VLADIMIR VOINOVICH

PM Vladimir Putin insists: “Without normal democratic development Russia will have no future.” We Russians are pleased to hear these enlightened words, yet Putin adds a “but” to his argument, which weakens it considerably. In fact, Putin’s “but” renders his points senseless.

We have hated this “but,” this coordinating conjunction, ever since the dawn of the Soviet era. Then we were told that freedom is good, but that one can’t live in an individualist society without common concern for the communist state. Democracy is great, but only in the interests of the working class.

Now Russia’s PM tells us that democracy is indeed great, but that public protests cannot take place in public places, say, around hospitals and the like. Never mind that the Russian Constitution does not list hospitals among places forbidden for public assembly, or that sick people need democracy, too.

Russian President Dmitri Medvedev does understand – with no “buts” – that “freedom is better than not freedom”, that “legal nihilism” is bad and democracy is good. He understands that Stalin was a criminal, that his order to murder Polish officers in Katyn was an act of depravity that has no excuse or explanation. The President understands this; unfortunately, we don’t understand the role our President plays in our society. He says all the right things, yet they don’t seem to be reflected in reality.

The Dissenters’ Marches, which takes place on the 31st of every month (Article 31 of the Russian Constitution guarantees freedom of assembly), could be (and are) easily dismissed as a marginal protest of a few hundred people with no common goals or ideas.

Putin’s and Medvedev’s poll numbers are so high, many argue, that they don’t need to care about a few dissenters. Besides, most Russians support the government with no dissent at all, they say.

Today’s dissenters are indeed a minority and of course can be disregarded, but only up to a point. After all, this minority is one of thinkers – musicians, artists, and writers, and those who move forward Russian science, technology, and economic innovation.

Such people cannot be dismissed as useless, since we need the innovation that they deliver, even if we think Russia doesn’t need democracy. True, not all members of the thinking minority attend the Dissenters’ Marches, yet many more of them silently oppose the regime.

Our leaders talk obsessively of Russia’s industrial modernisation, of their support for innovations such as nanotechnology, so that Russia can catch up with the developed countries.

In line with Soviet traditions, a nanotechnology project was given a piece of land, with plans to set up various scientific facilities. The best brains in Russia – engineers, scientists, and inventors – will gather in one place, and from there begin moving the country forward.

The hope is that not only those living in Russia but also emigrants will be overcome with patriotic feelings. They will come back to Russia to make themselves famous and their motherland proud.

A wonderful plan. But I fear that it won’t work. For example, imagine a genius who left Russia years back. He has achieved prominence in a foreign country, inventing something outstanding.

Now he is asked to come home: your motherland is waiting for you, it values your contribution, it forgives your betrayal, and it will pay you more than what you are getting elsewhere. Yet, before making the final decision, he turns on the radio, watches a bit of TV, browses the internet, and finds out what Russia is like. Journalists are killed, scientists are accused of espionage, and Mikhail Khodorkovsky remains unjustly imprisoned.

Various blogs tell him that Russia’s Parliament is just a place for rubber-stamping decisions already taken at the top. He reads the confused and confusing speeches of our leaders: freedom is good, but …

Then this scientist will be surprised (or not) to discover that the Russian majority views Joseph Stalin as the third most popular person in a contest to be known as the “Face of Russia”.

In the meantime, his junior colleague in Russia, who still has his whole future in front of him, does not attend the Dissenters’ March, but simply emigrates, which is also a form of protest.

In a country where the concepts of democracy and freedom are balanced by “but”, achievements in science, technology, and economy are not possible. The thinking minority needs a system of laws and institutions, real presidential elections, a working Parliament, and justice that is independent, rather than merely following orders from above.

Gulf News

DAN MAIANO

The country’s biggest oil companies raised their pump prices to the same levels at the same time again last Tuesday. By doing so, they confirmed that deregulation had not resulted in the sort of business competition that was supposed to benefit consumers.

