Translate

Search This Blog

Friday, January 22, 2010

Haiti to relocate 400,000 homeless



Haiti's government has said it will move about 400,000 homeless people to new villages to be built outside Port-au-Prince, the capital, after between one million and 1.5 million Haitians were left homeless by last week's earthquake. Paul Antoine Bien-Aime, Haiti's interior minister, said that in the first wave the government would move 100,000 refugees to tent villages of 10,000 each near the town of Croix Des Bouquets, north of Port-au-Prince. The capital's seaport has now been repaired enough to reopen for limited aid shipments, with a Dutch naval vessel unloading pallets of water, juice and shelf-stable milk onto trucks at the pier. Aid is becoming more plentiful but is still inadequate to feed and shelter the masses left without homes and those injured by the 7.0 magnitude earthquake that killed as many as 200,000 people on January 12. Brazilian UN peacekeepers have begun levelling land in Croix des Bouquets to set up a transitional tent camp at a site where the Inter-American Development Bank planned to help build permanent houses for 30,000 people. The initiative would let displaced Haitians help build their own new homes under a food-for-work scheme, allowing them to stay close to the area where they had made a living. Many are currently jammed into haphazard, open-air camps with no latrines, sleeping outdoors because their homes were destroyed or out of fear that aftershocks would bring down more buildings. "It's miserable here. It's dirty and it's boring," said Judeline Pierre-Rose, 12, camped in a park across from the collapsed national palace.  "People go to the toilet everywhere here and I'm scared of getting sick."

Has Obama become Bush II? ONE YEAR ON



Barack Obama's election seemed an anomaly, but clearly it was disgust with his predecessor that drove him from obscurity to the presidency. Obama's "outside-inside" strategy inspired millions of new voters. He organised, rallied new voters, used social networks and invoked change orientated slogans with more symbolism than substance. But once in office, the office took over, co-opting his populist inclinations and burying his grass roots movement in a miasma of paralysing pragmatic centrism rationalised as the 'politics of the possible'. Supporters became recipients of emails, not potential activists to lobby for his agenda. He allowed his "army" to dissipate while he moved into using the Oval Office as a bully pulpit. His followers were demobilised as he gave speech after speech. Obama realised that the Bush era had not ended in the bureaucracies or in the media and halls of congress. To undercut its lingering impact, he moved right possibly to later move left. He embraced some of Bush's tough-guy national security boilerplate. He got along with Pentagon power by going along. Compromise began to become his mantra.  Miniscule reforms were presented as great victories. Withdrawal from Iraq was delayed as was the closing of Guantanamo. He seemed to be on a short leash as the real power brokers checked and check mated initiatives. Had he become a Bush II? Many think so. Was he selling out or buying in? Ross Douthat argues in the New York Times that Obama is a knee-jerk liberal who believes in working within institutions for change. According to Douthat, "that makes him ... an odd bird who seems a Machiavellian willing to cut any deal juxtaposed with the soaring rhetoric of fairly ideological big government liberalism". The problem with institutions is that they rarely change without media scandals or outside pressure.

