Headlines News 13/03/2014
- Published in Radio Broadcast
- |
Saturday, 24 Muharram 1447 | 2025/07/19
Time now: (M.M.T)
Time now: (M.M.T)
Menu
News:
The Guardian Newspaper of 14th March 2014 reported that Tanzania needs almost twice the number of medical personnel that it has now if the country is to enjoy better and improved medical services. The spokesman of the Ministry of Health and Social Welfare, Nsachris Mwamwaja said currently the ministry has a shortage of 119,969 personnel, equal to 41 percent. He noted that while the minimum requirement of staff in the medical sector for the whole country is 1,857,000 while there are only 65,731 medical personnel currently working in the health sector.
Comment:
Tanzania like other mostly developing countries is encountering a major weakness in social service provision like healthcare. Surprisingly, despite these countries having many resources without mentioning the collection of many unjust taxes, the social services sector is still at a hopeless and shameful poor level.
The issue of strikes by doctors and other medical personnel, lack of equipment and staff facing harsh working conditions is a common matter from lower level up to referral hospitals. This is without mentioning demands for excessive benefits by doctors which is fueled to a greater extent by how politicians especially members of parliament who accumulate bigger salaries while the doctors being a sensitive group of the nation are not at the level of pay with politicians.
This situation greatly contributes to some doctors and medical personnel to flee the country for greener pastures elsewhere such that it has made the lack of doctors and other medical personnel a chronic problem.
According to a report released last year, it clearly stated that during 2013 only, 184 qualified doctors left Tanzania to look for greener pastures elsewhere.
The problem of lack of doctors and medical personnel will not end by educating more doctors or by enhancing their benefits as these are secondary and not basic problems. The basic problem is the Capitalist ideology which is based on wealth accumulation, its politicians not caring about the public and the ideology separating itself from the Creator. These are enough to be a barrier in better provision of this service.
Islam as the true ideology from the Creator has made health service and all social services to be owned by the public and not an individual. This means that all resources like minerals and the like are incorporated in provision of these services. Since the Khalifah is the leader of Muslims, he has a responsibility from the Creator to ensure at all costs that citizens access these services to better their living conditions. This responsibility is a trust in the site of his Lord which will make him uncomfortable if unsolved. Moreover, doctors and other medical personnel will be educated in the true culture that despite being given huge salaries and various benefits, their work is among worships (Ibaadah) by providing service to their fellow human beings. This will ensure success in accessing such a service.
Written for the Central Media Office of Hizb ut Tahrir by
Masoud Msellem
Deputy Media Representative of Hizb ut Tahrir in East Africa
News:
On 13th March 2014, the Advisor to the Prime Minister on Foreign Affairs, Mr. Sartaj Aziz said while talking to British newspaper, The Telegraph, that "his efforts to ease tensions with India would not be affected by Mr Modi becoming prime minister". He further said that "let's not forget that the last time we had a breakthrough in our relationship was also with a BJP government. Mr Vajpayee was from the BJP".
Comment:
Even before the oath taking of his office as Prime Minister, Nawaz Sharif sent very clear signals that his government will do whatever it can to normalize relations with neighboring India. After assuming office, his government expedited the pace of talks for removing barriers on bilateral trade and to grant India MFN (Most Favorite Nation) status. Also his government is negotiating for importing 500 to 1000 MW electricity from India, who is itself facing an electricity crisis.
Since the creation of Pakistan, India has been hostile towards Pakistan and wasted no opportunity to harm it. Pakistan responded against it onslaught whether through defence, economic and other fields, till the end of Cold War. During the Cold War Pakistan was an important ally of US in order to stop the influence of Soviet Russia in this region, whilst India was a major recipient of Soviet arms and took a so called Non-Aligned position, which was a cover for her actual stance, which was following the British by means of strong British ties to the Congress Party. During that period, US used Pakistan and the Kashmir issue, as a stick against India in order to snatch India from Britain into its sphere. But after the end of Cold War and the collapse of Soviet Russia, US changed its tactic from stick to carrot regarding India. During the administration of Bill Clinton, the US changed his stance regarding Kashmir from being a disputed territory and an international problem, to a dispute between Pakistan and India which should be resolved through bilateral dialogue, instead of enforcing a UN resolution.
So as US changed its position from covert hostility to overt friendship, its agents in Pakistan also changed Pakistan's posture from defiance, to acting as a US bait in order to gain India to the US sphere. The Congress-led government since 2004 has meant that the US has not been able to move forward on this path as quickly as it wanted. But as elections are going to take place in India in the coming month of April and it is expected that BJP under the leadership of Modi, the Butcher of Gujrat, will be able to form the government. So US is hopeful to bring India in her sphere, as the BJP is backed by US. And ultimately America hopes to create a regional bloc dominated by India, in order to encircle China and contain China's influence in Asia Pacific.
