The.Economist.2007-02-10 (966424), страница 5
Текст из файла (страница 5)
AIDS spread unnoticed in Africa for aroundhalf a century. When it arrived in America it was detected within months thanks to the vigilance of thecountry's Centres for Disease Control and Prevention in noticing clusters of a previously rare skin cancerthat is often a symptom of immune-system collapse.The sort of global vigilance that could detect a rare cancer becoming slightly less rare is hard to imagine,and would certainly be expensive. But compared with the damage that could be done by a pandemic—whether slow-burning like AIDS or the wildfire of influenza—it would be money well spent. Yet eventoday's small sums are paid out in the wrong place. Diseases emerge in Africa and Asia, where peoplemingle with animals day in, day out.
That is where the monitoring and the research needs to go on.Cross-border co-operation is never easy, but if rich-world governments want to protect their citizens, theplace to start is in a foreign field.Copyright © 2007 The Economist Newspaper and The Economist Group. All rights reserved.About sponsorshipBangladeshNot uniformly badFeb 8th 2007From The Economist print editionThe army has intervened sensibly in Bangladesh's failing democracy. Now it must leaveAFPGet article backgroundLIKE most human follies, military coups sound good at the time; and always fail.
They sound goodbecause what they replace is usually bad: riotous civilian leaders, corrupted institutions, stolen elections.They fail because beneath the chaos are political problems that soldiers cannot unpick. Bangladesh'sgenerals took power by stealth on January 11th, forcing the president to declare a state of emergencyand appoint a government of technocrats to do their bidding. One month on, this administration hasfallen into the usual trap of failing to set a date for the election it has promised.
All the same, this was apeculiar coup, and its failure is not yet assured.Generals always claim to have been forced to take action. In this case the claim is true (see article). Thedemocratic process had collapsed. The government they unseated was itself an unelected administrationthat had been appointed by the outgoing regime, led by the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), tosupervise an election on January 22nd.This caretaker arrangement was the result of chronic distrust between the BNP and its main rival, theAwami League (AL): neither of the parties, which have ruled Bangladesh alternately for the 16 yearssince its previous military government, trusts the other to hold a fair poll.
The arrangement broke downmainly because the BNP picked a partisan caretaker to rig the poll. The AL screamed foul, boycotted theelection and called its thugs onto the streets. More than 40 people were killed in political violence latelast year.
Had the election been held, there would have been a slaughter.The generals were entitled under the constitution to avert this. But they and the technocrats they haveappointed should understand that their duty now is limited. It is to organise, as swiftly as possible, thefairest election that Bangladeshis can reasonably hope for. And here a problem is emerging.The administration has pledged to bring to justice top-level criminals (who are mostly politicians),depoliticise institutions, rewrite the electoral roll and take other measures that it says are essential toholding fair elections. It has also vowed to fix a power crisis, liberalise fuel prices and otherwise improvethe economy.
Its performance has so far been so good, and the memory of the BNP and what followed itis so painful that most Bangladeshis seem happy. But it will not last: Bangladesh is too troubled for theadministration to achieve a fraction of its goals before the people lose patience. And Bangladeshis are ademanding lot. They rallied to drive the previous army government from power, and their continued zestfor politics is one reason Bangladesh is so explosive.The other is their appalling leaders, the BNP's Khaleda Zia and Sheikh Hasina Wajed of the AL—thewomen Bangladeshis call the “two begums”.
Both inherited their parties from assassinated relatives, andhave turned them into patronage-based personality cults. They also hate each other, and refuse tocommunicate, much less negotiate. The army hopes its crackdown might persuade the begums to retire.That would be as wonderful as it is unlikely. They are too popular and too good at mob politics to beousted.No bypassing the politicsIt is in fact the generals who must withdraw, after an election by the end of the year that they have donetheir best to ensure is fair. That will give Bangladeshis the opportunity, though perhaps a few electionshence, to start to resolve their problems peacefully.
Such problems cannot be ended by military fiat. Thefeud between the two begums is a distorted image of many nationwide divisions: between the cities andthe villages, between secular and religious, between those who fought for liberation from West Pakistanin 1971 and those, including many of the BNP's Islamist allies, who opposed it.The country's wider problems call for a change in thinking. Bangladesh is uniquely imperilled by the mainthreats to global security: climate change, terrorism and state failure. Almost half the overpopulatedcountry lives near sea level; 40% of its area is flooded each year. It would be miraculous if the army'sintervention shocked the country's battling small-minded politicians into a new and urgent policy ofbuilding dykes and embankments against the rising seas.Copyright © 2007 The Economist Newspaper and The Economist Group.
All rights reserved.About sponsorshipOn Israel and the Jewish diasporaFeb 8th 2007From The Economist print editionThe Economist, 25 St James's Street, London SW1A 1HGFAX: 020 7839 2968E-MAIL: letters@economist.comOn the diasporaSIR – Your leader on the Jewish diaspora criticised mainstream American Jewish organisations on anumber of grounds for continuing to support Israel (“Diaspora blues”, January 13th). You based thesecriticisms on the premise that Israel's existence is now taken for granted by most of the world and thatsome diaspora Jews don't support Israel because “the threat of genocide or of Israel's destruction hasreceded”.
