The Catholic Church condemns health workers' detentions on spurious grounds
The conservative Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines has broken its silence on the arrest and detention of 43 Filipino health workers accused by the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) of being New People's Army leaders, members, bomb-making experts, communist doctors or fake medical practitioners.
The charges have been branded as dubious by a wide range of organizations besides the church, and many political observers believe the arrests, made on Feb. 6 at a rest house in Morong, Rizal, are designed to whip up pro-government sentiment in advance of the May 10 election. In early March, communist guerrillas killed 11 soldiers in an ambush of a platoon patrolling in a remote village on the island of Mindoro 140 km south of Luzon. (Seven soldiers were wounded.) Some political observers branded the incident as suspicious, theorizing that the army's new-found aggressiveness in attacking a base they had let lie for a long period was an attempt to drum up anticommunist hysteria, but one that backfired.
In a statement Thursday, CBCP president Nereo P. Odchimar D.D., said that the bishops believe the case of the Morong 43 "represents [a] serious threat to the civil liberties of the Filipino people." Odchimar said that the bishop's conference "follows with grave concern the shifting accusations of the military against the health workers, the conflicting positions of government authorities on the legitimacy of the arrest and detention, and the seeming lack of regard of the AFP for human rights and the rule of law."
The bishops' statement comes on the heels of a propaganda offensive by the Philippines government which recently summoned members of the diplomatic corps in Manila to "explain" to them the side of the military. In the briefing for diplomats, Defense Sec. Norberto Gonzales, a rabid anti-communist, allegedly claimed that the Morong 43 were "fake" health workers.
Local and international organizations of health professionals and human rights advocates however have backed the Morong 43 and have castigated the government for what they charge is their illegal arrest and detention, as well as other violations of due process and other fundamental rights. Big and influential American unions including the National Nurses United and the Service Employees International Union and the World Council of Churches have thrown in their support for the detainees.
The arrest and detention of the Morong 43 has been criticized as a product of the policy of the AFP and the Philippine government to include individuals merely suspected of being communist in its list of enemies to be arrested, detained or "neutralized" in the course of its running war with the NPA. This has been confirmed by United Nations special rapporteur Philip Alston and a host of local and international human rights groups which have called for an end to such wrong-headed policy.
The plight of the Morong 43 proves President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo has authorized the AFP to keep the policy, no matter if it violates Philippine and international law. Nor is this the first time. Arroyo's policy soaked much of the Philippines in blood between 2001and 2007 in a dirty war that is believed to have claimed nearly 800 lives of leftists who were doing nothing more than involving themselves in political activity.
In a report that was cited for Excellence in Human Rights Journalism by the Society of Publishers in Asia, Asia Sentinel co-founder A. Lin Neumann reported in 2007 that human rights groups believed Arroyo had crossed the line with an anti-left campaign that amounted to outright murder. The report quoted Amnesty International as saying 51 leftist leaders were assassinated in the first half of 2006 in the first half of 2006 alone. Arroyo insisted that she was doing everything possible to investigate extra judicial killing, Neumann's report said. But "the campaign of assassinations seemed to shift into a higher gear in February after leftist political parties were accused of allying themselves with military rebels planning to overthrow Arroyo's government." By Tonyo Cruz for the Asian Correspondent
In my 1950s childhood, Ripley’s Believe It or Not was part of everyday life, a syndicated comics page feature where you could stumble upon such mind-boggling facts as: "If all the Chinese in the world were to march four abreast past a given point, they would never finish passing though they marched forever and forever.” Or if you were young and iconoclastic, you could chuckle over Mad magazine’s parody, “Ripup’s Believe It or Don’t!”
With our Afghan and Iraq wars on my mind, I’ve been wondering whether Ripley’s moment hasn’t returned. Here, for instance, are some figures offered in a Washington Post piece by Lieutenant General James H. Pillsbury, deputy commanding general of the U.S. Army Materiel Command, who is deeply involved in the “drawdown of the logistics operation in Iraq”: “There are... more than 341 facilities; 263,000 soldiers, Defense Department civilians and contractor employees; 83,000 containers; 42,000 vehicles; 3 million equipment items; and roughly $54 billion in assets that will ultimately be removed from Iraq.”