The oil majors, along with their smaller counterparts, continue to act in concert, especially when market conditions offer an excuse to engage in consumer gouging.

The deregulation law permits the oil companies to do as they please but no legislation exists that would allow, say, transport workers to recoup losses from high fuel prices just as quickly.

Instead, drivers and operators of buses and jeepneys need to go through the tedious process of applying for fare adjustments with the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB).

By the time the LTFRB responds favourably to the fare-hike petitions of transport workers, the latter would have already sustained financial losses they can no longer hope to recover.

There is something fundamentally flawed and unfair about a state policy that allows the oil companies to secure their profit margins but denies the same protection to the public transport sector. On the other hand, if public transport operators were given the same leeway as the oil companies commuters would have to bear the brunt of rising fuel prices – even more so than they already do now.

Here is the ugly side of capitalism: the lower your status in the economic ladder the greater is the likelihood that all the crap from above will fall on you.

Short of a social upheaval, which only tends to make matters worse, the logical way out of our collective quandary over rising fuel prices is to cut our dependence on oil. Easier said than, yes, but it can be done. In fact, initiatives toward an oil-free public transport system have already been launched even in this country.

Take for example the e-jeepneys that ply certain routes in Makati and Fort Bonifacio. The e-jeepneys of Metro Manila have even caught the attention of Discovery Channel, which aired not too long ago a documentary on the iconic Philippine mini-buses that run, not on inefficient and filthy internal combustion engines, but on clean and quiet electric motors.

Unfortunately, the rest of the public transport sector has been slow to adopt the notion of motorised vehicles that run on batteries. Above all other considerations there is the cost factor that reinforces resistance.

E-jeepneys don’t come cheap. However, they are not exactly beyond the reach of jeepney operators and at least one company is eyeing the possibility of mass marketing electric vehicles in the Philippines.

According to published reports, a Chinese Motor Group is conducting a feasibility study for an electric car manufacturing plant that it is thinking of setting up in the Philippines. The facility it plans to establish would target both the domestic market and the rest of the Southeast Asia.

E-vehicles will cut demand for gasoline and diesel fuel, which should cause the oil companies to seriously reconsider their pricing policies. But e-vehicles will also require a major upgrade in the country’s capacity to generate and distribute power. Yet, even this can be done – if only the bean-counters who dominate the power sector are made to give way to the innovators.

Moreover, e-vehicles that rely on alternative indigenous energy sources would complete a loop that would assure cheap and clean mass transport. What could speed up the development of this network is a proactive and innovative government, acting through a farsighted leader at the helm of the Department of Energy (DOE).

President-elect Mr Aquino could do the country a lasting service by appointing someone to the DOE with an eye to the future, one who is unafraid to innovate and knows what he is doing. After all, from energy comes all that the country needs to build up its economy and cut poverty.

Manila Times

The war in Afghanistan may have become something of a commonplace in Pakistan, but in the USA it is clearly the subject of much foreboding and thought. First, there is the difference between the two armies fighting, and then there is the difference between the two countries, the USA and Pakistan.

The difference between the two armies is fundamental. Once Pakistan has committed troops, it expects them to get killed. That is probably why, though the war in Afghanistan, particularly in the Pakistani portion, is wildly unpopular, no one has expressed any concern about the horrendous casualties the Pakistan army has been taking.

There is none of the angst in Pakistan that the Americans are facing because of casualties in Afghanistan. For an all-volunteer army, Americans are surprisingly surprised that soldiers actually get killed in war, and despite as recent examples as Iraq, Americans show a naïve surprise at the casualties being suffered by the US forces in Afghanistan.

This helps explain why the USA seems so concerned with the future of Afghanistan, and why its think tanks and research institutions have been given so many assignments that exceed what has been produced by Pakistani institutions. The Rand Corporation, which does so much work for the US government, and which is one of its oldest think tanks, has tried to work on the interface between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Its conclusions, in its latest study, reflect that the USA is looking to a smooth departure from Afghanistan, and still to preserve its interests there, which include the support of the Karzai government.

