Extending politeness, courtesy and hospitality to diplomats by the host country, is a time honored tradition of civilized world; even grudgingly accepted by barbarian orders. However during assignment in India, Pakistani diplomats, embassy staffers and their family members have to bear with thuggish intimidation as an inescapable part of the ‘Delhi Package’. The routine intimidation can get vicious by degree as and when the Indo-Pak relations turn frosty - veritable indicators of rough and choppy times ahead. Given this context, the recent bizarre incident, involving kidnapping of a teenager, Roshan Ali, son of a staffer at the Pakistan embassy in New Delhi and thoroughly undiplomatic response by the Indian Government, can only be seen as a bad omen for the sustenance of the current Indo-Pak détente; in place for close to two years.
Roshan was kidnapped by unknown persons, as soon as he came out of the National Institute of Information Technology (NIIT) Delhi around 1715 hours on 8 November, where he was enrolled for studies. His abductors placed a mask over his face to render him unconscious. As the boy recovered, he found himself in the company of three persons who rough handled him to confront a macabre scene. Three corpses with fresh blood on their clothes were lying in the room and as soon as Roshan entered, his abductors smeared his face with blood from the dead bodies. His tormentors, obviously operatives of the Indian intelligence agencies, made him hold a large knife and photographed him with the dead bodies. After this weird photo session the boy was driven blindfolded on the Delhi streets before being dumped near India Gate in the early hours of 9 November. Before being pushed out, a warning note in Hindi was stuffed in his pocket commanding that he should leave Delhi within 5 days and warning that his photographs, in possession of his abductors, could lead him to gallows.
The absence of the boy raised concern in Pakistan high Commission (PHC) and the embassy reported the matter, at about 2230 hrs on 8 Nov, to the Chankyapuri Police Station as well as the Indian Ministry of External Affairs (MEA). The Police response was lackadaisical, which instead of showing alacrity and raising an immediate alarm recommended that PHC should ‘wait’ for the missing boy till morning. It was manifest that it was a party to the episode. On strong insistence of Pakistani diplomats, the Police rather reluctantly registered the report after a lapse of two hours at around midnight. If Police was reluctant to address PHC concerns, it was the Indian media, which on ‘official’ advice decided to turn a Nelson’s eye to the incident. It is instructive to note that while the news of abduction were flashed on Pakistani electronic media in the morning of 9th Nov, Indian electronic media, ostensibly under bidding of the Indian Government, took its time in reporting the diplomatically sensitive incident which came about in the night of 9 Nov; after a lapse of twelve hours.
The matter constituted a serious breach of the diplomatic protocol and to underscore Pakistan’s concern, Deputy High Commissioner Munawar Saeed Bhatty met MEA’s Additional Secretary (Pakistan) on 9th November at the South Block and urged an enquiry into the matter. India’s acting High Commissioner at Islamabad was also summoned to be handed down a strong protest and convey Pakistan’s Government’s anguish over the incident. Indian response to Pakistan’s concern was typical – self-righteous, undiplomatic, insensitive, and disgusting. In obvious defense of the Intelligence operators, who as per precedence, work hand-in-glove with the MEA officials and Police in executing such charades, the Indian Ministry firmly entrenched itself in a denial mode. In late afternoon on 9th November the MEA spokesman shrugged off the incident as a “prank” by the youngster, asserting that the Police have found no evidence of abduction; hinting that the abduction incident had been “fabricated” by the Pakistani Embassy. Words such as “prank”, “fabrication” and “sensationalize” are highly un-diplomatic and indicate as to how rapidly the scant goodwill, purportedly generated by the CBMs, is getting eroded to bare abominable Indian claws.
Indian response has failed to satisfy Pakistan which staunchly believes that Indian Government has not done enough to satisfy her suspicions and concerns. Indian Intelligence operators, while conducting such charades in their own turf, take no pains to cover their tracks which invariably leave their tell-tale marks on the episode. The warning note thrust into the youth’s pocket by his abductors provides one such indicator. According to the Indian Police version duly accepted by the MEA, the note was allegedly written by Rahul Sharma - a class mate of Roshan, at his behest because he (Roshan) wanted to “scare some of his Pakistani friends”. According to Indian media sources the warning letter was handed over to Indian Police by the Pakistani Embassy at around 1300 hours on 9th November. Afterwards Roshan was interrogated, concerning the contents of the letter by an Indian Police Inspector for an hour or so. Within three hours Police apprehended Rahul Sharma as the author of the warning note. But it is mystifying that neither has Sharma been presented before the print and the electronic media nor have any legal proceedings been initiated for causing such a ruckus in the two capitals. It is also not comprehensible as to why would Roshan insist on having a warning note written in Hindi to “scare” his Pakistani friends since the writing would not be understood by any Pakistani. As regards authenticity of Rahul’s alleged confession for being the author of the warning note, Delhi Police, given its reputation, can produce any number of such confessions. According to observers, MEA stance that no evidence confirms the incident is ludicrous since how would Police find evidence of the incident when Indian intelligence operators had staged the incident with obvious knowledge and full cooperation of the Police as well as the MEA.