Admittedly, that list lacks the “believe it or not” tagline, but otherwise Ripley’s couldn’t have put it more staggeringly. And here’s Pillsbury’s Ripley-esque kicker: the American drawdown will be the "equivalent, in personnel terms alone, of relocating the entire population of Buffalo, New York." When it comes to that slo-mo drawdown, all the numbers turn out to be staggering. They are also a reminder of just how the Pentagon has been fighting its wars in these last years -- like a compulsive shopper without a 12-step recovery program in sight. Whether it’s 3.1 million items of equipment, or 3 million, 2.8 million, or 1.5 million, whether 341 “facilities” (not including perhaps ten mega-bases which will still be operating in 2011 with tens of thousands of American soldiers, civilians, and private contractors working and living on them), or more than 350 forward operating facilities, or 290 bases are to be shut down, the numbers from Iraq are simply out of this
world.
Those sorts of figures define the U.S. military in the Bush era -- and now Obama's -- as the most materiel-profligate war-making machine ever. Where armies once had baggage trains and camp followers, our camp followers now help plant our military in foreign soil, build its housing and defenses, and then supply it with vast quantities of food, water, fuel, and god knows what else. In this way, our troops carry not just packs on their backs, but a total, transplantable society right down to the PXs, massage parlors, food courts, and miniature golf courses. At Kandahar Air Base in Afghanistan, there was until recently a “boardwalk” that typically included a “Burger King, a Subway sandwich shop, three cafes, several general stores, a Cold Mountain Creamery, [and an] Oakley sunglasses outlet.” Atypically enough, however, a TGI Friday’s, which had just joined the line-up, was recently ordered shut down along with some of the other stores by Afghan war commander General Stanley McChrystal as inimical to the war effort.
In Ripley’s terms, if you were to put all the vehicles, equipment, and other materiel we managed to transport to Iraq and Afghanistan “four abreast,” they, too, might stretch a fair way around the planet. And wouldn’t that be an illustration worthy of the old Ripley’s cartoon -- all those coffee makers and port-a-potties and Internet cafes, even that imported sand which, if more widely known about, might change the phrase “taking coals to Newcastle” to “bringing sand to Iraq”?
For all the sand Iraq did have, from the point of view of the U.S. military it didn’t have the perfect type for making the miles of protective “blast walls” that became a common feature of the post-invasion landscape. So, according to Stephen Farrell of the New York Times, U.S. taxpayer dollars floated in boatloads of foreign sand from the United Arab Emirates and Qatar to create those 15-ton blast walls at $3,500 a pop. U.S. planners are now evidently wondering whether to ship some of the leftover walls thousands of miles by staggeringly roundabout routes to Afghanistan at a transportation cost of $15,000 each. When it comes to the U.S. drawdown in Iraq and the build-up in Afghanistan, in fact, the numbers, any numbers, are little short of unbelievable.
* Believe it or not, for instance, U.S. commanders in our war zones have more than one billion congressionally mandated dollars a year at their disposal to spend on making “friends with local citizens and help[ing] struggling economies.” It’s all socked away in the Commander’s Emergency Response Program. Think of it as a local community-bribery account which, best of all, seems not to require the slightest accountability to Congress for where or how the money is spent.
* Believe it or not (small change department), the Pentagon is planning to spend an initial $50 million from a “$350 million Pentagon program designed to improve the counterterrorism operations of U.S. allies” on Croatia, Georgia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, all of whom, in the latest version of the Coalition of the Billing, just happen to have small numbers of troops deployed in Afghanistan. The backdrop for this is Canada’s decision to withdraw its combat forces from Afghanistan in 2011 and a fear in Washington that the larger European allies may threaten to bail as well. Think of that $50 million as a down payment on a state bribery program -- and the Pentagon is reportedly hoping to pry more money loose from Congress to pay off the smaller “allies” in a bigger way in the future.
