Friday, September 04, 2009

LOCAL

SHOULD DPP IDENTIFY BINGU’S SUCCESSOR NOW?.... YES, THE EARLIER, THE BETTER BY ZAKEYO B.K. MWASE Months prior to the last general elections, political analysts and commentators urged the United Democratic Front (UDF) to start bracing itself for the elections by choosing the party’s torchbearer because there were doubts hovering over Bakili Muluzi’s eligibility to contest due to the fact that he had already served his maximum ten years as he was required by the Republican Constitution. Muluzi himself was not saying anything on whether time was ripe for his party to choose its leader. He had nothing to worry about. He had something under his sleeves; he was the torchbearer his party was seeking. And he expressly said that the masses wanted him to rule this country again and that therefore he would not go against the will of his supporters. Whether this was true or not is open to debate. But the fact of the matter is that the commentators sensed a horrible block in Muluzi’s way but he chose to ignore their advice. His party held a convention where the UDF chairman was re-elected as the party’s presidential candidate for the elections which were to come later. He defeated a then beleaguered UDF top member Cassim Chilumpha by a very wide margin. To him that showed that the majority was behind him. He cared very little whether or not the law was behind him Commentators did not pull out there when Muluzi was re-elected to represent the UDF in the presidential elections. They advised the party to strategize on any possible hindrance that would come into the former Head of State’s quest for presidency. Muluzi and his party ignored the advice. Of course on the part of the ‘other’ UDF members, there was nothing they would do or say because Muluzi was the sole financier of the party. The political commentators and analysts saw something that would bar Muluzi from contesting in the elections and advised his party to have plan B that should be implemented in case of Muluzi failing to contest. Muluzi and his UDF rejected the advice. The UDF chair thought he would use his army of lawyers to interfere with the law. But it never worked to his wish. His nomination was rejected by the Malawi Electoral Commission and his appeal case against the same flopped as well. This happened only a few days before the election day. By then MEC had already closed the door for any more nominations. And what was left as Muluzi’s last option to use to dislodge President Bingu wa Mutharika from the top most seat was to enter into a last minute election coalition with the Malawi Congress Party (MCP). This was after the UDF failed to feature their own candidate, and Muluzi could not bow out there because he was eager to “deflate the tube that he had inflated himself.” Now the commentators and analysts had nothing to worry about. The UDF had failed to heed their advice and they thought they had done their part by trying to reason with the stubborn political grouping. They were just comfortably commenting that the UDF/MCP alliance was not a form of alliance that would defeat the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) because it had only brought divisions in the two camps. Their comments got vindicated; the alliance brought home the worst kind of misery. Surely, this might have been the time when Muluzi and his UDF looked back to the good old days when the most needed advice had not been heeded. And the same commentators who saw doom looming in the UDF camp are in town again urging parties to start identifying the party’s prospective leaders towards the 2014 elections. But the issue is bent more towards the ruling DPP than any other party because its current leader is having his last time at the posh State House. The question most people ask now is whether or not it is being realistic to argue that the DPP should identify Bingu’s potential successor now. What the UDF went through prior to the May 19 general elections has become a benchmark of measuring pros and cons of delaying to choose a party’s torchbearer. UDF’s mistake is made to act as an education to other parties. After all, no party would want to be caught napping as did the former ruling party, not even itself. The law which barred Muluzi from having a third term is the same law that bars Mutharika from having another go in 2014. Hence the issue of the president’s successor cannot be undermined. Mutharika has nothing to lose if his party identifies his successor now. He has worked with a considerable number of big DPP gurus since he was elected into office five years ago and by now he has fully analysed their potential. That is why Dr. Blessings Chinsinga, a Political Science Lecturer at Chancellor College see the exclusion from cabinet of some big names as a way of sieving the DPP so that any one who has some connections to other parties is cast away. Now, that Mutharika has a crop that he is satisfied with, it would be more significant if he allowed his party to identify now who should succeed him after he retires. This is a challenging position which enough needs time so that the prospective candidate should be dully groomed. Just as Chinsinga observes, there are many prospective candidates within the ruling party who can succeed Mutharika. As such, it is important that the lucky one is identified now so that those who were hoping for the same should grin and bear it and forget everything. Any delay is likely to bring divisions in the party. The party needs to identify Mutharika’s successor so that it will not be “spoilt for choice” when the election draws nigh. As a matter of fact, one individual has to be identified and Mutharika should have the task of grooming him/her other than focusing on all those who aspire for the