For reasons best known to her, the MEA has taken pains to insist that PHC has been late in informing the Indian authorities of the incident. This is in contradiction to PHC officials’ assertions that they informed the Police as well as the MEA of the incident at 2230 hours. MEA claims that Chankiapuri Police Station was informed of the incident at about midnight (approx 2 hrs delay) while the note verbale was received at the MEA at 0321 hrs on 9th November (5 hrs delay); opting to remain silent whether it was informed of the incident on telephone earlier or not. Probably alacrity by PHC in responding to the incident doesn’t fit into the unfolding of the charade as choreographed by the MEA, intelligence and the Police combine.
These are truly sensitive times in the context of forging a new chapter in the bilateral relations of India and Pakistan. Having tested the limits of coercive diplomacy during Operation Parakram, the mechanism of peace process is functioning and CBMs are being put into place to generate an ambience to tackle thorny issues bedeviling the Indo-Pak relations. The abduction of a youth belonging to Pakistan’s embassy staff comes across as a spanner in the wheels by elements who want to impede the pace of engagement. Such incidents are in no way unprecedented. Indians are known to trump up preposterous allegations even tarnishing the Acting High commissioner of PHC to ratchet up tension with Pakistan. These allegations have usually proven as straws in the wind to indicate turbulent times ahead. One hopes that India takes adequate measures to satisfy Pakistan’s concerns instead of brushing aside the serious incident as “fabrication” and attempts to “sensationalize”. A more prudent way would be to order a thorough investigation and address the reservations of the PHC concerning the whole episode. The undiplomatic response by the Indian Government represented by their MEA is hardly in line with the image of a civilized and benign power that it so assiduously attempts to create.

Who trusts Sharon?
Hassan Tahsin

The international media presented Israel’s pullout from Gaza Strip as though it was an act of unprecedented magnanimity. But no shrewd observer could fail to notice the Israeli premier’s lack of sincerity in his withdrawal plans. The move was nothing but a ploy to gain political mileage after it was quite clear to the world that he was not at all committed to the American-brokered “road map” for the Middle East peace. It did not take several days after the pullout to uncover Ariel Sharon’s deception and hypocrisy and to realize that he was a man whose words could never be trusted.
Sharon is not at all serious about peace with Palestinians. What else is the explanation for closing the Bayt Hanun crossing without giving any date for its reopening just three days after the Palestine-Israel agreement to open the crossing points between Gaza and the outside world, particularly the Rafah crossing on Nov. 19? The entire Gaza region would be cut off from the rest of the region if the Bayt Hanun is not open. Sharon’s only aim is to mount economic pressure on the Palestinian people by denying them their only opportunity to work and earn their livelihood apart from isolating them from the outside world. Sharon had devised schemes to evict Palestinians and expand the West Bank settlements under the cover of favorable world opinion generated by the army pullout.
A few days after the pullout tenders were invited for the expansion of the settlements in the West Bank, particularly at the Ma’aleh Adumim in the East Jerusalem with the apparent aim of driving out the Palestinians from there. Completing the chain of Jewish settlements surrounding the holy city was another aim. Meanwhile, the Israeli Housing Ministry invited tenders for the infrastructure construction in the Ariel settlement close to the Nablus city in the West Bank. This move also would expand the Jewish settlements in the Palestinian territories. These and several other moves signify that Sharon has scuttled the “road map.”