* Believe it or not, the Defense Logistics Agency shipped 1.1 million hamburger patties to Afghanistan in the month of March 2010 (nearly doubling the March 2009 figure). Almost any number you might care to consider related to the Afghan War is similarly on the rise. By the fall, the number of American troops there will have nearly tripled since President Obama took office; American deaths in Afghanistan have doubled in the first months of 2010, while the number of wounded has tripled; insurgent roadside bomb (IED) attacks more than doubled in 2009 and are still rising; U.S. drone strikes almost doubled in 2009 and are on track to triple this year; and fuel deliveries to Afghanistan have nearly doubled, rising from 15 million gallons a month in March 2009 to 27 million this March. (Keep in mind that, by the time a gallon of gas has made it to U.S. troops in the field, its cost is estimated at up to $100.)
* Believe it or not, according to a recent report by the Pentagon inspector general, private contractor KBR, holding a $38 billion contract to provide the U.S. military with “a range of logistic services,” has cost Washington $21 million in “waste” on truck maintenance alone by billing for 12 hours of work when, on average, its employees were actually putting in 1.3 hours.
* Believe it or not, the State Department has paid another private contractor, Triple Canopy, $438 million since mid-2005 simply to guard the massive, 104-acre U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, the largest on the planet. That’s more than half the price tag to build the embassy, the running of which is expected to cost an estimated $1.8 billion dollars in 2010. Triple Canopy now has 1,800 employees dedicated to embassy protection in the Iraqi capital, mainly Ugandan and Peruvian security guards. At $736 million to build, the embassy itself is a numbers wonder (and has only recently had its sizeable playing field astroturfed – “the first artificial turf sports field in Iraq” -- also assumedly at taxpayer expense). Fans of Ripley-esque diplomatic gigantism should have no fears about the future either: the U.S. is now planning to build another “mother ship” of similar size and cost in Islamabad, Pakistan.
* Believe it or not, according to Nick Turse of TomDispatch.com, nearly 400 bases for U.S. troops, CIA operatives, special operations forces, NATO allies, and civilian contractors have already been constructed in Afghanistan, topping the base-building figures for Iraq by about 100 in a situation in which almost every bit of material has to be transported into the country. The base-building spree has yet to end.
* Believe it or not, according to the Washington Post, the Defense Department has awarded a contract worth up to $360 million to the son of an Afghan cabinet minister to transport U.S. military supplies through some of the most dangerous parts of Afghanistan -- and his company has no trucks. (He hires subcontractors who evidently pay off the Taliban as part of a large-scale protection racket that allows the supplies through unharmed.) This contract is, in turn, part of a $2.1 billion Host Nation Trucking contract whose recipients may be deeply involved in extortion and smuggling rackets, and over which the Pentagon reportedly exercises little oversight.
Believe it or not, the staggering logistics effort underway to transport part of the American way of war from Iraq to Afghanistan is now being compared by those involved to Hannibal (not Lecter) crossing the Alps with his cohort of battle elephants, or to that ancient conqueror of conquerors, Alexander the Great (“the largest building boom in Afghanistan since Alexander built Kandahar”). It has become commonplace as well to say, as President Obama did at Bagram Air Base on his recent six-hour Afghan drop-in, that the U.S. military is “the finest military in the history of the world,” or as his predecessor put it even more emphatically, “the greatest force for human liberation the world has ever known.”
The Ripley-esque numbers, however, tell a somewhat different story. If war were really a Believe It or Not matter, or victory lay in the number of hamburgers transported or the price of fuel consumed, the U.S. military would have been the winner long ago. After all, it may be the most product-profligate military with the heaviest “footprint” in history. Though it’s seldom thought strange (and rarely commented upon in the U.S.), the Pentagon practices war as a form of mass consumption and so, not surprisingly, bears a striking resemblance to the society it comes from. Like the Taliban, it carries its way of life to war on its back.
It’s striking, of course, that all this is happening at a moment when, domestically, small businesses can’t get loans and close to 10% of the population is officially out of work, while state governments are desperately scrabbling for every available dollar (and some that aren’t), even as they cut what would once have been considered basic services. In contrast, the Pentagon is fighting its distant wars as if American pockets had no bottoms, the national treasury had no limits, and there was quite literally no tomorrow.