Therefore, Sartaj Aziz's statement that last time we had a breakthrough in our relationship was also with a BJP government is not a surprise. Rather it proves that the traitors in the political and military leadership are waiting eagerly for BJP's win, so that they will move quickly to seduce India for the benefit of US. They have already have worked hard to change the narrative that the biggest threat for Pakistan is India. Now the traitors in the political and military leadership are trying hard to build new narrative that in order to bring economic prosperity to the region Pakistan and India must set aside their differences, particularly over the Kashmir issue, and forge strong economic ties.
As we have seen, following US instructions for the last 67 years did not make Pakistan's economy stronger or self reliant. Instead our economy was exploited by America to shore up its own economy and now that is more than ever before, as America faces economic meltdown. Similarly by making Pakistan's economy subservient to India will not bring riches, rather it will make Pakistan's economy more dependent on India's whims and desires. Thus Pakistan has been reduced to being the bait, a market of 180 million people, which the US is offering to India in order to bring India to its sphere.
Only the Khilafah "Caliphate" will change Pakistan stature from that of a US bait for India. These Muslims Lands will arise under the Khilafah "Caliphate", due to an independent foreign policy based on Islam that treats the enemies as enemies and establishes supremacy for Islam. As for Kashmir and other occupied lands, Islam obliges us to take back Islamic territories from the enemy, at any cost and no matter how much we have to wait for it.
Written for the Central Media Office of Hizb ut Tahrir by
Shahzad Shaikh
Deputy to the Spokesman of Hizb ut Tahrir in Wilayah Pakistan
News:
The European Union and United States have agreed to impose sanctions against Russian and Ukrainian officials deemed responsible for a contested independence referendum in Crimea, officials have said. [Source: aljazeera]
Comment:
Rejecting the results of Crimea's referendum which showed that a large majority of Crimea's residents want to join the Russian federation the White House said the vote was held under "threats of violence and intimidation from a Russian military intervention".
Similar sentiments were expressed by the British Foreign Secretary William Hague who said, "Nothing in the way that the referendum has been conducted should convince anyone that it is a legitimate exercise". It is ironic and hypocritical that the West should reject the results of a referendum in Crimea held under occupation while it supports and upholds rather presents as a sign of progress, a very similar exercise, and the Presidential elections in Afghanistan due next month. Crimea and Afghanistan are both under occupation. Elections in both areas are and would be held under occupation yet due to their divergent interests in both areas the West supports elections under its own occupation in Afghanistan and opposes elections under the Russian Federation in Crimea.
It is also important to note the scale and nature of Western response to Russia's occupation of Crimea and to West's response to Saddam Hussein's attempt to annex Kuwait in 1990. In the latter case the West mobilized militarily and was able to gather a broad coalition of countries to reverse the Iraqi action. In the case of Russia the West is mainly planning to deploy economic sanctions and employing similar policy tools to hurt Russia economically. The stark difference in approach and its reason is obvious. The West knows it cannot take on the Russians militarily while it was confident that with the help of pliant Muslim rulers of Iraq's neighbors it can deploy military force against Iraq.
The Ukrainian Crisis is a good lesson in international relations and international struggle. Firstly, there is practically no such thing as international law which can act as a constraining force against state behaviors. The idea of a law governing the relations of a comity of nations is a flawed one because for such a system to work a mechanism for enforcing the law when it is breached must be in place. Such a concept of accepting an enforcer of international law runs directly against the idea of sovereignty of countries which must accept an authority above them. No country which guards its sovereignty would accept such an authority. Iraq was not in a position to militarily defy the US when it was acting as a global enforcer of the so called international law, Russia was. Secondly as is evident from the different interpretations of electoral exercises in Afghanistan and Crimea under almost similar conditions, international law is actually a tool for major powers to shape global opinion and behavior in favor of their interests. Again the impossibility of a consensus amongst countries to agree to a global institution which would interpret international law dispassionately is one reason. The difference in values, cultures and interests of different countries constitute another problem.
The Crimean and Afghanistan examples show that the Muslim World cannot rely on international law and international institutions for protecting their interests. The international law as it exists today is nothing but a tool of the West which exploited the post World War 2 balance of power in its favor to develop a system which protects its interests. This does not mean that Muslims should not play an effective role at a global level rather how and through what institutions should they approach international relations is what needs to be debated. If history is any guide, it was through the institution of the caliphate that the Ummah had a strong and effective voice at the international level where it was able to muster enough economic, political and military might through the institution of the caliphate to shape global opinion and behavior to protect her interests.
Written for the Central Media Office of Hizb ut Tahrir by
Mueez Mubeen
Member of Hizb ut Tahrir in Pakistan
