Illegal immigrants onboard a makeshift boat are brought ashore by authorities after they were intercepted off the Canary Island of Fuerteventura, Spain, Oct. 17. (Reuters File Photo)

November 5, 2004 marks an important date in the asylum-seekers' calendar because on that date the European summit in Brussels would take up the proposal for the establishment of transit or processing centres (euphemistically called "centres for humanitarian assistance") outside EU where economic migrants would be sifted from genuine asylum-seekers. The justification advanced for such centres is to apparently save lives of thousands of migrants from perishing by intercepting them before they reach Europe. The European Commission has reportedly earmarked $1.2 million in order to invest in capacity building in North African countries of Algeria, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco and Tunisia on where these centres are proposed to be established.
The proposal is highly controversial and EU seems to be divided down the middle on the issue. Austria, Germany, Great Britain and Italy are supporting it and Belgium, France and Sweden opposing it. It has also come under fire from the Liberal and Green parties in the European Parliament.
Human rights groups have also attacked the proposal. The European Association for the Protection of Human Rights (FIDH-AE), an umbrella body of some of Europe's leading human rights organisations is opposing the move by gathering signatures from members of the European Parliament, NGOs and civilians for submission to the European summit. Its president Dan Van Raemdonck has denounced the idea by pointing out that the real motive behind the proposal is "to undermine the right to political asylum and to take on more repressive policy towards refugees". In his view, such camps would not deter people from risking their lives to get to Europe.
Is the establishment of transit or processing centres in countries outside EU a violation of the asylum-seekers' right to political asylum? There is nothing wrong per se with the idea of the establishment of such centres in third countries. What is objectionable is that the countries where they would be established are not regarded what is termed as "safe third countries". That is to say that these countries do not provide asylum-seekers protection against refoulement (expulsion or rejection) that is the core principle of refugee rights today. They also do not fulfill basic human rights standards of treating them.
The objection about countries such as Libya--being proposed as the first model center--is clearly justified. The country is neither a party to the 1951 Refugee Convention nor has the necessary structure to deal with refugees. Besides, it has an abysmal record on treatment of refugees. It has already expelled hundreds of Somali refugees who had tried to reach Europe and failed. They were treated shabbily in Libyan prisons where some of them developed skin diseases as a result of use of these prisons as chemical warehouses. Morocco, another proposed centre, can hardly be expected to offer an effective protection to refugees from Western Sahara, which it has occupied for the last thirty years. No wonder Mr Lubbers, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, has roundly denounced the proposal.
The real motive behind the proposal to establish these centres is to plug in the loopholes in the system already in place to stop asylum-seekers from reaching EU borders. The authors of the idea are going ahead despite the fact that the Sangatte centre, which existed in France sometime back under the Red Cross, failed to achieve the objective.
DAILYTIMES.COM.PK

Ailing Palestinian Leader Yasser Arafat is shown with doctors in Ramallah in a picture provided by his office, Oct. 29. (AFP Photo)

From the Palestinians' point of view, Arafat's removal from the political stage leaves a big vacuum that will be hard to fill. During his political life over more than 50 years, Arafat managed to revive the National Palestinian Movement. It had fallen apart after Israel's War of Independence in 1948, known as the tragedy--the "Nakba"--of Israel's Arabs. He is considered the "father" of the new Palestinian nation.
In the modern era the Palestinians have only had one leader who can compare to Arafat in status and prestige--the Mufti of Beit-ul-Moqaddas, Haj Amin al-Husseini, who led Israel's Arabs at the time of the British Mandate against Jewish settlement and against the British.
Since his election in 1968 as chairman of the PLO's executive committee, Arafat's status and political power soared to heights that cast a shadow even on the mufti's position in his heyday.
Filling the leadership vacuum that Arafat will leave is therefore an almost impossible mission. It may take years. All those mentioned today as candidates to succeed him are far from being anything like Arafat in authority and personal prestige. None of them could be a new "father of the nation."
Arafat was portrayed in the Intifada years as an obstacle to peace. Not someone who could be partner to negotiation. But in the West Bank and Gaza he remained the sole figure of authority. His heir or heirs may espouse more convenient positions and be possible partners for negotiations--but this will not be of much value because they will not have even an iota of Arafat's prestige and power. One example is the struggle being conducted today (mainly in Gaza) among the heads of the security organizations. As much as they may fight among themselves, kidnap and shoot each other, they all bow their heads before Arafat. At least publicly, none of them criticizes or attacks Arafat. There is no senior Palestinian figure who can win this respect.
The consequence may be that law and order will totally collapse in the West Bank and Gaza after Arafat. The Palestinian Authority's mechanisms for rule may even crumble to the extent that outside intervention is required. How should Israel prepare for these developments?
Israel should not try to encourage or promote a certain Palestinian figure. If even a shadow of doubt surfaces that Israel is trying to push someone's candidacy, he would immediately be declared a foreign agent and lose any chance of being a legitimate leader in his nation's eyes.
The feeling in the Palestinian territories today is such that only a man who is seen as a bitter enemy of Israel may gain popularity. Palestinian Council member Marwan Barghouti, for example, enjoys an especially high status in public opinion polls in the West Bank and Gaza only because Israel sentenced him to life imprisonment. He is called "the engineer of the Intifada," a title seen as a great honor in the territories.
The only possibility open to Israel is to enable the Palestinian Authority to hold general elections. Lately the PA has completed updating the voter register, and the West Bank and Gaza's local authorities are preparing for elections in about two months. Only elections to the Palestine Legislative Council (the parliament) and elections for the head of the PA are able to give legitimacy to Arafat's heir. The heir who is democratically elected may be hostile to Israel, but he will also be the only one with the legitimacy to embark on a political road that would lead to resuming the negotiations. The Palestinians want elections, and all Israel must do is not interfere.
HAARETZ.COM