How I wish your premise were true.While Israel has developed enormously on the economic and technological fronts, and while some Arabstates now acknowledge Israel's reality, in fact the threats to Israel are as grave as have existed fordecades. Iran, which aspires to be the world's next nuclear state, has explicitly and repeatedlythreatened the existence of the state of Israel and denied the existence of the Holocaust. Almost all ofIsrael's Arab neighbours still refuse to recognise Israel's legitimacy and Hamas, Hizbullah and otherextremist groups make sure that rocket attacks and suicide-bombings are daily threats to Israeli civilians.How all of this translates into the reduced vulnerability for Israel that you suggest is hard to comprehend.Glen LewyNational chairAnti-Defamation LeagueNew YorkSIR – I found your article on Israel and the Jewish diaspora well written and researched (“Secondthoughts about the Promised Land”, January 13th).
However, it suffered from a strong Anglo-Saxon biasand a short historical perspective. There have always been differences in opinion between the broaderJewish population and Jewish organisations and this is because most of these groups are not elected(they are better defined as “interest groups”).
Moreover, Jewish opinion in Europe was divided betweenZionism and other streams of Jewish identity during the whole of the 20th century. I do not see anysignificant change in these trends. What is changing is the greater visibility of some old differences.Tomas JelinekEx-president of the Prague Jewish CommunityPragueSIR – In order for there to be a peaceful settlement in the Middle East, the Jewish neoconservativegroups lobbying for “not Israel but its right-wing political establishment” must moderate their views.Bloodshed will remain the norm and nothing will be accomplished until there is constructive diplomaticdialogue between America, Iran and Syria and between Israel and the Palestinians.Gregory SalomonHoustonSIR – Criticism of the Jews' “knee-jerk defensiveness of Israel” ignores the very real need that Jews feelto defend Israel's honour from the persistent double-standard to which it is held.
In 2000 Israel offeredthe Palestinians a state on virtually all of the land in dispute, only to see the Palestinians respond bystrapping bombs to their own children and sending them into Israel to massacre civilians. Yet today it isIsrael, rather than its warmongering neighbours, that is treated as an obstacle to peace. Even VladimirPutin, who has pursued a scorched-earth policy in Chechnya, has the audacity to accuse Israel of acting“disproportionately” when Israel responds with relative restraint to Hizbullah's missile barrages.
Insteadof criticising diaspora Jews for standing up for Israel, you should fault the rest of the world for lacking thecourage to do so.Stephen SilverWalnut Creek, CaliforniaSIR – If anyone thinks Jews do not feel the Palestinians' pain and speak up about it among ourselves, Iassure you that we do. But someone on the Palestinians' side needs to stand up for peace. The day thatone of their leaders comes to Israel to say “We want peace”—as Anwar Sadat did—there will be areasonable and contiguous Palestinian state. No Israeli government could stand in its way. Until then theattacks on Israel will continue and Israel's defenders will continue to do what they must to protect itssecurity.
I suppose you may consider it unfair, but I'm tempted to say that your underlying messagewas, “Why don't you people know your place and stop being so disruptive (and effective) in worldpolitical circles.”Judd KesslerWashington, DCSIR – I take issue with your assertion that Poland is a “cradle of anti-Semitism”. This stereotype echoesthe oft-repeated fiction about “Polish” concentration camps (actually, Nazi camps located in Poland). Priorto 1939 Poland was home to the biggest Jewish diaspora in Europe and I wonder how you square yourview with the fact that so many Poles risked their lives to rescue Jews during the Holocaust.
Indeed, thePolish constitute the largest group of the Righteous Among the Nations, the honorary title granted to allnon-Jews who saved Jewish lives by Yad Vashem, the organisation charged with commemorating theHolocaust.No one can deny the existence of Polish anti-Semites, or of shameful acts of anti-Semitism in Polishhistory. But you did not substantiate why modern-day Poland is a cradle of anti-Semitism. This is unjust.The real cradle of anti-Semitism is the intolerance and prejudice that rear their ugly heads irrespective ofnational borders.Piotr ZientaraGdynia, PolandSIR – You characterised the relationship between pro-Israel lobbies and evangelical Christians as an“unholy alliance”. Although there are certainly those who warrant that description, it is unfair to portrayall Christians who fervently support Israel as diabolic.
Many Christians give their support because theybelieve a Jewish homeland has the right to exist, not because of some warped interpretation of JudgmentDay.James TannerGreenwich, ConnecticutSIR – Though the grandchild of Holocaust survivors, I was glad to see Charlemagne criticising laws inEurope that criminalise Holocaust denial (January 27th). But he didn't go far enough. Instead of debatingfreedom of speech, Europeans should be focusing on their freedom to analyse history. Holocaust denialposits an alternate—albeit entirely inaccurate—reading of the past.
![](https://s.studizba.com/z.php?f=/templates/si/i/noavatar.png&w=100&h=100&t=1"){kind=avatar}
