International

Last week the UN made an emergency appeal for aid for the 800,000 civilians who have fled their homes to escape the now 14 days of war and nonstop air bombardment. Over 380 lives in Lebanon have been lost and thousands have been injured. Hundreds of bridges and effectively all road networks have been systematically destroyed across the country, making relief efforts nearly impossible. Many civilians are trapped in the rubble of villages in the south of Lebanon where they are cut off from medical aid by the shelling from the sky. As the fighting continues, food in many parts of Lebanon is running low. Shortages of water, electricity and fuel are already a reality in parts of southern Lebanon. Scarce medical supplies in health facilities in the coming weeks are of growing concern. Even with medical and food stocks available delivery is almost impossible in many parts of the country due to the relentless bombing.

Here is one person's story of an evacuation last week.
With the situation getting worse and threatening to deteriorate further May and I decided that if we hadn't received word about specific evacuation plans from either the American or Canadian embassies by Thursday, we would make our own arrangements to leave Beirut. We were also seeing and hearing on the news the horrendous process of "official" evacuations, of people baking in the sun for long hours as they waited to board a ship to Cyprus, or being turned down and forced to return and wait again the next day. Once in Cyprus, however, the chaos continued with people spending days on cots before getting flights back home.

Every day, tens of thousands of Lebanese and foreigners were crossing the border into Syria. Taxis, buses, and private cars were making a rush to one of two border crossings, which were still relatively safe. Friends of ours had escaped to Syria and Jordan, so we thought we should take the opportunity to leave before it got even more dangerous. On Thursday we learned that the American University of Beirut was evacuating a group of students (Lebanese and Jordanians) to Syria and Jordan. We thought an AUB-organized evacuation might be safer (although there really were no guaranteed safe passages), so we managed to buy two seats on the AUB bus.

We gathered in front of Post Hall at 8 a.m. The bus was to depart at 8.30, but there were delays due to decisions about the safest route. There were 14 of us: 10 students, one parent (who had managed to escape Sidon the day before), one professor, and May and I. We were all visibly sad and nervous. Our driver had made the trip across the border at least once daily since the war began, so although he carried dark circles under his eyes we felt a little reassured.

Before the departure our driver turned on the bus radio - a report of two buses bombed minutes ago on the Zahle road - the route we would take. He quickly switched off the news.

We left AUB at 9.10 a.m on Friday morning. As we made our way through the downtown area, we passed the port, the gathering point for the evacuation of Americans, Canadians, British, and other foreigners. There were already thousands and thousands of people waiting, some in an orderly line, others in crowded groups. It was already over 30 degrees and very humid. Judging by the evacuations that had taken place the days before, most of those people would be waiting at least eight or nine hours before getting on board, and then perhaps a couple of more hours before setting sail. We also passed many families filling taxis and private cars with luggage, getting ready to embark on the same trip we had just begun. Everywhere there was hugging and tears, families being torn apart as some left while others stayed behind. And everywhere an uncertainty of when people would be back. It reminded me of stories of the civil war when thousands of people were forced to flee taking only a few belongings as they believed they would be back in a few weeks. Fifteen years later, most people had settled elsewhere. I couldn't help wonder, as I experienced and witnessed similar heartbreaking goodbyes, whether a similar fate awaited them now…

We drove through the empty downtown streets. Shops and offices were closed, construction sites were abandoned, and the many luxury buildings that now dotted the coast looked deserted.

As we left Beirut and headed toward the mountains, my heart was heavy. Would the city be spared Israel's wrath? Would the past 15 years the country had spent in money, energy, and passion to rebuild the downtown, the infrastructure, and the pride and hopes of a new generation be battered and smashed once again? When this was all over, what would we be returning to?
Condoleezza Rice claimed that this war was part of the "growing pangs of the new Middle East." Is that what American backed bombing of Iraq, Palestine and now Lebanon is called.