Actually, the USA does not support so much the Karzai government, as any government which allows it unfettered access to the oil and gas of Central Asia, as well as its own mineral wealth, and does not give sanctuary to any anti-American militants. The last also presupposes an ideological conformity between the Afghan and US governments.

The Taliban are thus ruled out on every count, as are any groups which have any Islamic feeling. However, the USA must come to some accommodation with the Taliban. This it has often conceded, and the London Conference even put up a substantial sum of money for the conduct of these talks.

However, the mechanics remain to be determined. Pakistan, ever anxious to please, is offering whatever services the US demands, including those of the ISI. In this absurd eagerness to please the present government may open Pakistan up to the usual accusations by the US, egged on by India regarding the so-called continuing ISI-Taliban link – despite successive Pakistan governments always vigorously denying the same.

However, Pakistan would like to present its services, so that the USA would have to talk to Afghans leaning more towards Pakistan if at all it talked to the Taliban. The USA is doing so, and the first sign is that 25 prisoners now in American custody will be among the detenus released as a result of the review that is supposed to precede a peace deal.

Already, 26 prisoners have been freed, including 12 from US custody, and two suicide bombers from Afghan custody. The deal was through the recent jirga, and was designed to win over the ‘moderate’ Taliban, presumably those who are ready to guarantee the American aims given above.

The USA is trying to square the circle, by making an arrangement before it leaves Afghanistan for their replacement by forces as committed to American objectives as its own forces are. Most significantly, it hopes to leave in place India, which it hopes to entice by opening the prospect of a continuing access to interfere in Pakistan.

At the same time, especially by sharing with it some of the mineral wealth which has been discovered in Afghanistan, it hopes to bolster India to play the regional counterweight to China that it has been identified as. However, that will depend on the USA being able to deliver in Afghanistan, for without a position in Afghanistan, India will be unable to dominate the region, and thus will not prove effective against China. This provides Pakistan another worry, for living under Indian domination would not be a prospect Pakistan would like to think about.

The RAND Corporation study has been made after the New York bombing attempt. Though the worry shown by the US government came after its citizens came under threat, it is also noticeable that its entire focus has been on Pakistan, and the alleged links it has with the militants.

The links that certainly exist are personal and informal, more often than not mere acquaintance, which can prove unreliable, as happened to Squadron Leader (retd) Khalid Khwaja, who was murdered after he had traded on his old contacts.

However, because Pakistan has grown closer to the USA, the pro-Pakistan Afghans have grown away from it, both because their aims do not involve the meeting of American interests, but do involve the liberation of Afghanistan, where the USA is the main foreign occupier.

At the same time, the USA is also preventing Pakistan from going ahead and negotiating, quoting two previous deals in the tribal areas that went sour, and resulted in operations by the Pakistan army. Though it has denied it, the USA is still asking the Pakistan army to go into North Waziristan, which abuts Kandahar.

The ethnic dimension must also not be ignored. Whereas the Taliban were Kandahari Pashtuns who did not allow anyone else into the magic circle, Karzai is also a Kandahari Pashtun. And it is the Pashtuns who provide Afghanistan its largest ethnicity and whose presence in Pakistan provides it an abiding interest in Afghanistan.

Pakistan and Afghanistan have not differentiated between their respective Pashtuns, and there are several tribes divided by the international Pak-Afghan border. It is also worth noting that the main loss by Afghanistan of territory to British India was in the Kandahar area.

That territory, later absorbed by Balochistan, was inherited by Pakistan. And Afghanistan’s Kandahar area is where the centre of the Taliban resistance rests, to the extent that the area, which had been an exclusively British responsibility, had to be made an area of joint responsibility. This increases the importance of Pakistan in the equation for the NATO forces, and thus the flow of reports that attempt to discredit Pakistan.

