Elizabeth II becomes Britain’s longest-reigning monarch LONDON—Westminster Abbey’s bells which is why she has been keen to con-
The calculation of her time on the throne is based on when he passed away, which is estimated at around 1:00 am on February 6, 1952 — an hour after he was seen for the last time at his bedroom win-
age.
“She has been on the throne so long, will peal, a flotilla will sail down the River vey business as usual and no fuss,” the it’s difficult to conceive of the country Thames and a gun salute will ring out on source explained. without her,” said Judith Rowbotham, The official photograph, taken by Wednesday as Queen Elizabeth II bevisiting research fellow at Plymouth Unicomes the longest-serving monarch in Mary McCartney, son of Beatles star Paul, British history. The queen herself is set to inaugurate a railway line in Scotland and host a private dinner at Balmoral Castle to mark the day she overtakes her great-great grandmother queen Victoria’s record. It is not known where exactly she will be at 1630 GMT, the best estimate from royal officials for the time at which the monarch, who has become synonymous with Britain itself, reaches the landmark. At that moment, the 89-yearold monarch will have served 23,226 days, 16 hours and roughly 30 minutes on the throne — over 63 years. Prime Minister David Cameron is expected to lead tributes in parliament to a figure best known internationally for her stoicism in the face of a slew of royal scandals, as well as for her colourful outfits. “Her Majesty has been a rock of stability in a world of constant change,” Cameron said in a statement. “It is only right that today we should celebrate her extraordinary record, as well as the grace and dignity with which she serves Queen Elizabeth II, pictured with Prince Philip, on Wednesday becomes the longest serving monarch in British history. our country.” The queen may deliver a speech for the occasion, according to shows the queen sat at her desk working dow at Sandringham House in eastern versity. She has also steered the monarchy through some of its rockiest recent England. media reports, although a royal source has through a red box of state papers. Elizabeth became queen upon the The queen presided over a gradual patches, including the collapse of three said she wants to keep the occasion lowkey because of the memories it evokes. death of her father George VI, Britain’s decline in Britain’s global influence as of her children’s marriages and public “While she acknowledges it as an his- king during World War II, whose youth- many of its former colonies became in- anger at her reaction to the death of printoric moment, it’s also for her not a mo- ful stutter inspired the Oscar-winning film dependent, as well as a sharp rise in liv- cess Diana in 1997, which some saw as ing standards and the advent of the digital cold.—AFP ment she would personally celebrate, “The King’s Speech”.
China to deepen anti-graft cooperation with France
Defence shortfalls that hit Indian army’s morale
P ARIS —Senior Communist
HORTFALLS in armed forces impede operational capaci ties of the army and batters its morale, says a new study. In a report presented to parliament in mid August, the Standing Committee on Defence hauled up the defence ministry for shortfalls in the armed forces. It rapped them for deficiencies in both operational capabilities as well as the basics that enable a soldier to function and perform his primary duties. The shortfalls in operational capabilities have existed for some time, and earlier governments must share the blame. This was mainly due to their dilly-dallying on procurement and the desperate desire of the then defence minister to project a clean image. However, what is alarming is the increasing shortfall in essential equipment needed for day to day functioning. The Standing Committee on Defence headed by retired Major General B.C Khanduri, a former minister in the Indian government, in its report tabled in parliament and available online expressed grave reservations on the shortfalls and subsequent actions taken by the ministry. Some of the major deficiencies of items needed for dayto-day functioning include bullet proof jackets and head gear, night vision devices, weapon sights, high altitude equipment, ankle boots, mosquito nets etc. The deficiencies are staggering – from 100,000 to up to 1.3 million pieces. The fact that the ministry has let the figures rise so high is in itself questionable. There are meant to be sufficient reserves of all equipment to cater for war and war-like situations, as well as for normal wastages. Therefore as stores move forward to the troops, additional procurements make up the deficiency. In the existing system scientific forecasting based on estimated expenditures is done well in advance and all are aware of the rising shortfalls. The ministry through its various factories and boards handles procurements. Underlining the crisis are latest directives from the government which has curtailed local purchasing powers of the military, especially in procurement of clothing, equipment, medical stores, repair and maintenance of buildings and assets. These purchasing powers had always existed to enable urgent procurements whenever there was a delay in central supply. The latest directions are that all procurements need to be processed through the representatives of the ministry of defence (finance branch), called the Integrated Financial Advisors (IFA) at each level. Interestingly, the IFA has the responsibility of checking, vetting and clearing all procurement plans and contracts without even a basic knowledge of matters military and an understanding of the reasons for such procurement. While the ministry may be convinced that this could be a better way to establish bureaucratic and financial control over the military, it would only add to operational shortfalls and increase deficiencies. By creating an additional link in the chain for procurement of stores and equipment, the government has added a time penalty of almost six months on procurement at the local level. With central supplies not flowing and local supplies being delayed, the soldier in the field does not get what he