Opinion
Analysis
Z’bar
heading for trouble?
Zanzibar is once again in the news. But not for the right reasons. Reports have
reached Mainland of violence, registration irregularities and general
discontent.
The Muafaka accord is soon forgotten, it seems and the ruling party has to do
everything in its power to keep people and sentiments at bay. Over the weekend
CUF supporters in Dar es Salaam demonstrated over Seif Shariff Hamad’s denial to
register.
Will Tanzania ever solve the Zanzibari issue? Between elections, the
relationship, at least on the surface, is relatively stable. But with coming
elections, tensions are stirred and undemocratic tendencies tend to take
command.
Some scenarios can be predicted. If nothing serious and thorough is done, the
relationship between Zanzibar and Mainland might turn out to be like the one
between Northern Ireland and England. A low intense day-to-day violence coupled
with bigger incidences, where the innocent are hurt and the majority will
suffer.
For the pessimist, this scenario seems most likely. The two sides rarely come
together to talk about the tensions. The present government also has the
tendency to ignore what is happening and pretend as if everything is calm.
‘Ensuring’ that CCM controls the Isles is part of the strategy.
The opposition and those supporting an independent Zanzibar find it difficult to
distance themselves from those who see violence and disruption as the way
forward, hampering any serious attempt for discussion and dialogue.
What are the signs that the coming election will be peaceful, free and fair?
Well, both sides have gained experience from past struggles and differences and
hopefully have realized that if the rule of law is not followed both sides will
lose out.
The world is watching and Tanzania has too much to lose if irregularities take
overhand and things get out of control. If our leaders are trustworthy (which we
have to assume that they are) they must have the courage to accept defeat, no
matter what.
There are also signs that people in general are tired of the present state of
affairs. They have also been allowed to air their discontent on a wider scale
than in the past, which should indicate that we are heading for a more open and
free election campaign.
All in all, it is difficult to predict what will happen. Too much remains
uncertain.
That we must allow international observers to watch over the elections seems
evident, and should not be anything that CCM and CUF would oppose. If they both
claim that they are playing by the rules, what is there then to hide?
Watch out for
expired drugs
Despite the government’s efforts to ban the sell of expired and substandard
drugs, the business is flourishing in the streets of Dar es Salaam. Many
pharmacies continue to illegally sell unfit drugs.
It is clear that using substandard drugs is bad for one’s health. It is
extremely dangerous for patients to be sold these drugs as they might harm
rather than help patients, leading to unnecessary complications.
What is most disturbing is that people are made victims unknowingly, being
issued with unfit medicines, which in turn ruin their health.
A survey conducted by The Express in Dar es Salaam, reveals that there are a lot
of prohibited drugs on sale. These drugs include those frequently used for
treatment of malaria such as Metakelfin, Fansider and Halfan.
Others include expired drugs used for treating severe diarrhoea and for
de-hydration. If the customer does not thoroughly examine packaging then she
possibly can fall in the trap of buying old drugs. This is not the way it should
be.
As far as we know these are very dangerous medications. According to medical
practitioners, they need strict prescription.
The businessmen want to maximise their profits, and they are doing it at any
cost. The government should intervene, making sure this illegal business comes
to an end.
The National Pharmaceutical Board is the mandatory body with the prerogative to
monitor and control the sales and uses of drugs. The responsible ministry in
collaboration with the police should launch and start a campaign and bring all
perpetrators to justice.
Bush’s mediation not
satisfactory
By Evarist Kagaruki
The Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, was in Washington recently on a
mission analysts say was basically intended to brief President George W. Bush on
the progress of Israel’s plans to withdraw (unilaterally) from the Gaza Strip
later this year. The US has formerly approved the move which it hailed as
“courageous”.
However, the US president has urged the Israeli government to halt construction
of new Jewish settlements in the West Bank in keeping with the demands of the
“Road Map” – the new Middle East peace plan sponsored by the quartet of the US,
UN, EU and Russia. Whether Prime Minister Sharon’s response was committal or not
remains unclear. But past experience has shown that Israel has never taken
seriously any advice from Washington to stop building settlements or to vacate
the Palestinian territories altogether.
This is precisely because the American policy has always been to appease Israel
and avoid offending its most important ally in the Middle East. In that sense,
since the Israeli-Palestinian conflict started, the US has consistently
maintained a position of either vetoing any UN Security Council resolution that
condemned or simply censured Israel, or abstaining during the vote. On the issue
of settlements, for example, the US, in the past, twice vetoed a resolution
demanding Israel halt work on the settlements.
This, coupled with the terrible failure of the international community to live
up to its responsibilities on the Palestinian issue, is what turned Israel into
an arrogant and defiant state in the face of the numerous UN resolutions calling
on it to end the occupation of Palestine. And since September 11, Israel’s
defiance and arrogance have been consolidated by Bush’s war on terrorism which
Sharon has capitalised on to terrorize the Palestinian people and keep them
under siege.
When Yasser Arafat died, and Sharon started publicising his Gaza pull out plan,
amid successful Palestinian elections, optimists thought that would mark the
beginning of a “new era” in the Israeli-Palestinian relations. Expectations were
that Israel would reverse its obnoxious policies against the Palestinians and
that the Palestinian attitude towards Israel would, in return, change and that
President Bush would now welcome Sharon and the new Palestinian President
Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) together to the White House for informal talks as a
confidence-building measure towards revival of the peace process.
But, not surprisingly, this has not been the case. The Israeli military
continues to kill innocent, defenceless Palestinians without provocation. On the
other hand, President Bush has invited only the Israeli leader, ignoring Abbas
as he did to Arafat!
Following the Sham-el-Sheikh summit last February, between Abbas and Sharon,
there was a hint that the US president might invite the two leaders together to
Washington to familiarise. This news was welcome because, even though it is a
fact that the US can not make a credible, impartial peace-broker (due to its
pro-Israel bias), the engagement of President Bush with the top Palestinian
leadership at this juncture would have helped to build confidence and instil a
sense of trust among the Palestinians in the Bush administration.
This is the first thing Bush should have been advised to do immediately after
Abbas’s election. Palestinians see the US president as the man who has in the
last four years colluded with Sharon to bring more misery to them. So, by
extending an early invitation to the Palestinian president, Bush would be
assuming an important posture that could generate some warmth between him and
the Palestinian people, thus mitigating their distrust in him.
Continuing with the same practice of inviting only the Israeli premier to the
White House and keeping the Palestinian leader at bay, helps only to further
alienate the Palestinians and make them all the more suspicious of the
Americans. It also renders credence to the perception that President Bush can
not handle the mediation talks between Israel and the Palestinians like former
US president Bill Clinton did.
What, in my view, encouraged former US president Bill Clinton more than anything
else in his mediation efforts in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, was the fact
that, because of his personal deep engagement with Arafat, the Palestinians had
cultivated some trust and confidence and special relationship with him. They
sincerely believed he was serious and honest in his endeavours to bring peace in
the Middle East. This kind of trust seems to be seriously lacking in President
Bush.
back
to headline