Tags:
Journalism of Courage
It was inevitable perhaps, given that Sars came centrestage so soon after the fall of Baghdad. In much of the media fretting about Sars, the outbreak sounds suspiciously like the latest twist in the US-led war on terror.
A hidden danger traveling incognito around the world, selecting its victims apparently at random and with devastating effects. A Weapon of Mass Destruction, of the kind coalition forces still haven’t found in Iraq. In Time, columnist Michael Elliot argued that ‘‘soft’’ issues like economic, environmental or health crises around the world pose as real a ‘‘security threat’’ to American interests as ‘‘hard’’ ones like terrorism. In Britain, the FINANCIAL TIMES even recommended that the WHO be given the right to make ‘‘challenge inspections’’ — such as existed under some arms control agreements of the Cold War era — if it had grounds for suspecting an undisclosed break. In this scenario, the WHO’s call last week for ‘‘an immediate aggressive global response at the highest level’’ has played in the western media like a seamless continuation of the coalition forces’ campaign against Saddam.
Virus behind the iron curtain
Commentators in the British and US media agreed that for the Chinese government, the Sars crisis presents the gravest threat since Tiananmen Square. But will it be China’s Chernobyl? A traumatic event that forces a closed system into more permanent openness?
It does seem like deja vu: scientists in neighbouring countries detect what the Communist authorities tried to conceal; political uncertainty reinforces the tendency of the party apparatus to conceal the bad news; in the end, with the world pounding at their doors, the Communists are forced to come clean. So will there be a similar chain reaction in China? After Chernobyl, in the Soviet Union, Gorbachev accelerated glasnost and perestroika, which helped bring down the the Soviet Empire, then the Soviet Union itself…
Not so fast, said others. There are crucial differences in the two situations: One, ‘‘socialism with Chinese characteristics’’ is an economic success, unlike Soviet communism. Two, there have been no signs that China is prepared to encourage political reform while under Gorbachev reform was being encouraged before Chernobyl, not in response to it.
WHO’s in the dock
In the western media, this epidemic is also about the role of the WHO. Some declared themselves heartened by what they saw as a UN agency rising to its challenge at a time when the Iraq war has put the United Nation under strain. But writing in the DAILY TELEGRAPH, Dr James Le Fanu heaped scorn on the organisation. The Sars epidemic, he said, has arrived in the nick of time to salvage the reputation of a corrupt bureaucracy that has provided no leadership in combating the health problems of the world’s poorest people. Three quarters of whose resources go to paying its own staff in their expensive offices around the world. And which spends more on stationery and office supplies than on preventing diarrhoeal diseases — the major cause of childhood deaths in the Third World. Now, as it busily collects statistics and doles out daily updates on the epidemic with the catchy acronym, the WHO’s prominent role in this self-styled ‘‘first international health threat of the 21st century’’ gets it off the hook of having to explain its failings.
Alone in his hotseat
In the week in which India decided to restore diplomatic ties with Pakistan, The ECONOMIST spelt out the doubts. The killings continue in Kashmir and Vajpayee could make his gesture in Srinagar only through bullet proof glass. There was no concrete plan for peace. And, even if a dialogue resumes, what will Pakistan’s embattled regime talk about with India on Kashmir?
The magazine spotlighted the difficulty of being Musharraf in Pakistan today. The MMA-led opposition in the national parliament has refused to recognise him as president. It demands that he scrap the extraordinary powers he has wrested, including the right to fire the cabinet and dissolve parliament. Pundits in Pakistan, said the magazine, are harking back to the General’s words last August. Asked what would happen if the next parliament refused to accept his amendments to the Constitution, Musharraf said: ‘‘Either I will stay, or parliament will stay’’.
The children of 9/11
After Iraq, the spotlight is also on the ‘‘shadow men’’ who dominate the new American foreign policy establishment. The Neo Cons, whose starting point is that America faces the challenge of managing a ‘‘unipolar world’’. Who see the world in terms of good and evil and who think America should be willing to use its military power to defeat the forces of chaos. Who are sceptical of multi-lateral institutions that limit American power. And who are said to have a stranglehold on the Pentagon and the president.
The ECONOMIST framed the question: Is the hijacking of American foreign policy by the neo-cons only a conspiracy theory? Or has a cabal taken over the foreign policy of the most powerful country of the world?
The magazine was of the view that the neo-cons are only a part of a larger movement that advocates that America should use its power vigorously to reshape the world. This small group of professors and lawyers has only articulated views that came to seem more important after September 11, 2001. The new policy enjoys support, it said, at every level of government.
So is American foreign policy captured by a tiny ideological clique that has imposed its narrow views on others? The ECONOMIST’s verdict: ‘‘Not really’’. But that debate is bound to continue.