The bus turned off at Antelias and made its way up the mountain, passing Rabiya and many smaller and more traditional villages on the way to Bikfaya, then passed the copper-topped homes of Douar, the summer resort of Bois de Bologne, around and down to Majdel Tarchiche. Those of you who have driven these roads will understand how utterly dismayed we felt marveling at Lebanon's breathtaking beauty -- the majestic mountains, the magnificent sea, and imposing Beirut standing tall in between - and wondering why it was being violently threatened with ruin once again?

On the road to Zahle, we saw the three trucks that had been bombed by Israel a few days earlier. In the Bekaa, just to the right of the road we were traveling, we saw clouds of fresh black smoke. At that moment, the driver's daughter called, apparently asking about our location. I was sitting directly behind the driver and heard him reply that we'd just passed Shtoura (a large town in the Bekaa and a popular stop on the way to/from Syria)… When he got off the phone, he told us the black smoke was coming from an Israeli rocket attack on Shtoura five minutes ago. We kept driving.

Israel attacked Lebanon in 1982 killing thousands. They invaded Lebanon and remained in the country for several years - a situation that became known as the Israeli Vietnam. The invasion resulted in the creation of Hamas and Hezbollah. Why now do they think a renewed violent war will end in anything but continued anger and more civilians who will want to join resistances against Israel? The most likely outcome of this war is that the same futile and violent cycle will repeat itself.

Continuing on the road we saw the charred skeletons of two passenger buses - the ones reported earlier on from the radio. The buses were empty at the time, and no one was sure of Israel's intentions behind those strikes - if there were any - but it made us feel vulnerable on the open road. The bus fell silent as the driver charged toward the border.

This was all happening because America didn't feel the time was right for a cease-fire. Israel should be allowed to defend itself…. But, making diplomacy a priority, rather than flexing military muscle, might have spared all this displacement, death and destruction. Besides, I have to ask, with its extensive and modern fleet of F-16s, fighter helicopters, tanks and machinery (all with technical names that sound just as frightening as their capabilities), which overwhelmingly outnumber not only Lebanon's arsenal, but that of the entire Arab world's combined, who exactly is in need of defending?

Moreover, if Iran and Syria are really behind Hezbullah, then why do America and Israel attack Lebanon? Why go after the symptom when they presume to know the cause? We all know that this is about more than two captive soldiers. Why is Lebanon paying the price for the war on terror?

Five minutes later, and a tense two hours since setting out, we reached the Syrian border. There was a collective sigh of relief, but no smiles and certainly no cheers. We were simply all relieved to be alive. But thoughts of those we left behind weighed heavily.

The border was teeming with people, although, according to our driver it was not as crazy as previous days. But, there were hundreds of cars and buses, all packed with families, young and old, Lebanese and foreigners. Here there were thousands of people fleeing; thousands more were evacuating by boat back in Beirut. And that was just on Friday. To date, about 150,000 people already have fled Lebanon. Then there were those displaced from their homes in the south and southern suburbs of Beirut. Many of them were here at the border, hoping to be taken in by a Syrian family. Tens of thousands were taking refuge in Beirut, with friends and strangers, and in makeshift shelters in schools, mosques, churches and parks.

We cleared Lebanese customs by 11.45 and headed toward Syria. As we drove between the Lebanese and Syrian border control points, a throng of smiling Syrians, representing different groups like the Syrian Red Crescent Society, greeted us. Their welcome was kind, and they thanked God (hamdillah aal salameh) for our safety. We were handed free cups of Nescafe, bottles of water, and chocolate biscuits. We were all surprised by the warm reception, and considering our collective state of shock, appreciated the gesture.

The lines at Syrian immigration and border control were long. But, the number of Lebanese was far greater than the foreigners, so some of us got through rather quickly. The Jordanian border was only two hours away.

While we waited for the others, May and I walked around and saw dozens and dozens of families stranded. They might have made it out of Lebanon, but they had nowhere to go. They were too poor to afford hotels, and without a Syrian family to take them in, they were stuck.