Whoever emerges as the next president of the United States must work hard indeed to set U.S. relations with the global Muslim world aright. Leaving aside America's pressing domestic concerns, that issue might prove Job No. 1 for George W. Bush or John Kerry.
To be sure, the right way to develop a better relationship is not to turn the other cheek over Muslim extremism or terrorism or develop a "politically correct" posture that treats all Muslims as peace-loving, rational and sensible. They're not--just as no such fuzzy generalized attitudes can be applied to all Christians. Both worlds have their share of nuts who need to be isolated.
One would not presume to characterize Malaysia's former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad in such extremist psychiatric terms. But the unapologetically outspoken Muslim voice in Southeast Asia is at it again! He told a Malaysian newspaper he is convinced the "ignorant" American people will re-elect Bush.
According to Dr. M, "surprisingly, the electorate appears to be willing to accept a person who told a blatant lie and to elect a liar as their president," referring to Bush's now famously discredited pre-invasion claim that Saddam Hussein had been stockpiling weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Added the man who was Malaysia's prime minister for 22 years and initially supported Bush's war on terror: The American people are, by and large, very ignorant and know nothing about the rest of the world."
Many Asians worry that our war on terror is misconceived. It may be more fundamentally a long-term struggle for ideas. Consider the eye-opening essay in a recent issue of the London-based Times Literary Supplement. "In the Western view," writes Navid Kermani, the noted German-born, Iranian-ethnic, Cologne-based writer who a few years ago garnered the coveted Ernst Bloch Prize, "the success of Muhammad's prophetic vision may be ascribed to social, ideological or even military factors.
"Yet Muslim sources paint a different picture. They emphasize the literary quality of the Quran as a decisive factor in the spread of Islam."
With fascinating detail, Kermani describes the "normative power of the language of the Quran and the intense grip of its "aesthetic fascination" on the Muslim mind: "Language here operates as a kind of time machine, effectively transporting all present back to a mythical epoch. Even television broadcasts of a speech by, say, Moammar Gadhafi, Yasser Arafat or Saddam Hussein may have this effect."
Tellingly, Kermani describes the literary, sirenlike quality of the Arabic to be found in Osama bin Laden's video broadcasts as "exquisite," "immaculate" and, oddly, "modest." He explains: "His rhetoric works precisely because of the absence of rhetorical ornament and a conscious modesty of expression. His prophetic aura was reinforced by his austere attire and location in a cave in Afghanistan, a clear reference to the cave in which the Prophet received his first revelation."
Limpid rhetoric notwithstanding, bin Laden clearly does deserve classification as a nut. Even Kermani evenhandedly notes the man's obsession with Islam's past and his primordial rejection of Muslim modernization. This allows the self-appointed Muslim terror-leader to insist on one true interpretation of the Quran (his) and thus the legitimacy of a single vision (his).
America's comprehension of the Muslim and Arabic phenomenon is so dim that it is barely illuminated by the light of understanding and scholarship. Our main counterplay is bombs, which breed new terrorists. We in the U.S. need to reflect more and bomb less.
Tom Plate
JAPANTIMES.CO.JP