position. Identifying Bingu’s successor will also allow the ruling party to popularize him/her. As a potential leader of the whole country, it is important that the masses recognise him/her now and this will be an added advantage unlike when s/he is chosen later. The leader will have enough time to be sold out to the voting citizenry if s/he is identified now. So the earlier, the better. Mutharika should not have outspokenly condemned his ministers for allegedly positioning themselves ahead of the 2014 elections because such a thing is very normal. Does the president expect them to keep a low profile when they know that they have a chance of leading this country? Now that they lucidly know that Mutharika will be biding farewell to the State House in 2014, it is normal for them to start positioning themselves for the next elections. What should prevent them from aspiring? Much as this may be seen as an action started too soon, we have to be mindful of the fact that the aspirants want to know where they are. And the earlier the better. In fact general party democracy cannot fault the aspirants for positioning themselves for possible identification. Let them be identified now so that they can brace themselves for the arduous task of leading the party. We do not need to labour the point that Bingu will soon be out and new blood will have to take over. Bingu’s blasting of the cabinet ministers leads many to fearing the president might want to use his overwhelming mandate in the National Assembly to tamper with the Constitution. After all, Muluzi’s case as well started as mere rumours aimed at tainting the image of the former head of state; but finally the rumours culminated into reality. We do not need any reason to fear that the Bingu rumours, just like the Muluzi rumours, might also translate into a true story. But if the one to lead DPP was identified now, we would comfortably believe that State House’s blasting of the rumours as idle talk from some disgruntled individuals is practical. With so many DPP top members eyeing the party’s top seat, it would be wise for the president to encourage them to begin selling themselves to the masses publicly so that they gain popularity, other than blasting them. Maybe the president is against the idea of ministers positioning themselves ahead of the 2014 elections because he wants to dictate who should lead ‘his’ party. This is not a good thing for the party’s democracy. People sometimes do react disastrously. Let the DPP identify Mutharika’s prospective successor now so that s/he has enough time to popularize himself/herself. What will the party lose by identifying the leader now? Nothing. And in this case, it is the earlier, the better. NO, A THOROUGH ASSESSMENT IS REQUIRED. BY CHIZAMSOKA MUGHOGHO There is nothing more that remains after a general election has taken place other than strategizing on the next election. After all, when elected individuals begin to mull over how they can work sufficiently towards fulfilling the pledges they made during the time of campaign, there is an underlying factor that they work towards putting themselves or their respective parties in a comfort zone as long as the next election is concerned. These winners try to consolidate their popularity so that they do not get out of the reach of the electorate. Much as the elected individuals claim to work towards the upgrading of citizen’s welfare, they also work towards sustaining their future political welfares as well. They know that as long as they wish to be re-elected in the next election, there is need for them to be in perfect relationships with the electorate. This is an underground form of campaign. Campaign for election or re-election begins soon after winners and losers have been identified. Otherwise, by preparing feasts as a way of thanking the electorate for voting them into power, politicians only try to score a point so that next time the electorate should consider them again. There are instances where current elected individuals may not be eligible for contesting in the elections again. These may involve factors to do with legal requirements or just old age. Still more, there is need to put into place good strategies for the sake of the successors, especially in cases of presidents. Party presidents need to have the welfare of their respective parties at heart even if they will no longer lead the party after a certain period. It should be a blow to their conscience if their party fails to perform impressively during elections because the leader did not put into place good strategies. A normal party leader will have a peaceful rest after the time of leading his party expires if his/her successor inherits a strong and vibrant party. It should be left to the successor to either strengthen the party further or destroy it. As required by our laws, president Bingu wa Mutharika will pack his wares and leave the sweet State House in 2014 and obviously someone else will compete on the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) ticket in the presidential elections. This is a thing that cannot be eschewed, and as such, commentators and analysts have urged the DPP to identify a prospective torchbearer for the party. The fact that the DPP proved to be a force to reckon with just a few months after its inception speaks volumes of the party’s sound leadership. Mutharika proved to be a skillful leader by driving a party that had never been there only a few months ago, to a massive victory in the 2005 by-elections. And things did not end there. The new party on the political scene performed wonders in the May 19 general elections and all praises duly go to the party’s leadership. We cannot deny the fact that the ruling party has a daunting task of identifying who should lead it considering