All around it's the same story: it's the privileged that can flee. Some of us - May and I and many of our friends who hold foreign passports - could not only afford to leave, we could choose by which means. Those less fortunate were stranded here, or couldn't even make it to the border…

We reached Amman at 18.30 and our hotel at 19.10. We had been on the road 10 grueling hours. But, we couldn't complain. We were safe in Amman. However, while Lebanon was physically hundreds of miles behind us, we could not relax. We thought of all those we left behind, our friends who were waiting things out in the mountains or in Beirut, or the many unfortunate Lebanese of the southern suburbs and south Lebanon, who were trapped in shelters, unable to move, and quickly running out of food and water. Many people are now worried that the situation will deteriorate even further once all the foreigners have been evacuated. That possibility is terrifying.

We've all read and heard many times how Israel's response is entirely disproportionate, and yet nothing is being done to stop the brutal attacks. As it stands now, Rice's visit to the region seems totally futile as the US's position on who is to blame and what needs to be done is obdurately non-negotiable. And, since the UN, which is calling for an immediate cease fire, is entirely powerless without US backing (a tragedy since no one country should ever be able to hijack the international position), it's likely that Israel's agenda to continue pounding Hezbullah and Lebanon will carry on unimpeded.

Whether or not you agree with Hezbullah's actions of July 11th, we have to continue to speak out against the crimes being committed against Lebanon. The bombing is now indiscriminate as Israel deceitfully but successfully hides behind its claims that it is targeting Hezbullah and its supporters. Every day that passes, more and more innocent civilians are dying. The country is facing a humanitarian crisis.

While most governments scandalously remain silent as Lebanon's destruction continues, we cannot remain so. It is important to write, speak out and demonstrate so that those in Lebanon know that although governments are doing nothing, their populations are sympathetic. It might change nothing on the political level, but it will show those left behind that while politicians may have forgotten them, the people have not. And that, believe me, is inestimable.

Monica Smith is an American who previously lived in Beirut from 2000-2004. She returned to Lebanon for a visit on July 11, a day before the violence broke out. May Farah is Lebanese-Canadian and was home in Beirut for the summer.

In pursuit of money, Aussie honesty is a casualty
By Sunny Sheldon, our Australia correspondent
A bun fight between Prime Minister John Howard and his (till now) heir-apparent, Federal Treasurer, Peter Costello, two weeks ago, is set to unravel a hitherto highly successful political partnership which has overseen Australia's growing prosperity over the last decade.

The dispute, which has seen spin doctors from both sides emerging from every imaginable crevice in the woodwork, centres on a meeting between the two nearly twelve years ago, at which Mr. Howard is reported to have said that he would make way for his much younger colleague after one and a half terms, approximately six years.

The only witness to the meeting, a former minister in the Howard Government, Ian McLachlan, suddenly remembered that he had kept notes of the meeting and, on being asked the fateful question by a journalist, said "Yep, an agreement was made" or words to that effect.

Then followed a classic political joust between Mr. Costello, the patient deputy for all these years and a partner with Mr. Howard of a decade of economic good fortune, who says his parents had taught him never to lie and that an undertaking was indeed made; and Mr. Howard, who specializes in core and non-core promises as and when it suits him, to say he never did.

It is of little comfort for Mr. Costello to learn that, through the same opinion polls, the majority of the populace believes his version is more credible than Mr. Howard's. But given the "winner takes all" attitude of most people who have benefited by the government's run of good fortune, questions of morality, truth and honesty seemingly, has no place in this new outpost of the land of the free (to do whatever you can get away with).

So there the matter rests, for the moment. Mr. Costello, not having the numbers among the ruling Liberal party to mount a challenge and Mr. Howard digging in his heels, knowing full well that the majority of his MPs rely on his popularity to get them over the line in a number of marginal seats at the next Federal election in 2007.