And there’s one more small contrast to be made when it comes to the finest military in the history of the world: for all the private security guards, mountains of burgers, lakes of gasoline, miles of blast walls, and satchels of cash to pass out to the locals, it’s been remarkably unsuccessful in its pacification campaigns against some of the motliest forces of our time. The U.S. military has been fought to something like a draw by relatively modest-sized, relatively lightly armed minority insurgencies that don’t even pass muster when it comes to shooting straight.
Vast piles of money and vast quantities of materiel have been squandered; equipment by the boatload has been used up; lives have been wasted in profusion; and yet the winners of our wars might turn out to be Iran and China. The American way of war, unfortunately, has the numbers to die for, just not to live by.
Tom Engelhardt, co-founder of the American Empire Project, runs the Nation Institute's TomDispatch.com. He is the author of The End of Victory Culture, a history of the Cold War and beyond, as well as of a novel, The Last Days of Publishing. His latest book, The American Way of War (Haymarket Books), will be published in May. To catch a special TomCast audio interview in which Jonathan Schell and Engelhardt discuss war and nuclear weapons from the 1960s to late last night, simply click here or, if you prefer to download it to your iPod, here.
[Note on Sources: Let me offer a small series of bows to six websites I find invaluable for keeping up on America’s wars. Each is a regular morning stop on my tour of the Internet: Antiwar.com, a site full of surprises, which collects the most interesting reporting of the day on America’s wars and incursions; Juan Cole’s Informed Comment which, for years now, has provided an analytic framework for, and a brilliant running commentary on, American war policy in the Middle East; the War in Context whose canny editor, Paul Woodward, recently aptly termed the American war in Afghanistan “a war of indifference”; Asia Times, a high-quality online publication that provides regular overviews on the Middle East and Asia; Noah Shachtman’s Danger Room at Wired, a must-visit for the latest in U.S. military developments; and Katherine Tiedemann’s “Daily Brief” at the AfPak Channel which provides a daily summary of key mainstream reporting on the Afghan war.
In addition, special thanks go to Christopher Holmes, my eagle-eyed volunteer copyeditor in Tokyo who keeps TomDispatch remarkably error-free, week in, week out. His is a major labor of love and, even though I don’t say so often enough, couldn’t be more appreciated day in, day out!] By Tom Engelhardt for the Believe It or Not (2010 Imperial Edition)
East Timor police have declared war on mysterious “ninjas” accused of murder and subversion in a new twist to the young country’s struggle to establish security. The latest whispers of ninjas to transfix the nation emerged after the murders of a 15-year-old girl in the western district of Bobonaro on December 22 and a baby boy in Covalima, also in the west, on January 19. Police chief Longuinhos Monteiro donned full military gear to lead the operation, telling reporters that “any ninjas who want to take us on, your final stop will be Santa Cruz cemetery”.
But many observers dismiss the ninja threat as a political game and suggest the authorities are using techniques of social control learned from the Indonesian army’s brutal 24-year occupation. “It’s a method used by the Indonesian military to limit the movement of the citizens,” said Rogerio Viegas Vicente, program manager for leading Timorese human rights group HAK Association.
Kidnappings and disappearances were commonplace during the 1975-99 occupation, in which more than 100,000 people died, and the East Timorese remain edgy when it comes to rumors of shadowy assassins. Indonesian death squads referred to as ninjas terrorized villagers and reports of masked ninjas committing crimes have persisted since formal independence in 2002. In 2008, residents of Dili and the northern coastal district of Liquica reported that ninjas were trying to kidnap their children.
The Australian government’s travel guidance advises citizens to avoid “martial arts groups” in East Timor — an apparent reference to youth gangs that have fought street battles in recent years. But human rights researchers who have investigated the murders say the ninjas being hunted by the police in Bobonaro and Covalima do not exist.
Police launched a full-scale anti-ninja operation on Jan. 22 and recently extended it for six months with support from the armed forces. Twenty members of dissident political group CPD-RDTL and underground political organization Bua-Malus were arrested on February 5 on suspicion of involvement in “ninja” activities. Police released all but two, who were detained in relation to the killing of the girl in Bobonaro. Police inspector Mateus Fernandes claimed that CPD-RDTL and Bua-Malus were attempting to launch a coup against the state.
