn’t continue to be hypocritical about this issue. Prostitution is one of the most lucrative trades. Without which many services can’t operate like tourism, hotels, and bars and so on. Prostitution is a fact. No legislation has so far succeeded in fighting it altogether. It’s there around us. Prostitutes are in the corner or simply on the internet. They have developed their means to attract their clients. But societies like to keep this hypocritical attitude in the hope that one day it will be totally eradicated. But as long as sexual conduct – such as adultery – hasn’t changed despite time and different aspects of civilisation, prostitution will be there. Societies which have accepted same sex marriage, doesn’t penalize incest, should be more forward and legalize prostitution. After all, legalizing it will not necessarily mean an increase in the number of prostitutes, but it will transparently reflect a trend still regarded as a taboo. As any other job, it needs people with orientation for it.

It is a common policy by US administrations to seek allies in the third world it can do business with. Latin America used to be ruled by bloody military dictatorships. One of the bloodiest dictators was Pinochet who was seen by the USA as its ally against the spread of communism in this part of the world led by Cuban leader Fidel Castro.

So it’s no wonder if the US is finding in Musharraf an excellent ally in its fight against Al Qaeda which still has strongholds in many of the inaccessible parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan. An interesting remark is that many of US allies in the third world have a poor record on human rights according to Human rights Watch. Saudi Arabia is an example of the countries enjoying full American support despite its lack of democratic practices as it was envisaged by Pt Bush in his plan for Middle East democracy. As long as might in politics is considered as right, wrongs will be overlooked as putting them right can results in adverse wrongs to the parties seeking to make things right.

Pakistan has always been known for its lack of democratic transitions in power as power shifts from one leader to another through military coups, making democratic elections bringing to power the likes of Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif an exception rather than the rule. The US seems to be dealing with Pakistan as it is and adapting to its political reality as long as it isn’t standing in its way to fight its enemies.

The other point is that currently the US can only trust the military now that Pakistan has become a nuclear power. Letting this country get out of hand will make it a big ally of countries opponent to the US like Iran. As long as trouble is limited in Pakistan through sporadic demonstrations, repressions and bomb attacks without shaking the position of the military, Pakistan will look for the US as the best political deal it can get. It can’t force Musharraf to reduce his powers for the benefit of parties that can turn against the USA. It’s a deal. Musharraf needs the US for his survival. The US needs Musharraf “to protect America and protect American lives by continuing to fight against terrorists”. It’s a battle of survival at whatever cost. That‘s what politics is about.

Barrack Obama should be elected president to break the historic routine of US presidents of Anglo-Saxon descent. US should have a new face abroad and at home. USA needs to improve its image among Muslims who see it as Israel unconditional supporter, Iraq invader and a menace to Iran.

Whoever is elected as president should work hard to improve the image of the USA tarnished by the foreign policy of the current Bush Administration after 9/11. Any future president should make USA look benign instead of a monstrously bullying nation through its war machine and economic sanctions. USA needs the popular support of the countries it wants to do business with and not just a coercive alliance with puppet regimes that through them it secures its strategic and economic superiority.

Perhaps small countries should learn to balance their relation worldwide. Relying on a single power is like putting all one’s eggs in a single basket, with the risk of having all smashed out at a very short notice.

Saving the world from the disastrous effects of climate change is above all the responsibility of heavily industrialised countries that put out the most of carbon emissions. Pressure should also be put on economically emerging nations like India and China that are considered the next big polluters of the environment. For small countries endeavouring to have a clean environment, their actions can have little impact as it will be dwarfed by such big countries, taking into account that USA, India and China count for more than 40% of current emission.

If a small country working hard for clean environment neighbouring a big country making no effort for the same purposes, its efforts will be futile. As long as the effort isn’t carried out globally, individual actions will be just symbolic.

For California being innovative in reducing its carbon dioxide emission will be just a token gesture if not all American states don’t do the same. This means USA will continue to be a worrying country for the environmentalists.

As long as there are economic concerns around the world, the priority will be given to production even at the cost of the environment. In developing countries, mainly in Africa forests are indiscriminately destroyed for cash. It’s hard to persuade local people to preserve their forests when logging can make ends meet for them.

It will be unthinkable to persuade economically emerging countries to draw the least profit from their products for the sake of the environment when GNI per capita is the barometer of economic success or failure.

The imposition of martial law is an attempt by Musharraf to have full grip of power to bar his opponents, like Benazir Bhutto, from at least sharing power with him. Musharraf came to power after a coup amid international condemnation. But later he became an important ally of the USA in its fight of terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan. As time goes by, the imposition of martial law will be overlooked as long as Musharraf continues to serve the interests of his Western allies, esp. the USA.

The statement by Condoleezza Rice that the main priority should be to protect America and protect American lives by continuing to fight against terrorists is a kind of thumbs up to Musharraf’s action as the ends justify the means. What matters to the US is to have a strong man in charge. In view of the turbulent situation in Pakistan, Musharraf looks as the strong man needed by the US to curb the encroachment of the Islamists in this stronghold region of the Islamists. Musharraf knows that he’s still valuable to the US. He’s not under the threat of being let down, so he can confidently continue imposing martial law as it is aimed to crack down on his own opponents like former PM Nawaz Sharif as well the Islamists the major threat to the US presence in the region.

The international community is likely to sit and watch what’s going on in this country. The focus can be mainly on the Commonwealth to see if it will take any measure similar to the expulsion of Pakistan from this organisation. But this will be unlikely as the internal community is seeking détente in view of the other deeper problems like US-Russia disagreement on missile defence, Iran’s pursuit of its nuclear program. Pakistan’s situation is unlikely to be on the agenda of the UN Security Council. So Musharraf will continue to rule as long as the military is behind him abroad and enjoys the tacit or the open support of powerful countries.

Internally, Musharraf having secured a new mandate as a president will move to consolidate his power. Future parliamentary elections will be meaningless as long as the parliament will be powerless in face of emergency laws. As the constitution is suspended, there will be only martial law to govern the country. This can backfire as Islamic extremists will be more intent on further attacks as challenge to this law. What can extinguish the raging political fire in Pakistan is the adaptation of democratic rule that will surely lead to moderation on all sides. Musharraf can repress his opponents through his martial law and loyal soldiers. But he can’t narrow the circle of his opponents which can widen as a response to his individual power.