In a lesson well-learnt by politicians all over the world, many of the MPs supporting Mr. Howard, with one eye on re-election, says "what's the big deal? It took place twelve years ago but since then the Beloved Leader has overseen a decade of economic growth unparalleled in Australia's history, so why commit political hara-kiri? After all, this is politics, no?"

So Mr. Howard, who celebrated his 67th birthday on Wednesday, continues to pound the walking tracks of Australia, the USA, Asia and Europe, in bloody awful green and gold tracksuits most of the time, a favourite early-morning exercise which keeps him in top shape for his inexorable march towards becoming one of Australia's longest serving Prime Ministers.

And it leaves us Aussies with a warm glow, especially those from the ever-growing affluent (or effluent, according to the two main characters of a widely-popular TV serial called Kath and Kim) class, a lot of them former "battlers" of the opposition Labour party in marginal seats, who virtually said "stuff Solidarity and the Internationale" and joined the Howard bandwagon to benefit hugely by the country's continuing economic progress.

For its boom time in the land Down Under. The ranks of our millionaires are growing stronger by the year and last year, the numbers swelled to 150,000 with the club's total fortunes soaring to around $630 billion. The survey, by Merrill Lynch and Capgemini, puts another 12,000 people in the club, down on the 2004 result but still above average compared to other similar economies.

In a country where, seemingly, you can dig a hole and find something valuable in it, most of the riches have come from the export of minerals and gas to the fast-growing economies of China and India. Starting with a liquefied natural gas deal worth $20-$25 billion dollars back in 2002, China is now the second largest trading partner of Australia behind Japan, most of it in iron ore, nickel and other minerals.

And there are more goodies in store, with Australia's vast uranium markets now being sought-after by the same two economic tigers, the little matter of not being signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty just a minor irritant to be brushed aside in the pursuit of the export dollar.

But are all these riches making us Aussies more selfish? Apparently so, according to some analysts. It's also making us more fearful and more security conscious, they say, with the Government's constant mantra to watch out for mad mullahs and people in hijabs who are out to destroy "the Western way of life".

The terror attacks of 9/11 and the death of 202 people, including 88 of their countrymen in a bomb blast in Bali in 2002 have also made it easier for the average Australian to believe most of the guff which stigmatizes a particular culture, religion and race, thanks especially to the media "shock-jocks" who thrive on branding the vulnerable but not their mates in the highest rungs of power.

And the "me generation", which is spawning now, seems happy to go along with such attitudes, accepting without question the loss of personal freedoms and civil liberties in exchange for the right to screw your neighbour, employee and anyone else in the race to acquire that expensive house in the up-market suburb, the latest piece of gadgetry and to be seen in the right places.

But does all this mean that we who live Down Under are going to hell in a hand basket? Hardly. In this marvelously multicultural nation, there are innumerable rays of humanity, mixed, of course, with the downright despicable which, in the end, makes up any society. And in the following weeks, hopefully, we will give you some glimpses of both.

"Doha round" now in its death spasms
European Note Book by Neville de Silva

Almost five years ago the World Trade Organisation met in Qatar holding out hopes to the developing countries that had over decades been the victims of uneven trade, protectionism and political pressure from the rich nations.
As a sop to the developing world that meeting in Doha was dubbed the "Development Round".

There a deadline was set for global free trade talks to come up with a deal by January 1, 2005. That agreement between the rich and poor was dead in the water and the next round of talks in Cancun, Mexico ended in a confrontation between the North and the South over agricultural subsidies paid to western producers at the expense of farmers from the developing countries.

In case readers have forgotten it was at this meeting that the then minister Ravi Karunanayake took that infamous stand supporting the United States and the west thus breaking ranks with our traditional allies among the developing countries such as India, China and Brazil who articulated a common Third World position.

So much for the then Ranil Wickremesinghe administration's bootlicking of the US, a performance that paralleled Milinda Moragoda's actions on other occasions.