the fact that there is a good number of potential individuals within the party who seem to have the guts to take the leadership role. But perhaps the question that should be answered before anything else is assessed is whether DPP should identify Mutharika’s successor now. We have to be mindful of the fact that being a leader of a whole party is not a trivial thing; and it becomes more intense when the party is the ruling party. Essentially, there is going to be some kind of comparison between the predecessor and the successor. Since the predecessor will be viewed as having been successful up to making it to the State House, the successor’s failure will stand out like a sore thumb. Any ruling party in the world will have a number of high-profile members within it because on their part, there are many aspects that are likely to put them in the limelight. They are associated with the leadership of the country and there is a likelihood of them being popular among the voting citizenry. That is why it is important that the party members hold their patience before they can think of identifying its next torchbearer. There is need for a thorough assessment of all the potential candidates so that the underlying truths about them are uncovered before they may be considered for the challenging task of leading the party. Though it may not have been fully made public, it is a clear fact that most parties in Malawi are stuck in the doldrums as regards succession concerns. This is a time when every aspirant will position themselves in a situation that will convince their party members that they are the eligible candidate. They will hide their true colours because of want of leadership and their party may identify them now when their true colours which are not synonymous with leadership may be revealed later. This may result into confusion. As the party will be involving an analysis of how to reposition and rebuilt itself so that it should succeed in the elections, there may be need to replace the leader with another one. And this will automatically divide the party. So it is important that there is a thorough assessment of all the aspirants before identifying who should lead the party. In the by-elections of Zomba Malosa Constituency, it was revealed that there were two DPP factions and the result was the party’s loss. This was due to the fact that some party members were not happy with the candidate who was to compete in the election. So any sort of division is very dangerous to a party. All the DPP aspirants should be left to their usual ways of conducting things. They should be made to forget that there is at all the possibility of them ever becoming their party’s leader during the elections. Thus, it will be easy for the assessment of their actual conducts and potential. When studying someone’s behaviour, it is important that you do that without the person knowing it. Then you can be able to understand them fully since it is when they go about their normal life. It is not advisable to assess someone when they are in high spirits of expectations. They may exhibit certain traits which are not naturally theirs. Hence the ruling party also needs a substantial amount of time before they can identify who should hold its mantle in the 2014 presidential election. I need to be clearly understood here; I do not intend to mean that the party should identify its torchbearer days or months before the elections. The point I am trying to drive home is that the identification should be done later, perhaps in two years to come, not now. After all, the next general elections are five years away, so why hasten to do things when the party has all the time in the world. It is wrong to think that once the DPP fails to identify Mutharika’s prospective successor now, it may be caught napping in the future as did the UDF. The UDF’s is a different scenario altogether, unless the proponents of this line of thought want us to believe that Mutharika may want to prolong his stay at the State House, and may be rejected by the courts as was the case with Muluzi. In the case of Mutharika, there are two things involved; the legal provision dealing with when a president should pack his things and go home to rest has been fully interpreted in the Muluzi case and Mutharika would make a great mistake if he attempts to tamper with this delicate provision. Another fact is that by 2014, old age will have caught up with our president and he might not be able to soldier on. It will also force him to reject opinions from bootlickers who would want him to have another go. When Muluzi imposed a little known Mutharika on Malawians, he knew that he would be able to sell him adequately to the electorate. Mutharika became popular overnight and he made it in the elections. Yet this was only a few weeks after the UDF had become so infamous for its leader’s comeback bid. And it was also a time when many UDF big gurus protested against Atcheya’s undemocratic way of choosing who should lead the party. But people still voted for Muluzi’s choice. Now with the DPP, things are just alright. It commands a great deal of support across Malawi and whenever its torchbearer is identified, the electorate will still recognise him/her. With this party that has revolutionized Malawi’s politics, it is not necessarily about the mantle carrier; it is about the party itself. As such, I totally hold the view that it would be too much haste if the DPP identified its leader now. The party needs enough time to fully assess all potential candidates. If Mutharika’s successor were identified now, the assessment would not be thorough and many underlying traits of the successor would not be discovered. This might result into confusion within the party, as the position might need to be changed.