Zardari Re-emerges, but Effect on Pakistan Is Unclear


For the first time in months, President Asif Ali Zardari is doing what presidents normally do — giving rousing speeches, traveling around the country and asserting himself publicly as the country’s chief official. This is unusual behavior for a leader who rarely left the presidential palace, except to travel abroad, and hunkered down in silence under a barrage of media criticism for months last year, leading many to conclude that he was losing his grip on power. “The doomsday scenario has not come to pass,” said Cyril Almeida, a columnist for Dawn, an English-language daily newspaper. It now seems more likely that Mr. Zardari will survive in power. But he remains a weak, unpopular leader, leaving the larger question for Pakistan unchanged: When will its elected leaders be capable of solving the vast assortment of crushing economic, security and social problems facing the country? It is an urgent question, too, for the Obama administration, which is depending on cooperation from Pakistan, its prickly ally, to help carry out its new war strategy for neighboring Afghanistan. Pakistan’s western mountains are a sanctuary for militants, and the administration has been pressing Pakistan to do more to flush them out. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates will visit Pakistan on Thursday for that reason. While Mr. Zardari has been receptive to American overtures, championing the war against militants far earlier than any of his political opponents, his weakness has hobbled his ability to effectively defend the American policies he supports, like last year’s large American aid package. As a result, American officials continue to rely heavily on their relationship with the country’s powerful military, a tradition that goes back decades, but that also serves to undermine the Obama administration’s goal of strengthening democracy here. Mr. Zardari started his campaign on Dec. 27 in the province of Sindh. He then traveled to Baluchistan, a western province, and this week he has been in Punjab, Pakistan’s most populous province. He will travel next to Peshawar, the beleaguered capital of Pakistan’s war-torn North-West Frontier Province, his spokesman said. Newspapers took notice. Daily Times, an English-language daily newspaper, went so far as to say in an editorial on Saturday: “All the hopes of the Zardari bashers have crashed to the ground.” But while Mr. Zardari may have reclaimed some political space, rallying the grass roots of his party, and seizing headlines that even one month ago had belonged to voices hostile to him, many analysts see his belated outreach as a last-ditch attempt to fend off his enemies and salvage his presidency. “He’s come to the conclusion that if judiciary or the military want to knock him out, they can,” said Hasan Askari Rizvi, an analyst in Lahore. “But he wants to fight back. That has given him a new lease on life, but his basic problem remains the same.” The most serious of those vulnerabilities has always been his strained relationship with Pakistan’s military, a powerful institution whose leaders have ruled the country for about half of Pakistan’s 62-year history. When he took office in September 2008, Mr. Zardari struck a conciliatory tone with India, the military’s nemesis. He angered the military again when he indicated that intelligence should be under civilian control. He has since backed off those positions. This month he offered remarks praising the army. He removed another irritant in December, giving civilian control of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal to his prime minister, Yousaf Raza Gilani, a pliable leader more palatable to the military. But another potential for confrontation looms this year, when the army chief’s term expires, as the power to appoint a new one is Mr. Zardari’s. Perhaps the most immediate threat to Mr. Zardari, analysts said, comes from Pakistan’s top judge, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, who gained national popularity by taking up the causes of human rights and fighting corruption.
In December, his court threw out an amnesty that shielded hundreds of powerful Pakistanis from corruption prosecutions, including Mr. Zardari and a number of his allies, opening the door for corruption cases against them. Mr. Zardari’s supporters argue that as president he retains immunity under the Constitution. Chief Justice Chaudhry’s critics, including a prominent human rights activist, say he has overstepped his mandate and is using his popularity to meddle in politics, a charge he denies. Another clash is likely to come soon over the appointment of Supreme Court judges, analysts said. “You have the judiciary emerging as a real force with populist ambitions,” said Najam Sethi, editor in chief of The Friday Times. “That is creating a huge gridlock.” He added, “A clash between Zardari and the judiciary is very likely now.” One possible effect is that Mr. Zardari will simply shrink to insignificance by giving up the expanded powers he inherited from former President Pervez Musharraf, something he promised to do during his political campaign. Those powers have proved to be more a liability than an asset, becoming a lightning rod for Mr. Zardari’s opponents, including former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, who have demanded that the president relinquish them and restore Pakistan’s parliamentary system. So far, Mr. Sharif has refused to join the chorus of voices calling for Mr. Zardari’s resignation. But his brother, Shahbaz Sharif, chief minister of Punjab Province, has taken a harder line. The Sharifs were conspicuously absent during Mr. Zardari’s visit to Punjab. In recent weeks, all the provincial assemblies, except Punjab’s, issued resolutions supporting Mr. Zardari. Unlike in other times in Pakistan’s politics, it seems unlikely, at least for now, that Mr. Zardari’s political opponents will be his undoing. In a nation with a long history of military coups, even his most ardent critics want to see civilian governance survive. Strangely, Mr. Zardari’s weakness may serve him in the end. The army seems to have less appetite to re-enter politics directly, having seen its reputation badly tarnished during Mr. Musharraf’s years of military rule. A weak civilian leader, on the other hand, presents no threat to its power.