Despite all the rhetoric from the Bush administration and the European Union the logjam in the negotiations continued and the broad outline of a trade agreement that should have been reached by end July 2006, has almost come and gone.

Much of the responsibility for the failure to produce even a broad consensus as a working plan for a trade agreement that would give some hope of a deal by next year lies with the west, particularly the United States, which under the Bush White House has increasingly abandoned a multilateral approach to international issues and struck out on its own with a few faithful followers such as Britain's Tony Blair.

This, however, was not the hope held out before this month's G8 summit at St Petersburg in Russia where Moscow, for the first time ever, presided over a gathering of the world's richest industrialised nations.

Before the summit Tony Blair said he would call for five leading developing countries-China, India, Brazil, South Africa and Mexico- to be allowed to join the G8 group in order to secure multilateral deals on climate change, trade and Iran.

Blair was proposing a new G13 and believed that the first fruits of such closer cooperation would result in a breakthrough on trade talks that have been bogged down.

Blair went a step further as the summit in St Petersburg progressed. After the July 18 meeting of leaders, Blair was more optimistic than he had been about the chances of a trade deal.

"To be frank, before we had our discussions I was pessimistic but……..all spoke of the need for a deal and of the necessary flexibility being given to our negotiators to secure one."

So what was this flexibility that Blair was talking of that seemed to have struck a common chord among the leaders of the rich? It meant that all big players on either side of the North-South divide have to give up something. In short, concessions from both sides that would lead to a compromise agreement.

Up to now the main sticking points in the Doha Round have been to what extent the United States should cut farm subsidies, the European Union cuts tariffs on farm goods imports and the developing countries open their markets to industrial goods and services.

The US, for instance, spends $22 billion or more on subsiding mainly big producers who are then able to produce cheaper commodities than farmers in developing countries and to dump their produce in the developing world driving poor farmers to penury.

Several major European Union countries, notably France, have also been helping their farmers at the expense of those in the developing countries whose produce cannot compete because of these unfair trading practices.
If the developing countries are to open their markets for industrial goods and services then they need a quid pro quo which the west, especially the United States was not ready to concede as the breakdown in the talks in Geneva last week proved.

So when George Bush joined other summit leaders in asking their trade negotiators to return to Geneva and start talking with Pascal Lamy, Director-General, WTO, was that sheer bluff and he had no intention of doing anything of the sort?

For it was President Bush's chief trade negotiator Susan Schwab who pulled the plug and made sure that no broad agreement would be struck by the July end deadline.

Now the talks have been put off indefinitely. It seems like the last rites would have to be performed before long on the WTO's trade talks and another multilateral institution born with much fanfare and trumpet blowing could go down with the dying notes of the Last Post on the bugle.

Why Washington has persistently avoided multilateral treaties and deals is not hard to understand. Globalisation that has broadly benefited the rich more than the poor, was fine as long as the West had control of the game.

But the WTO was proving more like a mini United Nations where the developing world could resist the machinations of the west and refuse to horse trade. So Washington's unilateralist foreign policy approach was being extended to the economic field, to trade and commerce where it could strike bilateral deals with other countries giving it much more leverage to squeeze out concessions from them.

That is in the short term. In the longer term it fears the emergence of China and India as major economic powers, particularly China which could challenge the US economically in the next 15 years or so.

It fears that Chinese manufactures would penetrate its markets, as well as other western markets and drive its own major manufacturers up the wall. So those who called for free trade and open markets are likely to start erecting their own barriers violating the logic of their own arguments.

If this means the end of multilateralism in trade and open markets what we are likely to see is the growth of bilateralism and regional deals.

It’s time to give MPs a lesson
By Kuldip Nayar
I did not know what the BJP was trying to prove by demonstrating through sounding gongs, ringing bells and bursting into peels of laughter at the scene they were creating on the opening day of the Monsoon session. Indeed, it was the spectacle the BJP could not be proud of although the party got the media attention which was probably the purpose. I do not see why it did not strike even matured leaders like Atal Behari Vajpayee that they were making themselves the laughing stock of the nation and lowering the dignity of parliament.

