Racial discrimination

FINALLY the UN has taken note of increased post-9/11 incidents of racial discrimination inside the US, something that the eastern media has been voicing concern about for some time now. The report minced few words, expressing deep concern about “increase in racial profiling against Arabs, Muslims and South Asians in the wake of the 9/11 attacks”. Also, as repeatedly pointed out by noted rights organisations like Human Rights Watch, the UN has admitted that other minorities like black Americans are also seriously sidelined in most parts of the country, suffering discrimination across all sections of society. It is not exactly rocket science that once pushed to the limit and accorded second grade education, health and justice, the minorities are pushed into collective reaction. The weak social net creates situations where crime and violence thrives, inviting further trouble at the hands of the authorities, making for a vicious circle without much hope for escape. It is little surprise that most minority groups in America are ‘disproportionately concentrated’ in poor residential areas, extended poor education and healthcare services, and account for the lowest employment rates, while boasting the highest crime statistics.
The biggest point of concern is that both federal and state policies, as correctly noted by the UN report, are increasingly choosing policies that further such undesirable trends. It is no surprise that the American establishment went into a strong reaction in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. Such a stance was understandable initially since the authorities went the extra mile to avoid a repetition of events that could leave their country worse hit. However, as instances of ill treatment of Muslims, specifically Arabs, increased and relevant offices defended and continued such actions rather than condemn and stop them, it became clear that sterner laws promulgated by the Bush administration were being twisted into objectionable use. The reports contents, though by no means strange, still make for concerning reading. For decades the US has epitomised the ‘free world’, where all sorts of ethnicities and nationalities are supposed to coexist, making for the ideal, most diverse cosmopolitan environment on earth. That image now stands ruined owing to extreme hardline views of a few but with the power to influence many. Much has been rightly questioned about the Bush White House’s manner of dealing with the international war against terrorism. It has been a glaring failure on practically all fronts. Not only has America’s military been embarrassed in Iraq and Afghanistan, its political image has suffered internationally, and now its most striking feature, its reputation as the home of freedom, is also all but dust. Perhaps there is a lesson in this as Americans are close to choosing their new president. Will they again go for one who advocates muscle over reason?





What’s best for Philippines

PEOPLE power has produced spectacular results; none more so perhaps than when Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceaucescu made his last public appearance and to his amazement, instead of receiving the normal stage-managed cheers of adulation, was booed and heckled, as his secret police lost control of the streets. He fled in a helicopter but was captured and executed. The million-strong people power demonstrations that drove Philippine’s dictator Ferdinand Marcos from office and into exile in 1986 was another epic demonstration of what a public fed up with a corrupt and inept regime can achieve. Indeed, what the Filipinos achieved may well have inspired the mass demonstrations in East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia and finally Romania that brought about the collapse of state communism. There is, however, a big difference between the experience of Eastern Europe and the Philippines. While the countries of the former Soviet bloc have settled down to democracy, the mass protest has become dangerously embedded in Philippine politics. It was used a second time in 2001 to bring half a million people onto the streets demanding the ouster of the blatantly corrupt and woefully disappointing President Joseph Estrada. Notable for the use of mobile phone text messages to spread news of the protests, this massive demonstration of people power did indeed force Estrada to go. Now public protest is being used a third time against his then deputy and successor President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo who in the last seven years has survived four attempted coups and three motions to impeach her.
Arroyo stands accused at the least of covering up a payola scandal involving her husband and senior aides and at worst of being involved herself. She has used her executive powers to try and stop officials from giving evidence to a commission of enquiry. Some who have challenged her have been subjected to harassment, for instance by the tax authorities. The aide who blew the whistle faces prosecution for violating state confidentiality rules. All in all, it is not an edifying spectacle nor unfortunately is it out of the ordinary for Philippine politics, so deeply stained with a tradition of graft, made worse by a consistent failure to drive through social and welfare reforms. Arroyo seems determined to face down the popular protest and complete her term. She doubtless takes comfort from the smaller numbers of people who have been bothered to take to the streets yet again to protest. Her attitude is, however, as wrong as is the idea that unpopular governments should be driven from power by mass demonstrations. The best response in the face of the current protest would be for the president to call a snap election — which if run cleanly and fairly — would give Filipinos a chance to consider who should best be leading them. For want of a better alternative, that person might still be Arroyo. The problem with crowds that topple governments is they leave a leadership vacuum that can be filled by rogues. If Filipinos value democracy, they must use the ballot box, not the streets to register their opinions.

—Arab News