needs for his daily requirement. This then begins to affect morale and operational capability. Operational capability has two connotations. The first is at the national level, which means procurement of equipment to ensure operational readiness. The second is at the local level, where local commanders know what shortfalls exist in basic stores and obtain these from the market using the allocated funds. This is also essential in maintaining morale of the troops as what does not come from central sources but affects troops the most is procured locally. With the latest directions from the ministry, the impact at the grassroots level would be much more. Supply of clothing, which each soldier should get at regular intervals, has fallen to a trickle or stopped. The army is forced to restrict the issue and use of essential life-saving equipment like bullet-proof jackets and head gear to the barest minimum in peace locations. Spare parts for vehicles normally procured on an as-required basis are delayed, leading to a reduced fleet availability. Similar effect is also being felt on the maintenance and repair of the habitat for troops and their families. The new procedures have delayed local procurement immensely. The army lives and fights on morale, therefore this has to always be high. Those who proposed and pushed for this new directive must wake up and face facts. Before commencing any new system and implementing it, it is essential to study and understand ground realities, the ability of an organisation to absorb changes and its implications. Ideally the system should have come into place once the shortfalls were made up, hence reducing the dependency on local purchases. In this modern technological age a change should usher in efficiency and not delay or stonewall an existing system. It is, in simple terms, a case of ‘penny wise pound foolish’. The comments given by the Standing Committee on Defence are very relevant. The latest directions have only compounded the shortfalls and delays in procurement.
Party of China (CPC) official Zhao Hongzhu has said that China is willing to deepen practical cooperation in fighting corruption with France, with focus on the fugitive hunt. Zhao, deputy head of the CPC Central Commission for Discipline Inspection (CCDI), made the remarks during a fiveday visit in France set to be concluded Wednesday. Zhao has held individual meetings with First Secretary of the French Socialist Party Jean-Christophe Cambadlelis, French Minister of Justice Christiane Taubira, and President of the High Authority for Transparency in Public Life Jean-Louis Nadal. He briefed French officials about the situation of China’s anti-corruption fight, vowing the CPC and China’s “zero-tolerance” for corruption. Zhao, who is also a member of the Secretariat of the CPC Central Committee, said China is ready to further cooperation on hunting fugitives and recovering of illegal proceedings under the extradition treaty between the two countries. During the meetings, the French side praised China’s anti-corruption efforts and expressed willingness to cooperate with China in the regard. The visit also saw that Zhao visited the headquarters of Interpol and exchanged views with Jurgen Stock, Secretary-General of Interpol on international anti-corruption cooperation and fugitive hunt. —Xinhua
Amal Clooney meets Maldives’ World community jailed ex-leader before hearing speaks positively of MAAFUSHI, MALDIVES—International human rights lawyer Amal Clooney Wednesday met the jailed former president of the
Nasheed, the Maldives’ first democratically elected leader, was ousted in 2012 for ordering the arrest of a judge. He is a
Abdullah Yameen’s government failed to follow due process and that the case against Nasheed was politically motivated.
Clooney, lawyer of former Maldives president Nasheed, waits at Maafushi Prison to meet Nasheed, in Kaafu Atoll, in the Maldives. Clooney, who is married to Maldives, Mohamed Nasheed, serving a 13-year jail term after actor George Clooney, traveled who was convicted of terrorism a rapid trial in March. The United Nations, the to a prison on Maafushi Island in a case that has drawn international criticism, a day before United States, and human rights where Nasheed was taken on groups have said President Aug. 23 from house arrest. She a key High Court hearing.
was checked by two prison officials before the 90-minute discussion with Nasheed. “Well, President Nasheed is in a remarkably good spirits,” Clooney said soon after the meeting. “He wanted me to convey to the people of the Maldives that they should remain hopeful that things will improve and that he is pleased that I will be attending meetings with him on behalf of the government.” The meeting came a day before a High Court hearing on an appeal by the Prosecutor General’s office, which had found some procedural irregularities, to review Nasheed’s legal case. Prosecutor General Muhthaz Muhusin told Reuters that a High Court decision to review the case would help Nasheed to appeal against his sentence. U.N. rights chief Zeid Ra’ad Al-Hussein last week called on Yameen’s government to release Nasheed. He also called for a review of criminal cases against several hundred of Nasheed’s party supporters who have been arrested in protests since May in the Maldives.— Reuters
Xi’s V-Day speech
BEIJING—The international community has lauded Chinese President Xi Jinping’s speech at the commemoration of the 70th anniversary of the end of WWII. “In the interest of peace, we need to foster a keen sense of a global community of shared future,” said the Chinese president in the speech. The remark has received positive responses from overseas media and experts on international relations, who believed China had developed a new conception of foreign diplomacy as embodied by Xi’s speech. The conception of “global community of shared future” mentioned by Xi has hit the essence of all aspirations for safeguarding world peace, said Abayas Abylayuly, a researcher on international relations at the Kazakh Humanities and Law University. Faced with nontraditional security challenges and terrorist threats, temporary peace for a single country is not reliable, said Abylayuly.
