Can governments protect the public from terror atacks?

Terrorists are too smart to be destroyed easily. They’re like a cancer that finds a way to grow when it’s attacked in its first location. Like a cancer, it should be treated in its infancy. But now it has become lethal threatening to develop unnoticed because it has its evasive ways.

The fight against terrorism shouldn’t be at the expense of privacy and individual freedom. Politicians should be accountable for terror attacks if their security measures are lax and terrorist attacks are carried out when it should have been prevented in advance.

Governments can fight terrorism radically if it has sophisticated security means and the whole population is mobilized to refute its strategies and ideologies, and to inform about any suspect terrorist individual or network. If terrorists can’t be put out of existence, at least they won’t have the chance to create havoc now and then on regular basis and at places of their choice, leaving the security corps look impotent and fooled.

Morocco wasn’t immune from terrorist attacks as it was disastrously its victim on May 16th, 2003, leaving 42 dead. However, precautions were taken to surround Isalimsts suspected of sympathizing with terrorism or planning it.

However, Morocco, despite its ongoing dismantlement of many terrorist cells remains a safe country for its citizens and visitors. Millions of tourists visit it each year mainly from Europe. There are thousands of Europeans who have come to live in it, especially in the old city of Marrakesh where they easily and comfortably mix with the locals.

What matters to deal with terrorism is continuous vigilance, sensitizing the citizens about its dangers and securing for them a stable life not to see destabilising the country through terrorism or otherwise as a means to voice their protest and to take action.

African aid, a waste of money

Over the last 50 years Western governments have paid out more than £400bn of tax payers' money in aid to Africa, but according to figures released by the World Bank this year, half of sub-Saharan Africans still live in extreme poverty, a figure which has not changed since 1981.

Africans need to know how to help themselves before getting any foreign aid. For the many Africans in charge of distributing aids and managing them, it’s an opportunity to get richer at the expense at the expense of the poor who remain poorer.

When corruption is a shocking fact in sectors like education and health, the African population has little chances of getting out of its current poverty.

When African leaders have good managerial policies and the continents isn’t regularly drained of its brains that seek a better life; particularly, in the West, then aid will yield results. Now with corruption and efficiency sending aid to this continent is like sowing the best of fertile seeds in a barren land. Africans need to fertilize their methods and not to depend too much on foreign aid, out of which they currently just make a mess.

They have just to take the examples of countries like China and India who succeeded in revolutionizing their economies. Although, they aren’t benefiting the majority, at least such countries aren’t like Africa using a begging bucket with a brazen face as if nothing wrong had been done with previous aids and failure was an act of fate.

What, if the USA loses its world dominance?

US economic, military and political dominance is likely to decline over the next two decades, according to a new US intelligence report on global trends.

The US domination has always been a source of resentment. Its end may be a cause of celebration for those who have predicted its downfall, but it can also be a source of worry for those who will have to cope with the new emerging powers like China and India. Many will find it difficult to adjust to their domination.
The rest of the West will try to keep the USA in a leading role as they all share the same political and cultural values.

China, once becoming a world power, will just export its repressive measures to the rest of the world. It can be a superpower in, say, 20 years. But it’s unlikely that it will become a democratic country with a federal system. In other words, it’s very improbable that it will change its name from the Popular Republic of China to The United States of China.

The USA, with its vast resources, still has the means to keep its leading role. But it has to keep its efforts to do so on many fronts. In the past it used to be just the Soviet Union. Now it’s the EU, Russia, India and China -currently the most prominent blocks it has to contend with.

However, it doesn’t matter if the US domination is on the wane. What matters is the domination of democratic values and the prosperity around the world.

The US needs the world as the world needs it. But the world can survive with or without its domination. It’s up to the Americans to adjust themselves to the fact that they can’t be a superpower forever, in the same way that Britain adjusted itself after the WWII that it was no longer the biggest empire on earth and it had shrunk to a middle power with few territories to govern outside Great Britain.

