Opinion
Analysis
City Water
contract termination a positive move
The government through the Ministry of Water and Livestock Development last week
resolved to terminate the contract of a joint venture firm, City Water. It was a
big setback for the firm which did not even finish two of its 10 years lease
agreement to run the water services in Dar es Salaam.
The government’s move undoubtedly came at the right time in this era of
transparency where under no circumstances poor performance can be tolerated.
The company’s failure to stabilise the water situation in the city was probably
the most critical thing that the government was unhappy about.
When the firm signed the contract in 2003, most residents of the city breathed a
sigh of relief knowing that the water problem dilemma would be brought to a
permanent halt with.
With hindsight, with City Water in charge of the water situation in most parts
of Dar es Salaam has worsened.
City dwellers were not surprised hearing about the termination of the contract.
It was quite evident that the firm has had a poor performance ever since it took
over operations of state-owned Dar es Salaam Water and Sewerage Authority
(DAWASA) in August 2003.
City Water admitted that the scope of the work was enormous with badly damaged
infrastructure, but very few initiatives were taken to combat the situation. It
was quite evident that the resignation of Mike O Larry, who had been the firm’s
Chief Executive Officer (CEO), late last year signalled the company’s moribund
future.
It must also be borne in mind that some of the shareholders of City Water
(Bi-Water) did not have good international reputation as it often had broken
concessions. The government should have taken this into account to avoid any
possible loss.
Action Aid, an international organization, released a report in the firm last
year and was very critical of what it found.
It was reported last week that the firm stands by its decision to sue the
government for its decision, but arguably any actions to be taken by the firm
can not have been justified for it has had enough time to do its best in terms
of implementing the conditions of the contract.
Short-term
solutions lack visions
Lately there have been some instances which show that short-term solutions do
more harm than good. Solving something temporarily might be a good thing for the
moment and ease the immediate problem, but if there are to be long-lasting
solutions and problems be prevented in the future, there has to be a different
approach to problem solving.
The issue of the government’s termination of its contract with City Water, the
inaction regarding people settling in flood prone areas are some examples.
It is obviously difficult to plan for changes that might take years to implement
when the budget is under constraints and the economy is very uncertain. Yet, if
changes are going to have any impact, initiatives have to be taken that are
visionary.
There has to be a mutual understanding between decision makers and the public
that we cannot expect that changes will happen overnight or that even though for
the time being things are working, they will with most certainty not do so in
the near future.
Whatever one might think about City Water and its approach to solving the
problems with water distribution in Dar es Salaam, the firm was given two years
to solve problems of underinvestment and lack of maintenance that have been
going on for almost half a century.
What was City Water’s biggest mistake was its failure to bring to the public’s
notice that changes for the better would not happen overnight.
As regards residents living in areas that are likely to be flooded for a number
of weeks every year, the government is very reluctant to take any stern
measures. The problem is only brought to discussion when water have reached the
roofs of the concerned houses and health authorities start shouting that
waterborne epidemics are likely to spread.
Even though the residents live in perfect harmony for 11 months of the year, the
government (as do the residents) knows that the areas will be flooded. The
short-term solution, as is happening now, is to ignore the problem for most of
the year and only address it when it reaches a critical stage.
The government must have the courage and confidence to take steps to solve
problems that will take time. It must be patient if problem solving takes time
and it must have the knowledge to take immediate actions if it is aware of
problems ahead.
Planning in advance, having the necessary information and take that into account
are crucial. Entrusting the public to be patient equally so.
back
to headline
American hypocrisy on
human rights and justice
By Evarist Kagaruki
Newsweek magazine recently retracted a story it had earlier
published on the alleged desecration of the Holy Quran by the American soldiers
at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, in Cuba. The story had it that the
soldiers flushed a copy of the Quran down the toilet as toilet paper ! The
publication later said it “got it all wrong”, and apologised.
But the apology came rather a bit too late, after a lot of damage had been done.
The story sparked genuine public anger and outrage across the Muslim world.
There were demonstrations in various Arab countries (and even in non-Arab
countries like India and Britain) where Muslims condemned the reported abuse of
the holy book and chanted slogans underlined by a very strong anti-American
sentiment. In Afghanistan, where American soldiers still battle against the
remnants of the Taliban, scores of people died in a bloody demonstration.
Newsweek’s recantation and apology seem to have done little, if anything, to
extinguish the fire which burnt fiercely in the hearts of the Muslim faithful
around the world. Many still don’t believe the story was wrong!
Granted that the magazine has apologised over its journalistic irresponsibility,
the damage to its credibility can not be easily repaired, considering the
sensitivity of the story whose repercussions were too obvious.
On the other hand, the Guantanamo story (even in its “erroneous” form) has
reactivated international outrage and indignation at American soldiers’ gross
misconduct at Guantanamo Bay, in Iraq and Afghanistan. This misconduct calls
into question the integrity and civility of the armed forces of the most
powerful nation on earth. It also brings into focus America’s hypocrisy on the
questions of democracy, human rights and justice which it claims to champion.
When the world came to know about the abuse of Iraqi prisoners by American
soldiers at Baghdad’s Abu Ghraib prison, after the offensive photographs became
public, there was the feeling that perhaps the incident was an isolated one. But
then stories of abuse of human rights told by some of the detainees who had been
released from Guantanamo, emerged. (Most of these detainees and ex-detainees
happen to be Muslims).
It is against this background that the “wrong” story about the profanation of
the Quran came as no surprise. It was not surprising also when, last week, the
New York Times published another damming story about the abuse of detainees at a
US air base near Kabul in Afghanistan. There, two Afghan prisoners died as a
result of torture during interrogation by American soldiers in 2002.
The newspaper got the story from a leaked secret military report that had been
submitted to the US Defence Department. How many more such reports there are
remains the secret of the Pentagon. However, what has been revealed already
gives the world an insight into not only the nature and enormity of crimes
against humanity committed by the US troops in places where “terrorist suspects”
are being detained, but also the racist and arrogant attitude of the American
forces and the administration in Washington towards the people they hold captive
since September 11 against international law and the Geneva Convention.
And this brings me to the second point (which I have mentioned herein above),
and that is, US hypocrisy on the questions of democracy, human rights and
justice of which Washington claims to be the citadel. America has been in the
forefront to demand that perpetrators of genocide, war crimes and crimes against
humanity be brought to justice before the Internal Criminal Court (ICC).
Yet, the Americans have arrogantly refused to sign up to the treaty establishing
that court. They recoil at the thought of servicemen and women coming under the
scrutiny of an international court, such as the one in the Hague where
Yugoslavia’s former despot, Slobodan Milosevic, is being tried. Their argument –
which is absurd – was that, as the “global policeman and bearer of the greatest
burden for preserving international security”, the US would be more vulnerable
than any other to such a court! They contend that the international court could
become a tool of political harassment and vindictiveness against America. What
hypocrisy!