African Parliament

Hassan Tahsin’s column “The Making of an African Parliament” (Dec. 22) is apposite. The African Union (AU) has gone a long way toward making itself more relevant to the African people than its predecessor, the OAU, which was known as an exclusive men’s club with presidency of an African country as the sole requirement for membership.

However, several matters stand out with respect to the proposed Parliament.

First, the powers and responsibilities of such a Parliament need to be debated and agreed before it can be properly instituted. Second, according to Hassan Tahsin’s column, each country will have five members representing it, with at least one of them a woman.

This means, in practice, that the government of each country will be able to appoint the five members of their choice.

It would be better if the five members are from among those elected by the people.

Third, there exists no institutional continent-wide framework for such a body to be truly effective.

To enable it to become more effective, an African court of human rights, an African central bank and other such bodies should be formed.

I also disagree with the choice of Egypt as the venue for such a Parliament.

Cairo has not played any leadership role in any of the matters which are of immediate concern to African diplomacy — that is, concerning the resolution of the conflicts in Rwanda, DRC, Liberia, Ivory Coast, Zimbabwe and others.

Ahmed M.I. Egal • Riyadh published 23 December 2003

Jeddah Zoo

This refers to the article “At Least We Feed Them” by Roger Harrison and Essam Al-Ghalib (Dec. 21).

I would like to thank the reporters for their in-depth report on the appalling conditions of the animals at the zoo.

I would like to make an appeal to the business community in Jeddah to help provide funds to make these suffering animals’ lives better.

We need to build proper enclosures for the requirements of different species and set up a scheme whereby each animal is sponsored.

For example schoolchildren and schools could adopt one of these animals and receive newsletters from the zoo on their adopted animal’s progress.

I would be only too happy to sponsor one of these once proud animals, and I hope others after reading this will feel the same way. Once again, if nothing is done then we all have failed.

John Keenan • Jeddah published 23 December 2003

Kashmir Row

This refers to the letter “Kashmir Dispute” by Mohan (Dec. 21) portraying India as an upholder of peace and justice. I would like to correct some basic facts.

During the partition of the subcontinent, princely states were allowed to choose whether to join Pakistan or India.

The Nawab (ruler) of Junagarh decided to join Pakistan but India did not accept that and invaded that princely state. Legally, the Nawab was right: That part belonged to Pakistan if we follow the rules.

And what about the state of Hyderabad, which was far bigger than Kashmir? When it got to the point that the ruler (Nizam) of Hyderabad was going to throw his weight behind Pakistan, India sent in the army and occupied it.

When Pakistan protested to the United Nations, India said it was an internal matter, and never allowed the Nizam to make his decision.

The Indians should look at these facts before saying that India did not take any territory except with the consent of its rulers.

The writer of the letter calls Pakistan-administered Kashmir “occupied Kashmir.”

Can he say where the occupation is when Azad Kashmir has its own government run by the people of Azad Kashmir — unlike Indian Kashmir, where 700,000 soldiers provide security to the puppet government that came to power through rigged elections.

Muhammad Aqdas • Sweden published 23 December 2003

Saddam’s Trial

Will Saddam Hussein be treated as a POW or a war criminal? The Americans want Saddam tried as a POW because under the Geneva Convention POWs are tried behind closed doors.

This will save the Americans from being embarrassed and humiliated by statements and secrets that Saddam may reveal in the course of the trial. A lot of that information that Saddam will disclose could expose America’s foul play.

But the Governing Council of Iraq wants Saddam tried as a war criminal because it has nothing to fear. As a war criminal, Saddam would of course get an open trial.

Now the question is: Who is governing whom? Are the Americans controlling the Governing Council? Is the Governing Council governing the Iraqis? It remains to be seen.

Abdallah Bin Eifan • Jeddah published 23 December 2003

Give UN a Role

The Kashmir issue has again become a focus of world attention. The recent decision of Pakistan’s President Gen. Pervez Musharraf that his country is ready to drop the demand for a plebiscite in Kashmir followed by “clarifications” from other Pakistani leaders and the Indian response can be regarded as the biggest joke of the year.

The leadership on both sides are ignorant of the fact that it is the Kashmiris who are to determine which side if any they want to join.

Someone should tell them that it is an issue related to the future of Kashmiris, and it has to be decided by Kashmiris alone. Pakistan and India do not have much of a role in this issue.

The only thing they have to do is withdraw their armies from Kashmir and give the Kashmiris a chance to decide their future. Both parties should help the UN to hold a plebiscite for Kashmiris. Maybe the UN will invite Indian and Pakistani delegates to witness the event. The UN should give the Kashmiris three options: Independence, joining India or joining Pakistan.

Abdul Kabeer • Riyadh published 23 December 2003

Women’s Rights

Pakistan’s Supreme Court has given a landmark decision in favor of the right of women to marry a man of their choice.

I believe the choice is confined to marrying a Muslim — still, it greatly strengthens the position of women. The ruling is very encouraging given the discrimination of women that pervades Pakistani society.

Pakistan’s Federal Shariat Court has consistently taken the view that an adult and sane Muslim girl can contract her own marriage and the consent of her guardian is not required for the marriage to be valid.

Maqboolur Rehman Abbasi • Jeddah published 23 December 2003

Advice to Sonia Gandhi

The Congress party fared very badly in the three state assembly elections it fought under the leadership of Sonia Gandhi.

She should realize now that she is not acceptable to the people. It will be in the interest of Congress for Sonia to step down and hand over the reins of the party to a young and dynamic leader who can fight the extremists of the BJP.

Unfortunately, Congress has learned no lessons from the elections. Congress is notorious for infighting, and the defeat did not make them reconsider.

Delhi was the only state where Congress won an absolute majority and formed the government, and that was not thanks to Sonia.

It can be attributed to the fair administration of Sheila Dikshit, the chief minister. But even here, a tussle in the Congress party over the chief ministership delayed Sheila Dikshit’s oath-taking for 10 days.

During the election campaign Sonia reportedly made a speech in Rajasthan where she highlighted the problems in Madhya Pradesh.

The mind boggles to image how unaware of geography and politics she must be.

Sonia should also realize that the Nehru family is not the only one qualified to rule India. India is a democracy, and whichever party and leader suit it will rule the country.

It is high time that the leaders of Congress sat together and convinced Sonia that she is not acceptable to the people.

After the death of Rajiv Gandhi she may have had the sympathy of the people, but after she joined politics she lost it.

Abu Yasar • Khamis Mushayt published 23 December 2003

Right to Manipulate

Television gives us snapshots of international events, but of course there are people who manipulate these images to extort sympathy for their cause.

The print media by contrast provides narrative, and here it is increasingly the role of editors to transform reports into works of fiction.

Once you determine that you have the right to maim and pillage, the means becomes the justification.

If a man says that his brutality will lead to negotiation and conciliation, he is a man of Satan.

By doing so he is playing into extremists’ hands, whose goal it may well be to goad the leadership of Western countries to the point where they become rabid barbarians themselves and thereby bankrupt modern societies.

But what if war and destruction are not the means to achieve peace and glory?

Have we been gotten to the point where we only expect the bare minimum from our institutions? Is human life expendable? What if there are alternatives?

Otis G. Barlow • Newark, NJ published 23 December 2003