It will be interesting to see how the US will look with its predicted geographic distribution; that is, it won’t have any racial majority, and with reduced global domination.

Is it right to carry out death penalty?

The death penalty should apply just when the crime is murder on intent and not in self-defence. The death penalty is hard and unacceptable when the crime is, for example, drug trafficking or theft. Countries like China and Iran apply the death penalty in cases when the offenders need just imprisonment and rehabilitation.

Iran, Saudi Arabia and Yemen are some of the countries whose laws allow the execution of even minors. There was the case of a girl who was executed for “lack of chastity”. Now there is a call for the end of child execution .

What is unacceptable is the swift execution of the accused when it emerges that the evidences were wrong and the supposed culprit was just a victim of the miscarriage of justice.

Those who can benefit from capital punishment are:

a) those who don’t want to spend their whole life in prison. So they prefer death as it was the case in Italy where hundreds of prisoners serving life sentences in Italy called on President Giorgio Napolitano to bring back the death penalty.

b) The relatives and friends of the victims who seek revenge and tough justice.

c) the state economy as it will be spared the expenses to keep the offenders alive till their natural death.

It’s up to society to decide the ethics of whether or not to execute offenders while considering the merits of execution case by case.

Children faced with parental and social irresponsibility

Children have the right to live in a sound environment as childhood affects adult life. Parent who can’t rear and protect their children should have them removed from them. A child needn’t live under constant torture in his or tender years. Sadist parents shouldn’t be allowed to mistreat their children by considering them as their own property and it’s nobody’s business to interfere with them.

A child’s place is in a family, not in an orphanage or a care centre. This means children shouldn’t be taken from their own parents only to be in a place where they feel uncomfortable and yearning to be like the majority of children surrounded by real kin. In other words, they shouldn’t be not in an artificial atmosphere to make the feel at home, but actually, it isn’t a real home.

In many societies, children are abused by their parents by being frequently slapped or even beaten up by them. In these societies, there are no social workers to protect them.

In third world countries where the poverty of parents is coupled with the state incapacity to protect children in a difficult situation, it becomes common to see children exposed to all sorts of abuse at home and outside home because there are no means to snatch them from the situation in which they are.

In Morocco, there are care centres for abandoned children. However, they are just token centres as they have the capacity for only a very small number of children in a difficult situation.

In view of the lack of the means to protect these children, the authorities turn a blind eye, especially to parents who use their children and even babies for begging.

There are parents who give up their young daughters as old as five to work as maids and they are denied even access to school.

If children can’t have the chance to have a normal life, they should live with a relative willing to accommodate them and why not be given for adoption by families starving to have a child. Leaving children at the mercy of family and social problems means preparing them to be violent or diffident people. Their past childhood will continue to haunt them even when adults they seem normal and stable.

Talk to Taliban spokesman

The BBC WHYS had an exclusive interview with the Taliban spokesman

Get this widget | Track details | eSnips Social DNA

Here are the questions I sent to BBC WHYS, of which he answered the first about drugs:

1) Drugs are one of the sources of income in Taliban controlled areas in Afghanistan. Why do the Taliban turn a blind eye to its cultivation although Islam prohibits its production and trade?

Is drug also used as a weapon to fight the West as its use is aimed to weaken its population?

2) How strong are the links between Taliban and Iran? How influential is the Taliban in Pakistan politics?

3) Are you ready for a compromise with the West and the Afghan government for a durable peace in Afghanistan and the whole region from Iran to Pakistan?

4) What assurances can the Taliban give the West that they won’t support terrorism and surrender internationally wanted Al Qaeda terrorists who are enjoying its protection?

5) Can you guarantee the safety of all Afghans in case international troops leave Afghanistan?

6) Who are the main suppliers of the weapons with which you fight inside and outside Afghanistan?