As the USA prepares for its retreat from Afghanistan, it still prepares to secure its interests. However, Pakistan is crucial to its efforts, and the belief that it has a political surrogate in India in the region will sustain it.

However, with the US departure, it can be expected to exert more pressure on both Pakistan and India, not less. If Pakistan sees its own interests as more important than the USA’s, it will act in advance to delink itself from the USA, and work for those interests. The policy of the country must not only reflect the interests of the country, but the wishes of the people, who do not want to be subject to any domination, particularly not American.

Email: maniazi@nation.com.pk

On June 13, 2010, Pakistan Military Spokesman and DG ISPR Maj Gen Athar Abbas once again dismissed the claims of ISI’s support for the insurgency in Afghanistan. This time, the allegations were contained in a report entitled The sun in the sky written by Matt Waldman and published by the London School of Economics (LSE).

Indeed, such claims (and the denials they elicit) have become mundanely familiar, with the US and the Afghan officials among those who have levelled similar accusations in the past. But the latest report is markedly different with respect to the extent of the allegations; whereas previous accusations referred to “rogue elements” or “retired officials”, the LSE report claims that backing Afghan insurgents is “official ISI policy” and that “the policy is approved at the highest level of Pakistan’s civilian government.”

Naturally, the ISI’s denial has failed to quell talk of strategic implications for the US-Pakistan relationship, with the report itself mooting “direct military action against the Afghan Taliban in Pakistani territory.” This article aims at examining the possible legal implications of the activities alleged in the LSE report for Pakistan, in terms of the liabilities created and the responsibility conferred. In particular, the following questions will be addressed: Firstly, do the activities the ISI has been accused of contravene international law? Secondly, can Afghanistan invoke the right to self-defence vis-à-vis the ISI’s alleged activities?

The LSE report claims ISI’s support for the Afghan insurgents in four areas: (i) strategy; (ii) operations; (iii) training and recruitment; and (iv) sanctuary, funding and supplies. Through the provision of support, including salaries, ammunition, and weaponry, the ISI is alleged to have “strong strategic and operational influence – reinforced by coercion.”

Taliban commanders quoted in the report claim to have attended ISI-sponsored madrassas and training camps in Pakistan. They also assert ISI’s participation in planning Taliban policy and military operations, and that it arrests or assassinates incompliant commanders.

Most strikingly, the ISI is claimed to have representatives in the Quetta Shura (the Taliban Supreme Council). Furthermore, the civilian government is not characterised as or oblivious to this relationship; rather it is believed to have given its blessing. Thus, the LSE report proffers an image of thorough endorsement for the Afghan insurgency by the Pakistani State.

An appraisal of this supposed nexus would indicate a significant prima facie violation of international laws on the concept of the use of force. According to the Definition of Aggression contained in Article 3(g) of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) Resolution 3314 (XXIX), the circumstances under which a state can be held responsible for unlawful aggression include ‘substantial involvement’ in the dispatch of militants against another state.

Given the extent of the alleged patronage to the Taliban, it is likely that the ISI’s purported behaviour would constitute ‘substantial involvement’ in activities proscribed by UNGA Resolution 3314. Thus, if the relationship detailed in the report were to be considered accurate, it might be argued that Pakistan is guilty of a crime of aggression against Afghanistan. The ISI’s alleged activities are also likely to constitute interference in the affairs of a sovereign state, a violation of the principle of ‘non-intervention’ under Customary International Law (CIL).

However in international law, the unlawful use of force does not automatically confer upon the victim a right to employ force in self-defence. Article 51 of the United Nations (UN) Charter deals with the concept of self-defence and declares that states have a right to exercise self-defence if faced with an ‘armed attack’.

Thus, the critical question in judging Afghanistan’s right to invoke self-defence is whether Pakistan’s alleged actions constitute an ‘armed attack’ in accordance with Article 51.