HEALTH

Underestimating swine flu Written by James Munyapa For a couple of months now the public worldwide has been suffering from some kind of fatigue due to the constant bad news over the economic global crisis which so far, only Japan seems to be moving out of. As result of concentrating on the recession, the threat of the swine flu A (H1N1) outbreak has been to a good extent ignored. This is a highly dangerous disregard of human life and the pandemic now seems to surge with adverse results. However, alarms of warning have been sounded so that people should be aware of this dangerous virus. Some countries have gone to the extent of closing some social institutions like the school so as the prevent students from contracting the disease should one of them be infected. It is very difficult to know that someone has contracted swine flu when it is in its early stages because not everyone will be tested. Government should put serious measures so that the virus does not unnecessarily claim lives of Malawians. Swine flu should not in any way be underestimated; it is a big threat. Authorities at the international airports need to embark on a mission of screening passengers to check for swine flu symptoms. So far the epidemic of swine influenza has reported 100 deaths in Canada and the United States and more than 27,000 cases have been identified, according to the latest balance sheets delivered in both countries. On the world’s scale, swine influenza has caused 180 deaths and 44,287 patients have been identified in 95 countries and territories, according to the latest assessment of the World Health Organization (WHO) published. Everything about swine flu was initially just news to Malawi but now reports have confirmed that there are people in the country who are infected. The problem remains that the pandemic was being underestimated and we thought it would never come to Malawi, as we mostly think some of these pandemics are for foreign countries. In a paper published in the British Medical Journal, researchers have called for improved data to map the spread of swine flu and to make accurate estimates of the number of people likely to be infected with the virus and to die from it. This is all intended to alert governments so that all the measures to deal with the virus are put in place. In some countries where the flu has been prevalent researchers argue that death rates are underestimated because deaths are attributed to other seemingly unrelated causes besides swine flu, or because of the delay between symptom onset and death. They also argue that death rates of swine flu might be underestimated because some cases may die from other ailments which might have but been precipitated by the virus. These cases are not counted as swine flu cases, hence the underestimation. Of course in other countries experts have found that people could be dying of swine flu in hospitals but having their cause of death listed as something else. The experts have observed that swine flu death rates could be skewed because many sufferers are not contacting health services and are looking after themselves at home. This could be the case even here in Malawi. There could be many cases of swine flu which will obviously go unrecorded if the patients don’t seek medical attention. The Ministry of Health can score a first if it embarks on a task of sensitizing Malawians on the signs and symptoms of swine flu so that those with potential attacks of the virus may seek medical attention as soon as possible. Swine flu is a contagious disease and so it can be easily contracted. Malawi is a tourist destination and more and more tourist are flooding the country following the recent mysterious death of one Brazilian who got lost in Mulanje Mountain only to be found dead a couple of days later. So it is absurd to expect the country to remain free from the virus when it is in constant contact with foreign people. And on the other hand, there are business people who travel to other countries to do their business. These are likely to bring the virus. Many Malawians visit South Africa on business grounds and South Africa is one such country in Africa with the highest prevalence of swine flu.