But HAK says the girl’s murder was the result of a private dispute fuelled by political rivalry. Members of CPD-RDTL, meanwhile, have levelled a string of allegations of human rights abuses against the police. The country’s rights ombudsman is now investigating the police for what independent analysts said was an over-the-top response to a low-level political feud. “CPD-RDTL and Bua-Malus are extensions of political interests in East Timor,” said Edward Rees, a senior adviser to humanitarian group the Peace Dividend Trust. “While political competition is healthy, imposing heavy-handed police operations is more than what is really necessary for managing criminal acts mixed with political activism.”
An investigation by HAK researchers found evidence of police abuses including “ramming with rifle butts, kicking, beating with batons, cutting people’s hair with a knife, threatening their life and speaking sharply to people” who would not admit to being ninjas. HAK also found that police officers received “arbitrary orders or plans from their superior to detain individuals identified as CPD-RDTL members”. As a result, the police operation has created more insecurity than the alleged ninjas, Vicente said.
This does not augur well for a force that has been mentored by the United Nations and is starting to take more direct responsibility for security as the UN presence in East Timor winds down. By Matt Crook Dili forAgence France-Presse.
Seekers of justice find themselves in a lonely place as they challenge a system that goes easy on the instigators of racial violence, but there’s hope yet.
IF the rule of law is the basis for any modern, civilised society, it needs preserving -- truthfully, diligently and forthrightly.
This clear message has to go out because of its serious violations in India -- the demolition of the Babri Mosque in 1992, the Gujarat riots of 2002, and, earlier, the 1984 violence in New Delhi following the assassination of prime minister Indira Gandhi.
The long arm of the law is reaching for some of those accused of playing a part, years after the ghastly events. Hopefully, this will deter others.
The concept of rule of law is laid down in the Indian constitution. Divisions between the legislature, executive and the judiciary, and their respective roles and powers, are fairly clearly defined.
This is, however, negated in numerous cases of violence; of inquiry bodies' reports being mothballed after partial or poorly carried out corrective action, and of politicos getting away. They are either not questioned or, if cornered, simply resign to return another day.
The latest protagonist is Anju Gupta, an Indian Police Service (IPS) officer who deposed before a court on the role played in 1992 by Lal Krishna Advani, former deputy prime minister and a top leader of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).
She told the court that Advani had given a "fiery" speech that aroused a crowd of more than 200,000 in Ayodhya, the holy city of the Hindus, also the location of Babri Mosque.
"Advani not only looked euphoric but also declared before the huge crowds in Ayodhya on Dec 6, 1992 that the Ram temple would be built at the disputed site in the temple town," Gupta told the court.
She has thus contradicted Advani's contention that he was unaware of the hundreds of activists engaged in pulling down the five-century-old mosque, and that its destruction was "the saddest day in my life".
In court, Gupta swore in the name of "Maryada Purushottam Bhagwan Ram" and the constitution of India. Reports of the proceedings record that there was no sarcasm in her voice. Nor was Gupta, 47, mixing the personal with the official.
Gupta was in charge of Advani's security and part of his entourage, and watched the events from that vantage point. She also took on other duties when she saw law and order come crashing down before the mobs.
She saved several journalists and photographers from being bashed up by kar sevaks, radical Hindu activists, rescuing several Muslim families trapped in their blazing homes. She evicted the activists from the town on Dec 8, 1992.
Gupta later married a colleague at the Civil Services Academy. Her faith in Ram did not get in the way of her marrying Safi Ahsan Rizvi, a Muslim.
She was a key prosecution witness.
"This case is not about mandir or masjid, politics or secularism. It's about the rule of law. Mobs can't dictate terms," the Times of India quoted her as saying.
Gupta's training as an upholder of the law began before she was at the academy or in the job.
She recalled in an article titled Public (Dis)order: Witnessing Live: "As a thinking adult, I first took notice of a big event in politics on Oct 31, 1984, the day Mrs Indira Gandhi was assassinated. The carnage that followed the tragic murder of the great leader shook me.
"As a young student, it took me some time to see that at the core of the failure was the failure of the state. Today, as an IPS officer, my first reaction still is to take the moral blame for being part of such a system/society that tolerates such barbaric behaviour."
It is the system that she is still trying to change -- from the inside. That makes her task relevant, but also difficult. Not surprisingly, Gupta has had more than her fair share of transfers and postings.