Only a common security shared by the whole world could ensure a long-lasting peace, said the expert. China’s pursuit for a “global community of shared future” serves as an example for major powers and it will also bring benefits to smaller nations, said Sykhoun Bounvilay, General Secretary of Lao-China Friendship Association. China’s “Belt and Road” initiative has been part of its efforts to build such a shared future, said Bounvilay. Xi’s speech shows China’s determination to continue on the road of peaceful development, which is positive to all peace-loving peoples across the world, said Eng King Sia, assistant editor-in-chief of Oriental Daily News based in Malaysia. The conception of “global community of shared future,” which transcends race, border and ideology, manifests China’s pursuit for world peace to the benefit of all humanity, said an editorial of Chinese Biz News, a Chinese-language newspaper in the United States.—Xinhua
How to solve Europe’s refugee crisis MICHAEL BIRNBAUM
A
MID the largest refugee crisis in Eu rope since the Balkan Wars of the 1990s, a tide of thousands of asylumseekers is reaching the continent’s shores faster than they can be accommodated. So far, the European Union’s 28 nations have been unable to agree on a solution. Ahead of a European Commission proposal Wednesday for a system to spread asylum-seekers across all E.U. countries, here are a few of the options Europe is considering: 1) Doing nothing. Europe tried to make a plan to share out refugees earlier in the summer. At the time, they were talking about only 40,000 people. But that failed after many countries, especially in eastern and central Europe, bridled at being required to take in a set number of refugees. Now the proposal is expected to be triple that – amid deep doubts about nations’ ability to come to an agreement. Few, but that doesn’t mean it won’t happen. Each European leader answers to his or her own electorate, which sometimes makes broad E.U. deals very difficult. The status quo is good for countries that don’t like refugees and under current E.U. rules can deport asylum-seekers back to the first E.U. country they entered. That’s almost always Greece, Italy or Hungary, which are buckling under the influx. “If Europe fails on the question of refugees, then it won’t be the Europe we wished for,” said German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who has thrown open her nation’s doors to asylum-seekers. She warned that without a Europe-wide plan, individual nations might need to reimpose border controls, a major blow to European unity. And with some nations far more generous to refugees than others, human smugglers will prosper, ferrying asylum-seekers to
Germany and Sweden, with potentially tragic consequences. 2) Quotas. This is what European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker will propose Wednesday. He’ll suggest relocating 120,000 asylum-seekers from the front-line nations of Greece, Italy and Hungary and spreading them across Europe, according to European accounts of the draft plans. Together, Germany, France and Spain would take more than half of them, according to a rough draft published by Spain’s El Pais newspaper. The remainder would be spread across the rest of Europe. It would help reduce the burden on those three European nations that are on the edges of the European Union and have buckled under the weight of the more than 400,000 asylum-seekers who have arrived so far this year. And though the proposal would fall far short of the numbers needed to address the full scale of the problem, it would still set up a system that could later be expanded. Nations that have resisted hosting refugees, such as Slovakia, may be able to send money instead as a compromise measure. “Considering the current politics, it is the most pragmatic idea on the table right now,” said Elizabeth Collett, the director of the Brussels-based Migration Policy Institute Europe. It’s a drop in the bucket. Germany plans to take in 800,000 asylum-seekers this year, and says it’s ready for 500,000 a year for the next several years. Facing those numbers, the E.U. plan simply doesn’t do enough. And there are many thorny questions to work out: What happens when an asylum-seeker who has family in France gets assigned to Lithuania instead? In a Europe without borders, how would policymakers ensure the refugees stay put? And what happens to asylum-seekers who arrive beyond the quotas? Do they pile up in refugee camps on Europe’s edges, or do they simply
keep pushing through to Western Europe? And many nations, especially in Eastern and Central Europe, are opposed to quotas. “I do not consider them any real solution to the migration crisis,” Czech Prime Minister Bohuslav Sobotka said Monday, according to the Czech News Agency. 3) Military action against the smugglers who bring help refugees get to Europe. Britain and others have been pushing for U.N. Security Council authorization to deploy navies to board and intercept the flimsy boats that set sail across the Mediterranean from Libya and Egypt to Europe’s shores. The boats, operated by human smugglers, are dangerous, frequently sinking during the passage. More than 2,700 migrants have died this year. The plan would discourage the smugglers, who often have ties to organized crime and profit tremendously from the some of the world’s most vulnerable populations. Fewer boats crossing the Mediterranean would reduce the immediate crisis for Europe and might discourage some of the economic migrants coming illegally from Africa and South Asia. And a stepped-up naval presence in the Mediterranean might make search-and-rescue operations more successful when smugglers’ ships capsize. Stopping smugglers doesn’t address the root causes of the refugee crisis. It just displaces the burden to other countries. And in some ways, these plans are a solution to yesterday’s problem. Over the course of this year, the bulk of migrant traffic to Europe has shifted westward to the Balkans: asylum-seekers make a short sea hop from Turkey to nearby Greek islands, then travel to Western Europe overland through Macedonia, Serbia and Hungary. The naval plans wouldn’t do anything about that at all. 4) Resettling refugees directly from camps surrounding Syria, and from Syria. Remember