Vladimir Putin is not averse to voicing his opinions on other countries' elections. He recently endorsed George Bush's re-election bid. And when it comes to Ukraine, there is little doubt where he stands. He favours Ukraine's prime minister, Viktor Yanukovich, a man in the authoritarian mould of the outgoing president, Leonid Kuchma. Protests of interference from supporters of the pro-western candidate, Viktor Yushchenko, have gone unheeded.
Russia's reasons for wanting a biddable, like-minded government in Kiev are numerous. It is a strategic part of what Moscow calls its "near abroad"--countries once part of the Soviet Union. It is of particular importance in defence. The Black Sea fleet is still based at Sevastopol in Crimea, now part of Ukraine.
Mr Putin's revived interest has led to heightened tensions with Georgia. Moscow's tolerance enabled the dictator of Belarus, Alexander Lukashenko, to tighten his grip on power this month. The prevalence of "controlled democracy" in the former Soviet central Asia republics matches Russia, where political pluralism is becoming a thing of the past. Trade and oil are other reasons why Mr Putin's embrace of Ukraine is tightening. Russia would also be dismayed were Ukraine to join Nato--it has associate status under the partnership for peace programme. Much the same goes for the EU.
Full membership of both organisations, and closer ties to the US, are advocated by Mr Yushchenko--but he fears trends may be dragging Ukraine backwards. "There are ominous signs of a neo-Soviet revival here," he wrote recently. Ukrainians "always considered ourselves part of Europe, not just neighbours". But following EU enlargement in May, the danger was a bipolar Europe with opposing centres in Brussels and Moscow.
"The dividing line established during the cold war has not totally vanished--it has only shifted a few hundred kilometres to the east," Mr Yushchenko said. The EU faced the prospect of "an entire bloc of authoritarian, corrupt regimes on its borders".
Mr Yanukovich has a different view. "The question of EU membership must take into consideration Ukraine's economic cooperation with Russia," he said. "Our neighbour is our friend as well as our largest trading partner." Ukraine would further integrate with Europe "when the time is right".
Like Mr Kuchma and Mr Putin, Mr Yanukovich backs media controls and a state-oriented, oligarchic business structure. Stern measures are planned should the opposition contest on the streets next Sunday's result or the expected run-off.
Influenced by Mr Kuchma's contribution of troops to Iraq, the US's criticism is muted. But the US embassy in Kiev said it was launching a $13m (£7m) programme "to support free and fair elections".
According to Richard Holbrooke, the former US ambassador to the UN, tipped as secretary of state should John Kerry win: "Good relations with Mr Putin need not be purchased at the price of democratic regression in Russia or Moscow's intimidation of Ukraine, Georgia and other former Soviet republics."
Simon Tisdall
GUARDIAN.CO.UK

It is widely believed that the power hand over from the third to the fourth generation of Chinese leaders finally was completed when "Phantom Regent" Jiang Zemin stepped down last month as commander-in-chief--chairman of the Chinese Communist Party's (CCP's) Central Military Commission. However, Jiang's recent high-profile public appearances and moves suggest that he is reluctant to bow out from the political stage any time soon, and he appears to ignore calls to bring down the curtain on his leadership.
After his official retirement, the only official title that Jiang still holds is chairman of the State Central Military Commission (CMC), a more or less symbolic position that is often held by the chairman of the party's CMC. The party's military post is far more powerful. Moderate, reformist Hu Jintao, Jiang's successor and the helmsman of the fourth generation of leaders, now concurrently controls the state, the Communist Party and the armed forces.
On more than one official occasion since stepping down, however, Jiang showed up and stole the limelight. The CCP's official Xinhua News Agency reported on October 5 that Jiang joined new commander-in-chief Hu Jintao and other senior officials in sending telegrams to North Korean leaders to commemorate the 55th anniversary of the establishment of Sino-North Korean diplomatic relations. The news agency also reported that on September 17 (as he was stepping down at the party meeting) Jiang co-signed and promulgated a military regulation, with incumbent Premier Wen Jiabao. Then on October 11, Jiang met with the visiting French President Jacques Chirac in Shanghai.
In the first two reports, Jiang's name appeared second in the long list of attending officials. In the Chinese book of rules, the officials' order of appearance is virtually their political ranking. Political commentators point out that the high profile awarded to Jiang is unusual for an elderly, retiring party heavyweight who only holds a symbolic position, given that all his public appearances took place after he stepped down.
According to the usual practice in China, Jiang should have kept a much lower profile, as did his predecessors, including Deng Xiaoping, the chief architect of China's economic reforms, after hanging up their spurs.
Then why did Jiang not follow suit?
ATIMES.COM