Parliament represents the aspirations of one billion people and deserves all the respect and consideration. I do not like the disturbance within the House but I can understand it because this has become one way of expressing protest. Yet the bawdy demonstration like the one that the BJP staged degrades the House and members.

Imagine the message which has gone across the country. All TV networks showed the demonstration a like. People already groaning under the weight of lack of governance must have been waiting for a debate on such urgent problems. But they have to be content with the demonstration and the ruckus that the BJP created in the Lok Sabha. Whatever the members' behaviour, people have come to believe that parliament will some day deliver them the goods and make their dream of a viable life come true.

I can understand the BJP's frustration. It came to power once after independence and did not expect defeat at the polls. But the party has to blame itself because its performance made little difference in people's life of hardships. In fact, they found the party trying to bring back the days of communalism which had killed Mahatma Gandhi. The demonstration must have alienated people further.

Ordinary people represent the teeming millions. Their forefathers had participated in the struggle for independence. Parliament for them epitomises their sacrifices. I remember the speech that Dr. Rajendra Prasad, the chairman, made when the constitution assembly endorsed the constitution. I was then a reporter sitting in the press gallery of Parliament. He said it was the best of the constitution which the best of minds, the lawyers, would interpret and the best of minds, the judges, would decide on the interpretation of the constitution. But it was sad, he added, that there was no qualification laid for those who would frame the law. He was referring to MPs and MLAs.

Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, present in the house, appreciated Dr. Rajendra Prasad's remarks. But he took exception to the qualification clause. He said that when India was engaged in fighting against the British, the poor, the illiterate and the teeming millions were the ones sacrificing everything they had-even their lives. Those who could surely interpret the constitution and make out its intricacies were on the side of the rulers. Nehru said that he would rather have the teeming millions than the toadies in the task of building the country. Still the constituent assembly agreed to have some qualification at an appropriate time. Maybe, this is the time to take up this aspect. At least the tainted members in parliament and the state legislatures and those against whom the proceedings of heinous crime were pending should be kept out until they have cleared their names.

Coming back to the BJP's demonstration, it is time that political parties thought of decorum. People make fun of politicians. One of our servants remarked after seeing the BJP demonstration in TV that such behaviour was not seen even in juggis and jhompris. What kind of parliament the country has is a common remark. I know that many attempts have been made to see if an orderly behaviour is possible within the House. Nothing has succeeded so far. Even the unanimous resolution by MPs on the 50th Anniversary of the constitution not to disturb the House has not made a difference. It has pledged that the question hour would not be suspended. The BJP asked for its suspension as soon as the Lok Sabha met.

I have the privilege of participating in the 50th Anniversary as I was then a member of the Rajya Sabha. I really believed that order would return to Parliament as all political parties gave their pledge not to disturb the House. But you live to learn. Then why blame the BJP alone? In the last House it was the Congress, the Left and regional parties.

Members have come to believe that they do not get the front-page attention unless they disturb the House. Sadly this is true. I persuaded many members to prepare their speech so that they could make a contribution to the debate. A few members who burnt the midnight oil were disappointed because the House was often disturbed and their turn did not come. But when they did get a chance, not even a word appeared in the press which was used to report 'something out of the ordinary'.

Maybe, it is time that the Speaker called leaders of all parties to warn them about the lessening image of parliament. Maybe, he should have an all-India seminar where he could invite not only MPs but also academicians and others to discuss how things were being difficult for him to conduct. It is not so much the non-governance which is affecting the morale of the nation but it is the behaviour of politicians that is exasperating. Some way has to be found to stop the increasing disillusionment of people. The system's future may well depend on that. All must seriously ponder over this quickly because desperation has set in.