INTERNATIONAL

WAS LIBYA RIGHT TO GIVE AL-MEGRAHI A HERO’S WELCOME? No, it is mockery to justice By Charles Msowoya The international rage over the release of the Lockerbie bomber Abdel Basset al-Megrahi, who was found guilty and convicted of bombing a Pan Am Flight 103 over the town of Lockerbie in Southern Scotland in December 1988, deepened after he was seen embracing Libyan leader Colonel Gaddafi in Tripoli recently. Gaddafi was quoted as saying to ‘his friends’ in Scotland, the Scottish National Party, and Scottish Prime Minister, and the foreign secretary, that he praises their courage for having proved their independence in decision making despite the unacceptable and unreasonable measures that they faced. He said that Nevertheless they took this courageously right and humanitarian decision. Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill confirmed earlier before the release rocked the media that al-Megrahi, was to be released and returned to Libya. The Libyan is the only man to have been brought to justice for the terrorist act which killed 270 people, all 259 on the plane and 11others on the ground. He is suffering from terminal Prostate Cancer, hence his release ‘on compassionate grounds’. The mass-murdering bomber received a grand hero's welcome in Libya recently after his release from prison in the so-called ‘compassionate’ ruling. Al-Megrahi who is a former Libyan intelligence agent stepped off a plane in Tripoli amid cheers. The crowd of thousands defied President Obama's urging that his return home be a ‘low key’ one. According to the western media waves of anguish gripped the American families of Lockerbie victims as the only person ever convicted in the deaths of their loved ones walked free. After years of wrangling and sanctions, Libya handed the former intelligence agent over for trial and he was sentenced by a special Scottish court sitting in the Netherlands in 2001 and he had been in a Scottish prison until he was freed. CNN reported that more than 1,000 Libyans gathered at an airport in Tripoli to welcome Megrahi home, cheering and waving national flags, despite the fact that relatives of the American victims said they had received assurances there would be no hero's welcome. In his letter to Gaddafi, addressed ‘Dear Muammar,’ British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said a high-profile return would cause further unnecessary pain for the families of the Lockerbie victims. He added that it would also undermine Libya's growing international reputation. Meanwhile, Megrahi's release has turned politically radioactive for the Britain and Scottish governments. It has also led to a serious falling out with the US with Federal Bureau Investigations (FBI) Director Robert Mueller publicly accusing Mr. MacAskill of making a mockery of the rule of law. MacAstill dismissed the international furor over the Libyan’s release, saying people should know that he would not be doing anything apart from going to hospital and waiting to die. Doctors said he may have less than three months to live. But most individuals and countries like the United States of America and Britain still feel that the release of the bomber is a mockery to justice and something that may encourage terrorism. Above everything it seems to be the hero’s welcome which al-Megrahi received upon his arrival in Libya on a private jet which has attracted this global outrage and has since pinned the Scottish government at the receiving end of all criticism for freeing the bomber. At one point in time the Lockerbie bomber and his extended family were captured sitting with the Libyan leader, a reception which came amid mounting Western outrage over the bomber’s welcome. According to the BBC, speaking on a Libyan television, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi's son said former British Prime Minister Tony Blair raised the Megrahi case repeatedly to smooth the way for British firms to tap into Libya's energy reserves, a claim Blair dismissed. He said on CNN that there was no deal whatsoever with the Libyan government when he was in power to arrange the release of al-Megrahi. Initially Libya agreed to give the bomber a low key reception after his release from jail according to Scotland’s justice minister, but broke the deal by giving the Libyan terrorist a hero’s welcome. The minister also defended the decision to free al-Megrahi maintaining that he was released purely on compassionate grounds and nothing else. He is also said to have written to the Libyan leader asking him to ‘act with sensitivity’. Instead, Megrahi was given a hero's welcome in scenes described by President Obama as ‘highly objectionable’. But whatever the matter, the fact remains that the Libyan government was adversely wrong to give al-Megrahi a hero’s welcome. How would a terrorist be given a hero’s welcome? Was he being termed a hero after slaughtering 270 people? Libya’s action to accord al-Megrahi a hero’s welcome makes a mockery of justice. It gives comfort to terrorists around the world as they will think there is no such thing as life imprisonment if one of the world’s biggest terrorists has been released from prison. And the mockery is deepened by the fact that the kind of reception was not just a normal one but a high-profile one. Megrahi did not deserve any mercy, but by releasing him on compassionate grounds, the Scots did a good thing and the Libyan government should have avoided treating him as a hero. In fact the reception on its own is so much bigger than the bombing itself to the victims’ families. He deserved to die in a jail cell