Israeli, Iranian ministers share a rare handshake



Israeli and Iranian ministers exchanged a rare handshake while attending a fair to promote tourist destinations in their respective nations. The Israeli and Iranian tourism ministers were introduced at a reception hosted by the Spanish king in honor of a Madrid tourism fair. They then proceeded to shake hands. "We are both from the same region and tourism can serve as a bridge for dialogue and to wider understanding," Mezeshnikov told his Iranian counterpart, his spokesman, Amnon Lieberman said.

Pakistani Army: No New Offensive for 6-12 Months



The Pakistani army said Thursday during a visit by U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates that it can't launch any new offensives against militants for six months to a year to give it time to stabilize existing gains. The announcement likely comes as a disappointment to the U.S., which has pushed Pakistan to expand its military operations to target militants staging cross-border attacks against coalition troops in Afghanistan. Washington believes such action is critical to success in Afghanistan as it prepares to send an additional 30,000 troops to the country this year. But the comments by army spokesman Gen. Athar Abbas clearly indicate Pakistan will not be pressured in the near-term to expand its fight beyond militants waging war against the Pakistani state. Whether it can be convinced in the long-term is still an open question. "We are not talking years," Abbas told reporters traveling with Gates. "Six months to a year" would be needed before Pakistan could stabilize existing gains and expand any operations, he said. The Pakistani army launched a major ground offensive against the Pakistani Taliban's main stronghold near the Afghan border in mid-October, triggering a wave of retaliatory violence across the country that has killed more than 600 people. Gates said Thursday that he wouldn't directly press Pakistan to expand its military campaign but would instead ask his hosts what their plans are. He also said his talks with Pakistan's military and civilian leaders were intended to explain the U.S. war strategy in Afghanistan. The defense secretary told reporters traveling with him to Islamabad from India that he would reassure Pakistan that the United States is "in this for the long haul." But President Barack Obama's comments in December that the U.S. would begin to withdraw its forces from Afghanistan in mid-2011 have raised questions among many Pakistani officials about Washington's commitment. Analysts say such concerns only reinforce the Pakistani government's reluctance to target the Afghan Taliban as requested by the U.S. Pakistan has deep historical ties with the group, and many analysts believe some officials within the government and the military see the militants as an important proxy once coalition troops leave Afghanistan. Gates cautioned Pakistan against trying to distinguish between the different militant groups in an essay published Thursday in The News, an English-language Pakistani newspaper. "It is important to remember that the Pakistani Taliban operates in collusion with both the Taliban in Afghanistan and Al Qaeda, so it is impossible to separate these groups," Gates wrote. "Only by pressuring all of these groups on both sides of the border will Afghanistan and Pakistan be able to rid themselves of this scourge for good -- to destroy those who promote the use of terror here and abroad," Gates said. On of the goals of his trip, he said, is "a broader strategic dialogue -- on the link between Afghanistan's stability and Pakistan's; stability in the broader region; the threat of extremism in Asia; efforts to reduce illicit drugs and their damaging global impact; and the importance of maritime security and cooperation." Gates' first meeting Thursday is with Defense Minister Ahmed Mukhtar. He also has separate meetings scheduled with Prime Minister Yousaf Reza Gilani and President Asif Ali Zardari.

Bible codes in Afghan army guns



American guns inscribed with Bible codes are being used by US forces and Afghans to fight the Taliban. Al Jazeera has discovered that some Afghan soldiers are using guns engraved with coded biblical references. The weapons come from Trijicon, a manufacturer based in Wixon, Michigan, that supplies the US military. The company's now deceased founder, Glyn Bandon, started the practice which continues today. David Chater, Al Jazeera's correspondent in the Afghan capital Kabul, said: "It is a rallying cry for the Taliban. It gives them a propaganda tool. "They've always tried to paint the US efforts in Afghanistan as a Christian campaign." A Nato spokesman in Afghanistan has acknowledged that the practice is inappropriate but said that the guns will remain in use for now.