According to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling in The Republic of Nicaragua v. The United States of America (1986), the provision of funding, support, and training to the militants does not qualify as an ‘armed attack’, even if such assistance may be regarded as an illegitimate use of force or intervention in the affairs of other states.

Furthermore, the invocation of self-defence requires that the ‘armed attack’ be attributable to a state. Article 8 of the International Law Commission (ILC) Draft Articles on State Responsibility (2001), stipulates that conduct can be attributed to a particular state if the state is in ‘control’ of those carrying out the conduct in question. The Draft Articles defer to The Republic of Nicaragua v. The United States (1986) for a definition of ‘control’.

In Nicaragua v. The United States (1986), the US was responsible for the ‘planning, direction and support’ of Contra rebels against the Nicaraguan government. This included logistics, financing, training, military intelligence, operation planning, and the appointment of rebel leaders.

Despite this extensive association, the ICJ nevertheless concluded that the US-Contra relationship did not amount to ‘control’. This makes it unlikely that the ISI can be held as being in legal ‘control’ of the Taliban. The LSE report actually confirms this explicitly, adding that the Taliban movement has “a strong internal impetus and dynamic.” Thus, the Taliban’s activities cannot be imputed to the Pakistani State, rendering the exercise of self-defence against Pakistan an illegitimate response.

For those worried about Pakistan’s sovereignty, it is worth noting that (lawful) self-defence still remains off-limits.

The writer works at the Research Society of International law (RSIL) Pakistan.

Email: info@rsilpak.org

WANG CAILIANG

The onus to stop developers in their ugly design rests upon local governments and the judiciary. Demolitions became a common phenomenon as urbanisation intensified across the world. But this phenomenon is different in China, where forced demolitions are suggestive of the violation of basic civil rights. Such acts have been widely criticised by the public and the media.

In his report to the National People’s Congress (NPC) on August 24, 2007, the then Minister of Construction said that the Urban Housing Demolition Management Regulation was contrary to the newly passed Property Rights Law and, hence, should be repealed. Four days later, the NPC Standing Committee accepted that the then existing demolition regulations were contrary to law and even the Constitution. That in a way marked the beginning of the post-demolition era in China.

In the three years since the Property Rights Law was promulgated, four distinct characteristics have emerged.

First, the debate on whether forcible demolitions violate the law. Today, all conscientious people agree that forced demolition is contrary to law, for it abuses public power and violates civil rights, and is thus against the principles of building a harmonious society.

Second, forced demolition has not totally stopped. They have been seen across the country. Economic development is only an excuse for such acts. Local officials are prompted to order or help demolitions because they get them money.

Third, some local governments have actually taken active part in demolitions. The media have reported the enthusiasm with which some local officials have led demolitions.

And last but not least, the end of forcible demolition is still not within sight, and society’s conscience is being challenged by too many tragedies, including deaths.

True, many high-rises have come up in the past few years, contrary to the wishes of the common people. If the authorities want to see the political ideal of a harmonious society fructify then they have to stop such demolitions immediately.

The most important step in this regard would be to eliminate the negative aspects of the 1991 and 2001 regulations on demolitions. But no new regulation has been drafted even two and half years after the NPC authorised the State Council to do so.

This reflects the difficulty of striking the right balance among different interests. Revising or repealing the demolition regulations only would be far from enough, because the tragedies of the past two years are related with the collective-ownership of land. The real estate sector and related governing regimes, too, should be reformed to achieve harmony between power and rights at the legislative level, for which three measures should be taken immediately.

First, the existing urban demolition and management regulations should be repealed and a new law enacted.

Second, political reform has to be intensified. There will be fewer forcible demolitions if people are granted more power in nominating and supervising government officials.

Third, financial reform has to be deepened and the knot binding local governments’ interests with land business has to be untied.