7) The US forces have so far failed to put an end to your movement. What do you attribute this to? Is it
a) your fighting skills,
b) the geography of the region where you operate,
c) the number and quality of your followers,
d) your faith which gives you more determination to fight,

8) Iran envoy was abducted in Pakistan. Areas close to Peshawar - the biggest city in north-west Pakistan - are known to be Taliban and al-Qaeda strongholds. How much is the Taliban involved in the killing and kidnapping of foreigners, especially diplomats and aid workers in Pakistan and Afghanistan?

He answered my question about drugs, denying the Taliban had anything to do with it. This what he had to say:

Get this widget | Track details | eSnips Social DNA

I don’t think that the Taliban have no responsibility over he cultivation of drugs. During their rule, Afghanistan was he greatest exporter of drugs. Currently they have little financial sources other than trading in drugs. They can prohibit people in the areas they control from its consumption. But they allow its trade to foreign countries via Pakistan and Iran.

Their only argument can be that drug is cultivated even in government controlled areas, as the reports have shown its cultivation has increased even with the presence of international forces. But this doesn’t absolve them of having a big role in its cultivation. They have their own responsibility. In their war against foreign presence, they can legitimize anything that can be a source of money to get weapons across the borders with Pakistan and Iran.

Should the BBC have invited him?

Inviting a Taliban onto WHYS isn’t a propaganda for this movement. It’s better to give them time on air and to ask them challenging questions rather than keep the audience in the dark about what they stand for.

Refusing to have them on air can be viewed as an anti-Taliban position by the BBC. The BBC had many interviews with the IRA. That didn’t sway public opinion in its favour despite its high rhetoric. What put an end to its armed conflict was the political settlement it had with the British government through international mediation, especially from former US president Bill Clinton.

What matters in inviting any spokesperson for any group, criminal, political or terrorist, is to maintain a balance and to expose different views, leaving the audience take their decisions.

After all, the Taliban have their means to speak loud an clear through websites, followers and “spectacular” operations. Banning them from the BBC altogether will reinforce their view that the West is altogether against them and it is a reason for them to continue fighting through arms and propaganda.

Many thanks to Mr Frank Gardner for his interesting and invaluable contribution to the show. He has been more placed to speak to and about the Taliban since he himself was the victim of Al Qaeda barbaric attack.

I salute him for his courage to continue his coverage of Al Qaeda although he himself was its victim in Saudi Arabia. The fact that he continues his work as a journalist in the Middle East although he continues to bear Al Qaeda scars that have crippled him permanently shows that Al Qaeda can’t destroy the spirits of those they seek to destroy.

At least the show has shown that Taliban is the other side of the Al Qaeda coin although its spokesman tried unconvincingly to disassociate his movement from its terror attacks or rather to deny that it has anything to do with terrorism.

The universal right to have a job

It is everyone’s right to have a job as this means relative personal independence and not living on handouts.

To go to a bank to draw one’s wages isn’t the same as queuing in front of a social assistance centres like a beggar to get financial help.
What is dreadful about unemployment is when it becomes massive, making the unemployed feel worthless and insecure. 5% unemployment isn’t the same as 50%.

In developed countries, people don’t starve if they don’t have a job. They can get free food at least from charity organisations. In poor countries, people essentially work to have what to eat.

Having a job is a fundamental right, especially those who have no other means to survive. Only lazy people accept to be jobless as long as they have secure means. For many people retirement isn’t appreciated even if they can have a good pension, as it means for them the start of empty days with nothing to do.

Here is a reactionary view: Only men have the right to work .Women should find husbands to provide for them and leave the labour market to men! This is at least what some think. They put the blame on sex equality which has made men vulnerable to unemployment when there is a financial crisis.

However, the right to work applies to everyone, especially the physically disabled and the relatively old. This category still suffers from discrimination, not to mention racial attitudes in countries like France where French citizens of immigrant parents find it hard to get a job despite their qualifications.

When there is a recession, employers have the ground to manoeuvre for the employment of who they want regardless of labour regulations, which can extend to exploitations by imposing working extra hours and offering a lower pay. What matters in this case isn’t just having a job but working in dignity and not being enslaved to unscrupulous employers.