The 1984 killings of nearly 3,000 Sikhs were blamed on public anger at Indira's assassination -- "the impact of the fall of a banyan tree", as one Congress leader had then said.
The dust of the tree's fall still refuses to settle a good quarter-century later. The law is catching up with two former Delhi lawmakers.
Very few convictions have ensued for that violence, or that which followed Babri's destruction. The political class has prevailed -- on the wrong side of the law. The legislature has proved partisan and ineffective. Under pressure from them, the executive and judiciary, too, have failed to uphold the law.
Advani's interrogation was delayed because he had been dropped from the list of people to be questioned.
To be fair to that regime, then prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee transferred the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the prosecuting agency, from the Home Ministry, which Advani headed, to the Ministry of Personnel. After BJP went out of power, CBI filed lesser charges against Advani.
The Babri case and the charge of a pre-planned conspiracy are not likely to be concluded soon. But it remains a ticking bomb, hurting the opposition's chances against the Manmohan government, particularly in Parliament. Politically, BJP faces almost total isolation.
Ayodhya yielded political dividends in the past. However, with the issue having lost electoral currency for now, BJP has steadily de-emphasised it, ignoring the fulminations of the Hindutva hardliners.
Last month also saw the law catching up with another BJP stalwart, Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi.
Modi, touted as "prime ministerial material" last year, became India's first chief minister to be questioned about a possible role in sectarian violence. Accused in a complaint filed by Zakia Jafri, widow of murdered former lawmaker Ahsan Jafri, Modi appeared before the Supreme Court-appointed Special Investigation Team (SIT) for questioning, eight years after the events.
Zakia accused Modi's government of failing to protect citizens. She has also accused him of abetting the riots that claimed nearly 1,180 lives, mostly Muslims, right after another carnage in which 59 people, mostly Hindus, were burnt alive on a train.
Modi declared that he was not above law and BJP termed his deposition "a political victory". He may be questioned again. SIT is to submit its report by the end of the month. The findings and political fallout, if any, remain to be seen.
It is clear that when the rule of law comes into conflict with political, religious or economic agendas, society must determine whether the agendas are more important than the well-being and safety of the people. By MAHENDRA VED for the New Straits Times Kuala Lumpur
Constitutionalism and democracy are seen by many, especially Western powers, as the routes towards peace. But the journey is unlikely to be smooth the whole way
The United States and Europe tend to see drafting a constitution as a way towards a negotiated peace, especially in post-conflict situations. This may theoretically seem appealing, yet it could also run counter to its desired objectives and cause greater instability by accentuating the wishes of the majority of citizens over a suppressed minority.
It may be relatively easy to impose elections on a given country, but more difficult to establish legality, commitment to basic rights, and a constitutional order of checks and balances within the organs of power. If democracy can be defined as "popular political self-government", a simple definition of constitutionalism could be "the containment of popular decision-making by a basic law".
At the heart of constitutionalism lies the deliberate choice of a representative government to constitute its political life in terms of commitment to a binding agreement by the ruler and the ruled, structured so as to be difficult to change. As Ronald Dworkin put it, "the constitution, and particularly the Bill of Rights, is designed to protect individual citizens and groups against certain decisions that a majority might want to make, even when that majority acts in what it takes to be the general or common interest".
Apart from its obvious relevance in all societies, this aspect is of concern, particularly to politically polarised and ethnically divided societies, such as those of Iraq and Afgha-nistan. Constitutions are drafted either at the end of a conflict to seal its outcome or prior to the eruption of conflict in an attempt to stave it off.
In Iraq, for example, the occupation powers attempted to forge a national and political reconstruction through the medium of a constitutional drafting. Through an inordinate amount of cajoling, a document was drafted and ratified in 2005 but the process of arriving there severely exacerbated existing divisions and yielded a result that was feared to ultimately lead to the disintegration of the state.
Afghanistan provides a similar example, although different in some ways. But the constitution that was drafted and ratified (in January 2004) under the auspices of the United Nations Assistance Mission for Afghanistan (Unama) and American support has fallen short not only of its desired objective of facilitating a negotiated peace between the rival factions, it may have actually exacerbated factional rivalry and political instability in the country.