Of course, good laws also need good executive measures to be effective. To build a harmonious society, people should respect the laws as the behavioural norms of the entire society. But on many occasions the judicial system has lost its stature as the last channel through which people seek social justice. When policemen appear at a demolition site, not as protectors of civil rights but to help demolishers, they trample upon social justice. How can we ask ordinary citizens to respect the law, while law enforcers violate their rights?

Being good has always been an essential virtue of civilisations. This essential virtue is needed to build a harmonious society, too. Once law enforcers become essentially good, disputes and violence over demolitions would become things of the past. After all, a harmonious society has to be a society without forcible demolitions.

China Daily

The Greek crisis has provoked fresh worries about globalisation. But unlike the schadenfreude that greeted Asia’s financial crisis of 1997, the turmoil in Europe is producing less lecturing and more angst-ridden self-examination.

If the Asian crisis was explained away by crony capitalism and greed, the upheaval in Greece is holding up a mirror to more than one over-leveraged western government. American analysts worry that Greece may be a precursor of what is in store for the debt-ridden US. Taking this concern further, Harvard economist Dani Rodrik even wonders whether the Greek crisis is forcing countries to choose between globalisation and democracy.

With due respect to the professor, I would humbly submit that there is no such choice in the real world.

In a recent column, Rodrik has returned to his theme of the “political trilemma” emerging from the Greek crisis. He argues: “Economic globalisation, political democracy, and the nation-state are mutually irreconcilable.” For him, economic globalisation boils down to global capital flows.

In order to ensure that this flow continues, sovereign states will have to surrender some of their independence in monetary and fiscal policy making. Without stating the obvious, he implies that this surrender of sovereignty would be unacceptable to a democratic electorate. The options to emerge from this ‘trilemma’ are the suppression of democracy or the abandonment of globalisation.

Those wishing to have both globalisation and democracy have no option but to embrace the “internationalisation” of democratic politics or, as he puts it, “a global version of federalism.”

The simplicity of stark choices and Rodrik’s clever phraseology makes his thesis an intuitively seductive one. However, there is clearly much truth in what Rodrik says about the power of the global markets and the buzz-saw of opposition it has run into countless times since the anti-globalisation riots in Seattle in 1999.

The anti-globalisation protests that have greeted almost every meeting of the WTO, IMF and World Bank have been a constant reminder of democratic opposition. No such protests have been seen in China providing ‘Exhibit A’ for his thesis about globalisation working well with autocratic regimes.

There is no doubt either that for global integration to proceed without obstacles, greater political coordination is required.
Rodrik’s thesis becomes untenable when he presents globalisation and democracy as straightforward options that can be accepted or rejected at will. “If we push for globalisation while retaining the nation-state,” he says, “we must jettison democracy. And if we want democracy along with globalisation, we must shove the nation-state aside and strive for greater international governance.”

This stark view of globalisation, as but one of the options available to sovereign governments, only works if the phenomenon is straitjacketed into meaning only ‘mobility of capital’. But in reality, globalisation is a historical process that has grown over the millennia, increasingly tying the world in thicker webs of trade and travel.

Far from representing notional dollars or euros rocketing around the globe; globalisation or growing connection has transformed every aspect of life. There have, of course, been exceptions, when countries resisted joining the integrating world: the Hermit Kingdom of Korea in the 19th century or Kim Jong Il’s Democratic People’s Republic are recent examples.

But, for most of the rest of the world, withdrawal into the national shell is simply not an option, even though capital flow may dwindle or stop for a period as it has many times and was threatened in Greece. Neither can capital flows be separated from the trade and travel that make up today’s globalised world.

Rodrik’s notion that countries may have to “jettison democracy” in order to be part of a globalised world is equally unrealistic. The march of society towards greater freedom and an accountable government has encountered many bumps but it is hard to imagine that the leaders of any established western democracy would embrace military dictatorship in order to ensure overseas capital flows. Even if some politicians were tempted to suppress democracy in order to keep global funds flowing, the outcome could be just the opposite.

Khaleej Times