Of course, Sharon could not take such a decision without the support of President George Bush who has seemingly forgotten his promise to the world that he would establish an independent Palestinian state in 2005. The president’s support to Sharon, undoubtedly, amounts to the approval of Israel’s shameless violations of all international laws and norms. This is the situation that makes Arabs view Sharon as a man whose words cannot be trusted. However, it is not the Arabs alone that mistrust the Israeli leaders. The Europeans have also expressed their lack of trust in Sharon’s words and promises. The European mistrust of Israel became clear when NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said in Vienna recently that the Atlantic organization would not directly participate in the Arab-Israeli conflict or suggest any particular solution. The NATO chief is making this statement after reviewing the organization’s success in the Balkans, Afghanistan and Darfur.
Nobody would say that he was compelled to make such a statement because of Arab intransigence; Arabs have never violated any terms of an agreement signed under international mediation.
On the contrary Israel has been notorious for its violations. Though the US has been accused of making NATO a cover to establish its supremacy over the world the European members of the organization have been careful not to walk into the US trap. That is why Britain was the only major European power to help the US in fighting the Iraq war. On the other hand, the Europeans have condemned the aggression.
The whole world finds Sharon a liar and untrustworthy. But the American administration controlled by the right extremists knows that the continuation of tension in the Middle East serves the strategic and economic interests of both the United States and Israel.
 

Trying to stem controversy in South Korea
Tom Plate

The people of South Korea have responded to the stem-cell scandal involving genius-innovator Hwang Woo Suk with admittedly excessive passion and near-unanimous conviction. Still, by rallying around their amazing Seoul National University pioneer, their support should be a comfort to risk-taking scientists all over the world.
Safe science is not always the best science. This is especially the case with technically tricky and sometimes ethically complex work, such as stem-cell research. It’s true that at the end of the day the benefits of the research may prove disappointing. But you don’t know until you find out. Hwang is obviously for trying to find out: No guts, no paradigm shift, no glory.
This South Korean veterinarian astonished the world in 2004 when his Seoul laboratory produced the first cloned embryonic stem cells from adult human patients. Hwang and his team at Seoul National University led a global pack of scientists in search of ways of approaching crushing human diseases such as Parkinson’s. Time magazine took note of Hwang’s cloning of the world’s first dog, “Snuppy,” by naming it invention of the year.
But at the same time questions were being whispered throughout the global scientific world as to how readily and rapidly the lab had managed to come into possession of the many fresh human eggs needed for the experiment. Eventually, the mounting suspicion crashed into scandal: A South Korean news program, in a documentary, provided evidence that two female junior staffers had been clandestine donors of a large number of (generally hard to find) fresh eggs to fuel his work. The story made headlines around the world: The professor had to admit to having crossed an ethical line and stepped down as head of the World Stem Cell Hub in Seoul.
Even so, the pioneer’s South Korean countrymen are standing behind him. What’s notable is that such a high level of public support for stem-cell science occurs in a society drenched in religious values — as is America, where, by contrast, this research has been plagued by political opposition from the right. But South Koreans appear to accept that serious — and sometimes risk-taking — science has a solid track record of defeating or ameliorating terrible diseases from the simplest infection to the complexities of polio or AIDS.
What’s more, South Koreans are driven by the norms of patriarchy in ways that we in the West do not. Were these two junior female researchers truly coerced into donating their eggs, or were they simply dedicated and high-minded junior scientists who wished to help to their pioneering professor to the extent they could?
And finally, there’s the issue of national pride. To have in their midst a scientist of the stature of the path-finding Hwang is more important to South Korea than outsiders might imagine. Until relatively recently, South Korea has been a sort of lost country, in the shadow of the (former) Soviet Union, China and Japan. But since the late ‘80s, South Koreans have been clawing their way to the top tier of world economies, astonishing everyone with their penchant for innovation, democracy and solid diplomacy.
However, South Koreans need to balance their emotional support for Hwang with more respect for the role of the news media. The TV program and network in South Korea that broke the Hwang story with an hourlong documentary about the suspicious source of the egg donations have been demonstrated against and denounced. This blame-the-messenger public fury is unfortunate. The president of South Korea, Roh Moo Hyun, has rightly come to the new program’s defense. Moreover, while announcing its continuing support for Hwang’s work, the South Korea’s political establishment has wisely created a new ethics committee to shed light on the many penumbrae of biotechnology.
At the same time, this scandal does provide South Korea’s news media with an opportunity to examine itself. The trickiest of ethical dilemmas requires a sensitive balance of reason and judgment to assess. Sometimes these issues are too complex to be handled in the raucous news media, which perforce must simplify and over-dramatize in order to communicate to the masses. The controversy about pioneer Hwang may go down in history as just such a classic case for journalists as well as scientists.