because that was his punishment. What is the essence of life imprisonment when there is a prospect of one being allowed to die at home? And to make matters worse, why would there be life imprisonment when one can be released and be given a hero’s welcome? If one of these horrible incidents happens again, one of the reasons will be that punishment for terrorists is not being fully carried out. Some crimes are so horrific that there should never be any consideration given to anyone convicted of one. It is situations like this which are one of the key reasons many people favor the death penalty. Those who are against the death penalty in different countries often argue that it is better to let a mass killer rot in prison for the rest of his life but then the al-Megrahi scenario satirizes everything. He should have been allowed to rot in prison and this would mean more if he really did rot there for his entire life, with absolutely no chance of ever getting out, not even for medical treatment. The fact that he is terminally ill, to me, is no reason to give him a hero’s welcome. Either way, he is dying a more comfortable death than any of his victims. He is dying prepared while his victims died unprepared. I think the families of the people this monster murdered would have preferred that their loved ones had the luxury of dying in their own beds too. He deserved to die in prison the convict that he is, not on his bed a free man that he is not. But because he has been released, then the last remedy was that he should be given a low key reception. That is why the Obama administration and the FBI and the victims’ families have slammed the move. In his letter to the Scottish Justice Minister seeking that he should be allowed to go home, al-Megrahi said that whilst everything was being done to make his time there in prison as comfortable as possible, the personnel within the prison were hardly equipped to deal with the many aspects of his terminal illness. He added that in his view imprisonment was hastening his decline. He dared say that because he knew that his release was a possible thing and this is an irony to the Scottish justice system which has been further mocked by the hero’s welcome al-Megrahi received in Libya. I can respect any institution that gives compassion to those who are in dire need of it but in the case of al-Megrahi it is compassion enough that he was allowed to live instead of being executed. And of course part of the punishment should have been that he should die in a foreign land. He has been given joy at the end of his life by being freed and given a hero’s welcome back home. He did not deserve joy, even in dying, and certainly not a hero's welcome. Yes, he is their son By James Munyapa. On December 21, 1988, a Pan Am plane mysteriously exploded over the small Scottish town of Lockerbie causing the death of 270 people from 21 countries, including 189 Americans. The tragedy provoked worldwide indignation. Then in 1991, two Libyan nationals were charged with the bombing and based largely on circumstantial evidence, a panel of Scottish judges pronounced Abdel Basset al-Megrahi guilty. Al-Megrahi and the Libyan government have been protesting their innocence all along until al-Megrahi was released recently on compassionate grounds. After suffering disciplinary UN sanctions which froze overseas Libyan bank accounts and prevented the import of spare parts needed for the country's oil industry, Libya agreed to pay $2.7 billion to victims' families on condition that the pay-out would not be deemed an admission of guilt. In other words, Libya made the pay-out just in the interest of peace. Al-Megrahi was serving a life sentence in a Scottish prison, but earlier this year the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission ruled there might have been a miscarriage of justice on the basis of lost or destroyed evidence. Some time back it was reported in the western media that a key piece of material evidence used by prosecutors to implicate Libya in the Lockerbie bombing emerged as a probable fake, with allegations of "international political conspiracy and careless investigative work. Basset is suffering from prostate cancer and the Scottish government thought it wise to release him so that he should wait for his death in his home country, Libya. The United States strongly condemned the decision by Scottish authorities to free the Libyan saying there was no justification for his release. The Scottish government said al-Megrahi, a former Libyan intelligence agent, was freed on compassionate grounds because he is dying of cancer. Although al-Megrahi’s release received objections from different countries including the United States of America, it is his hero’s welcome in his home country which has not gone down well with most people. But his release still is the root cause of everything. Us President Barrack Obama said his administration conveyed its objections to the Scottish government that al-Megrahi was released because he is terminally ill and should be permitted to die in his home country. Back in Libya, al-Megrahi received a hero's welcome just hours after being released from a Scottish jail. The 57-year-old Libyan left Scotland’s Greenock Prison and arrived in the Libyan capital on an Airbus private jet. Thousands of Libyans wore T-shirts with his picture and others waved Libyan and Scottish flags while Libyan songs blared. He was greeted by large enthusiastic crowds at the airport in Tripoli, according to the western media. And it is this kind of welcome which has invoked the anger of countries like