In the midst of an ongoing conflict, and against the background especially of a humiliating foreign occupation, it is questionable whether the process could live up to the expectations made of it. The same holds true for external attempts at mediation, which sometimes pre-empt the emergence of a stable social consensus. This seems to be the case with external constitutional support also given to political and military actors in the Sudanese and Somalian civil conflicts.
Commitment to justice, constitutionalism and judicial review can ultimately provide the necessary protection against the "tyranny of the majority". There is strong empirical evidence that constitutional legality will in time nurture democracy, but that democracy on its own will not necessarily bring a constitutionally committed government.
Democracy and constitutionalism are not only different concepts but can exist in a state of tension as the former advocates majoritarian preferences, whereas the latter imposes pre-existing restraints on the range of choices available to governing majorities.
The Western experience since 1945 has largely embodied both democracy and constitutional government, making it thus difficult to imagine the two apart. Yet evidence shows that only in the late 1940s did most Western countries become actually democratic, but that, importantly, already a century earlier most of them had put in place significant constitutional elements such as the rule of law, private property rights, free speech and assembly, and increasingly also constitutional separation of powers, without being democratic.
Government in North America and Western Europe was not characterised by democracy as by constitutional legality. Thus according to an informed observer "the Western model is best symbolised not by the mass plebiscite but the impartial judge".
Some agreement seems to have developed over time that the best realisable form of government is a mixed or constitutionally structured government, in which freedom is constrained by the rule of law, and popular sovereignty is tempered by state institutions that produce order and stability.
Even if we do not conclude that democracy is simply not viable in an environment of intense ethnic preferences, it seems evident that merely holding elections is insufficient and that additional institutional mechanisms and constitutional restraints are necessary to make it work.
Early indicators over the results of the recent parliamentary elections in Iraq suggest a contentious scenario between the two leading figures, one of whom has yet to concede to the results. Iraq is at a politically precarious situation that calls for skilful handling and restraint on all sides to prevent a new twist to the Iraq conflict.
The electoral fiasco that left President Hamid Karzai in a compromised predicament and even more dependent on foreign military presence does not bode well for the future of Afghanistan. The scale of conflict has widened, corruption is more rampant and the rule of law also a more remote prospect -- after a new constitution, two presidential elections, and a second parliamentary election due this year.
The prospects of a sustainable peace for Afghanistan now seem to be linked to the promised exit of the US military -- that is also, ironically, likely to precipitate regime change in Kabul. If the US indeed leaves Afghanistan next year, a traditional Loya Jirga (Grand Council), not the foreign powers, should plan its political future.
By Prof Mohammad Hashim Kamali founding chairman of the International Institute of Advanced Islamic Studies (IAIS) Malaysia
.jpg)
Om Swastiastu ...
Hope those of our readers who celebrated Easter had a joyous holiday, certain in the belief of eternal life. Selamat Hari Paskah!
Meanwhile, we ignored the distraction of chocolate bunnies grazing on our desks to prepare this edition of Bali Update.
Leading our news this week is the tragic story of a young Swedish tourist who perished in a climbing accident last week on Mt. Batur. There are also articles on a feared increase in dengue fever over the coming months and an Australian trade unionists facing an uncertain future as he stands trial for bringing marijuana into Bali.
Money-money-money is in the news this week. In two separate stories, read how Bali is demanding a share of visa-on-arrival revenues and also a chunk of the substantial profits earned by Bali's airport. Both Immigration fees and airport management profits are currently remitted 100% to Jakarta.
On April 1st (no fooling) a new comprehensive traffic code came into effect nation-wide. Hefty fines and prison time await those who get caught using their hand phone while driving or are accused of driving recklessly. Wait a minute, we thought driving recklessly was de rigueur in Bali.
Other articles ask if Bali is losing its cultural identity through a failure to enforce architectural rules; a very modest VAT refund system for shoppers commenced on April 1 in Bali and Jakarta; Denpasar is working to improve road and drainage infrastructure; and efforts are underway to preserve the memory of Indonesia's first President in Tampaksiring.