“Schindler’s List?” Or the U.S. efforts to resettle refugees from Vietnam in the 1970s? This would be the 21st-century equivalent, more or less: E.U. diplomats handing out visas on the ground in the countries where more than 4 million Syrian refugees have settled. This is arguably the most humane option, since it would make an end-run around smugglers. Refugees could simply get on a plane from Turkey, Lebanon or Jordan and fly straight to Europe, saving the danger of a smuggled, overland trip that sometimes costs up to $10,000. It’s what British Prime Minister David Cameron suggested Monday when he said Britain would take in 20,000 Syrian refugees directly from the Middle Eastern camps over the next five years. “We want to encourage people not to make that dangerous crossing in the first place,” Cameron said. Realistically, there’s little political support in Europe to do this on a scale that would actually relieve pressure on the camps. Cameron’s commitment over the next five years is equivalent to what Germany took in this weekend alone. And it’s not clear that handing out visas in the region would stop the separate overland flow to Europe. That’s because the most vulnerable refugees typically jump to the front of the line for resettlement schemes such as the British one. The asylum-seekers currently coming to Europe by land are the ones with the resources to pay a sometimes hefty price to smugglers. “When you are facing a humanitarian disaster, when you are facing the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, when you say, ‘I think we can resettle 25 people,’ people would just laugh in your face,” said Elspeth Guild, a migration specialist at the Brussels-based Center for European Policy Studies. —Courtesy: Washington Post
HARSHA KAKAR
S
—Courtesy: ANN [The writer is a retired Major-General of the Indian Army]
Japanese leaders should open their eyes to history ZHOU YONGSHENG
A
LTHOUGH it refused to send a representative to Beijing to attend the events to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the victory of Chinese People’s War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression (1937-45), Japan has been issuing some weird statements. On September 3, the day China held the commemorative events, Japan’s top government spokesman Yoshihide Suga said: “China should not excessively focus on its unfortunate past history, but show its intention to tackle common issues facing the international community with a view to the future”. Likewise, he urged UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to “take a neutral position on events that focus mostly on the past” before the world leader landed in Beijing. Republic of Korea President Park Geun-hye, too, was targeted by Japan’s rightwing newspaper Sankei Shimbun for joining Ban in China. To a certain extent, it is strangely “impressive” of Tokyo to pass such groundless comments. Founded in 1945, during the later stage of World War II, to establish peace and the postwar world order, the UN is an “impartial, multilateral” body rather than a “neutral” one, as Ban made it clear on Sept 4. Besides, the UN Charter says regional powers can take effective measures to contain a former defeated nation should it seek remilitarisation. Japan’s wild accusations against Ban and misinterpretation of the UN’s impartiality are not only baseless but also naïve. The deliberate misreading has a lot to do with the fact that Japan is yet to break free of its militaristic past. Some Japanese right-wingers still believe that the war Japan waged before and during WWII was not aggression, but a necessary response to the intrusive policies and acts of the United States, the United Kingdom, China and the Netherlands. In their eyes, the “righteous” war was about liberating Asian people from Western colonialism, not about colonising them instead. That explains why some right-leaning Japanese leaders such as Prime Minister Shinzo Abe tend to criticise countries that seek to unveil Japan’s militaristic past and colonial aggression, or even commemorate the victory in WWII. Their refusal to face up to Japan’s sordid past makes them defenders of militarism. No wonder, they cannot understand the irony in their arguments when they claim to be leaders of a country that respects liberty, democracy and the rule of law. This self-deceit of the Abe administration will pose a grave challenge to the next Japanese governments, for they will find it more difficult to make a clean break with Japan’s militaristic past and remove its infamous tag as a brutal colonial power. Japan’s modern image might be seriously tarnished if the government fails to settle the historical issue, especially when a solution is within easy reach. —Courtesy: CD [The author is a professor of Japan studies at China Foreign Affairs University]