the US. The US administration does not find enough substantiation why someone who was convicted of slaughtering 270 people should be given a hero’s welcome. Is he a hero for what he did? The US wants to know? And the question is whether or not Libyans were right to give basset a hero’s welcome. Speaking in Washington, President Obama urged Libya not to give a hero’s welcome to al-Megrahi, yet just hours later the freed prisoner arrived in Tripoli to a festive greeting by thousands. In an interview from the White House with Philadelphia-based radio talk show host Michael Smerconish, Obama said his administration had been in contact with the Scottish government where they indicated that they objected to al-Megrahi`s release. Obama added that his administration thought it was a mistake and that they were now in contact with the Libyan government shortly before al-Megrahi landed in Tripoli that the Libyan should not be “welcomed in some way but instead should be under house arrest.” Many Libyans still see al-Megrahi as an innocent scapegoat of the West but White House press secretary Robert Gibbs called him a mass murderer. And so far the relationship between Libya and the US has been adversely affected because the US feels Libya has made the worst mistake by giving al-Megrahi a high-profile welcome. But, I, personally believe that the Libyan government was absolutely right to give al-Megrahi a hero’s welcome. They could not reject him in his own home country, especially at such a time when he is undergoing a kind of pain that is killing him. We all know that a dying person requires the best kind of comfort in his dying days. That is why the Scottish government thought it wise to release al-Megrahi so that he should die in his home country. It is better to die among your own folks than among strangers. And despite any evil man might have done, it is good that during his dying days, he is given all the comfort. After all, he is a dying man and life to him will soon be meaningless. Then why abuse someone who is dying. This new source of potential tension between the US and Libya comes amid a turn in official relations. The North African country, which was once the target of US airstrikes in 1986, has been on speaking terms with the United States only recently after four decades as a bitter antagonist. And no wonder the US wants the antagonism that was there between itself and Libya to restart, otherwise there is nothing peculiar about al-Megrahi’s hero’s welcome apart from the fact that he deserved it where he belonged. Your child still remains your child no matter what others think of him. You cannot reject him just because you are being pressurized by others. Even if he wrongs you in what seems to be an unforgivable way, you still forgive him and move ahead with him as your child. A mother cannot squirm at the puke of her own baby. Hence Libya was ultimately justified to give its freed child a hero’s welcome. And above everything it is the Scottish government which showed the greatest prudence by releasing al-Megrahi. British Foreign Secretary David Miliband said that it was "deeply distressing" and "deeply upsetting" to see the convicted Lockerbie bomber get a hero's welcome in Libya. US president Barrack Obama said the cheering, flag-waving welcome that the convicted bomber received in Libya after being released from a life sentence was highly objectionable. These people seem to forget that if all the blame has to be assessed, them the Scottish government should be the worst entity to blame in the whole scenario, because it would be ridiculous to expect the Libyan government to receive al-Megrahi as though they are receiving a stranger. Britain and the US are attacking the aftermath instead of attacking the cause because they know that the cause is perfect. By releasing al-Megrahi the Scottish government has shown that it is above barbarianism. Wielding the blade of justice is a responsibility not to be taken lightly. The Libyan was charged and convicted and justice was vindicated. He was given a life sentence which means he was supposed to die in prison. And his release does not necessarily mean that he has been paroled. He was supposed to die in prison and he is now dying in a situation in which no one can claim he is free. Hence it was imperative that he be given a warm welcome back home. Scotland as well has to make its own decisions without being influenced by any country, not even America. On top of that should you bother to look up the facts that are there concerning al-Megrahi’s trial and subsequent conviction you will find that he was convicted on the flimsiest of evidence and in my opinion he is nothing more than a political scapegoat who has maintained his innocence from the start. But anyway, he has been released on compassionate grounds! And Scotland is responsible for making what it believes is the correct judicial decision. How others react once that decision is made is irrelevant to whether the judicial decision was correct or not. In other words, just because the US and Britain have expressed their objection towards al-Megrahi’s release does not necessarily mean Scotland necessarily made the wrong decision to release this prisoner. And Libya should not have been attacked for giving its citizen a hero’s welcome. There is no one in the world who would not want to celebrate the release of his child who was being imprisoned miles away.

New data offers hope on HIV treatment

New data which a London-based pharma company, ViiV Healthcare, and a Geneva-based non-governmental organisation, Medicines Patent Pool (MPP)...