Hotel news include the celebrations of Ayana Resort's first anniversary under its new brand; the launch of another new brand on a familiar hotel via the Pan Pacific Nirwana Bali Resort; and how an Indonesian political congress has filled most Sanur area hotels.
Mark your calendars. There's a bodybuilder's competition coming to Denpasar on May 15th and an exhibition by French Artist Guy Roussille from April 10-17.
Be sure to read Andrew Grant's thoughtful reflections on how to give back when living abroad as an expatriate.
Finally, note down the number 1120. That's a new SMS number for filing instant reports and complaints with the Bali police.
Just some of the stories in this week's Bali Update.
Read the full report at: http://www.balidiscovery.com/update/update708.asp
Om Çanti Çanti Çanti Om ...
J.M. Daniels - Bali Update
Bali Discovery Tours
The chaebol conundrum
PERHAPS it is the result of being sandwiched between the imperial dynasties of China and Japan. It may have something to do with having a nuclear-armed hermit to the north. Whatever the reason, South Koreans nurture a deep sense of insecurity. That makes them good capitalists. So good, in fact, that if any rich country can claim to have done well in the recent global crisis, it is theirs. Last year, despite its dependence on exports and the collapse of world trade, South Korea’s economy grew faster than any other in the OECD.
South Korea’s remarkable resilience is partly down to clever economic management. The government provided lashings of stimulus. But it was not just domestic demand that kept the economy going. The export prowess of those peculiar corporate beasts, called the chaebol (see article), was also responsible.
In the years after the Asian financial crisis of 1997-98, these unwieldy conglomerates, known disparagingly as Korea Inc, were regarded as villains, because of their habits of crony capitalism. Their shabby corporate governance and their dominance of the economy were widely criticised. Since then, bosses have been jailed, transparency increased and corporate governance improved.
Since the global economic crisis they have been regarded as saviours in South Korea. Though the country’s exports slid, its biggest companies, such as Samsung Electronics and Hyundai Motors, gobbled up market share from competitors in Japan, Europe and America. Granted, they benefited from a cheap won. But they also made a fine job of selling things like electronics, chips and ships in fast-growing emerging markets to make up for some of the sales lost in the West. Samsung’s profits this year are forecast at a record $10 billion, and its sales at $130 billion, which would confirm its lead over Hewlett-Packard as the world’s biggest technology company by revenue.
BlackBerry and Apple crumble
The national paranoia has served them well. Though Samsung, for example, is a world leader in televisions and flash memory chips, it continues relentlessly to measure itself against its competitors. Having rebuilt their balance-sheets over the past decade, the chaebol have invested enough in technology, design and branding to remain far ahead of low-cost competitors in China and elsewhere. What’s more, they artfully avoided Japan’s trap of fetishising expensive, state-of-the-art technology for its own sake.
So the chaebol are certainly due an apology from those, including this newspaper, who thought they would be too unwieldy for modern business. But from South Korea’s point of view, they are a narrow base on which to build a country’s economic future. First, they face competition in new forms for which their hierarchical management structures and complicated, dynastic ownership are ill suited. Apple’s iPhone and the ubiquitous BlackBerry crept up on Samsung Electronics, exposing its shortcoming in smart-phones.
Second, the size and strength of the chaebol risk stifling entrepreneurialism elsewhere. By and large, their local suppliers are the only medium-sized South Korean companies to have thrived in recent years. Some young businesses such as internet search and gaming have done well, but these are in fields where the chaebol cannot yet be bothered to tread. If they ever do, they may smother rather than nurture independent talent.
President Lee Myung-bak still seems to be promoting the chaebol. He has just pardoned Lee Kun-hee, the boss of Samsung, who was convicted of tax evasion in 2008, enabling him to retake the reins of Samsung Electronics. The president has also successfully championed his chaebol chums in a contest to provide nuclear power to Abu Dhabi. And his government wants to relax holding-company laws that would make it easier for the conglomerates to own financial firms.
It is one thing to provide leadership. It is another to choose favourites and pick winners. If President Lee wants to promote anyone, it should be South Korea’s underdogs—the small companies that risk getting squashed by the country’s privileged monsters. The chaebol have proved themselves highly successful capitalists. Let them take care of themselves. The Economist
.jpg)
