On air: Are you less likely to give to Pakistan if you think it fosters terrorism?
|
Wednesday, 8 Aug. 2010
|18:00 - 19:00 GMT
President Zaradari has arrived in the UK on a charm offensive. He wants to allay the fears of the British Prime Minister David Cameron who last week talked about the Pakistan-backed "export of terror" to its neighbours Afghanistan and India. He also claims says the International community is losing the war against the Taliban.
For some the timing of this trip is problematic. 1,400 people have died in recent days and aid agencies say three million people have been affected by Pakistan's worst floods in 80 years. Critics like Mustafa Qadri, say "Zardari's decision to visit Europe as Pakistan is ravaged by floods reflects the elite's flagrant indifference to human suffering"
Is President Zardari doing the right thing coming to UK? Is it more important to preserve Pakistan's image abroad, for the long term benefit of his country?
You would find it hard not to be moved by the images coming out of Pakistan in the aftermath of the floods. So will you donate, or do the claims of Pakistan's links with terrorism put you off?
It's reported that where authorities have been left overwhelmed by the floods, Islamist groups linked with terrorists have now stepped in. Does that make international donations even more important?
Does your country's image make a difference? Were you less inclined to donate money to help Burma in the aftermath of the cyclone in 2008, because of the secretive authorities and that they weren't letting aid through? Or is a humanitarian disaster the over riding factor?
Your comments
Comment sent via Facebook
18:58
113631290
Bill writes on Facebook - Its just the first step, a good one, but a dificult journey is ahead in the implementation of organs and institutions on the one hand and enactment of laws to make the constitution on the other. This responsibility lies on our politicians which makes it harder.
Comment sent via Facebook
18:54
113631290
Fleur posts on Facebook - I am really pleased that the entire process has been peaceful so far. However, the document is still, in my view, extremely flawed. Kenya is not an open society and neither is it ready to be one just yet. Americanized models of democracy won't work in a developing nation such as Kenya.
Comment sent via Facebook
18:53
113631290
Mubanga writes on Facebook - I am so impressed that an Africn country is reducing the powers of the president. Zambia's draft constitution still gives the president discretion to appoint and remove the vice president and many other powers even though the public have indicated that this must end. Congatulations Kenya
Comment sent via host
18:52
113631290
On air talking about the referedum on the Kenyan constitution for the last few minutes of the programme
Comment sent via Facebook
18:51
113631290
Kane writes on Facebook - While decriminalizing drugs may provide a measure of relief in Mexico, illegal drugs remain illegal in the States so the violent people involved in the drug trade won't go away.
Comment sent via Facebook
18:50
113631290
Jorge posts on Facebook - It's a very dumb idea. Mexico isn't The Netherlands. The problem in Mexico is not consumption, it's production! Mexico drug business would increase non stop with a solution like this.
Comment sent via YOURSAY
18:50
113631290
Michael emails - No one wants everyone messed up on drugs, but the so-caled 'war on drugs' is a farce, and an expensive one ... legalization, control by legitimate authorities (to keep them away from children), and taxation seems an attractive alternative to the status quo, esp. where marijuana is concerned.
Comment sent via YOURSAY
18:49
113631290
Dorothy in North California emails - Legalization of drugs in Mexico is not a productive economic activity. It will only benefit those already in power--those with political power and those with criminal power. Corruption will follow legalization as the cartels, "legitimately" if legalized, will get control of sources, production, distribution, etc. Their "legal profits" will not be used for humanitarian purposes.
Comment sent via YOURSAY
18:43
113631290
Colin emails - Once drugs are legalised more and more people become drug addicts because drugs will become cheaper. Though it is Utopian to think that Latin America can be one government etc. all Latin American countries must have the same policies on drugs and the drugs war.
Comment sent via Facebook
18:31
113631290
Margaret posts on Facebook - After alcohol was made legal again, there were still people making bootleg alcohol. Legalizing drugs won't stop the criminal activities.
Comment sent via host
18:30
113631290
We''re going to be talking about Mexico now: Is legalising drugs going to stop the drug related violence there? Let us now what you think.
Comment sent via YOURSAY
18:25
113631290
Jeff in California says - I agree with those who say that they don't want to give money to Pakistan when the money is not getting to the people who need it, especially when the Pakistan government isn't helping its own people. However, if there are ways to get aid to the people who need it, then i agree we should help them.
Comment sent via YOURSAY
18:23
113631290
Jude in Canada emails - Giving Pakistan more money is about as logical as giving North Korea money. Arguably less so, since from time to time there are elections in Pakistan and the voters opt for populist mullahs or nationalist thugs.
Comment sent via Facebook
18:21
113631290
Stephanie writes on Facebook - No country ought to give tax dollars to a country that allows terrorists to be based in their country unless they can demonstrate that they are doing EVERYTHING possible to drive them out.
Comment sent via Facebook
18:14
113631290
William writes on Facebook - These people need urgent help so politics should not come into It.
Comment sent via Facebook
18:13
113631290
Dee writes on Facebook - I tend to think any money given to Pakistan would end up in the hands of the wealthy who control the country. 10 years from now the rich will be richer and the poor will still be suffering.
Comment sent via Facebook
18:10
113631290
Jay posts on Facebook - I never would have given to begin with. Sure, it's a sympathetic cause but there are a lot more issues closer to home for me to tithe.
On air: Are you less likely to give to Pakistan if you think it fosters terrorism?
| Wednesday, 8 Aug. 2010 | 18:00 - 19:00 GMT
President Zaradari has arrived in the UK on a charm offensive. He wants to allay the fears of the British Prime Minister David Cameron who last week talked about the Pakistan-backed "export of terror" to its neighbours Afghanistan and India. He also claims says the International community is losing the war against the Taliban.
For some the timing of this trip is problematic. 1,400 people have died in recent days and aid agencies say three million people have been affected by Pakistan's worst floods in 80 years. Critics like Mustafa Qadri, say "Zardari's decision to visit Europe as Pakistan is ravaged by floods reflects the elite's flagrant indifference to human suffering"
Is President Zardari doing the right thing coming to UK? Is it more important to preserve Pakistan's image abroad, for the long term benefit of his country?
You would find it hard not to be moved by the images coming out of Pakistan in the aftermath of the floods. So will you donate, or do the claims of Pakistan's links with terrorism put you off?
It's reported that where authorities have been left overwhelmed by the floods, Islamist groups linked with terrorists have now stepped in. Does that make international donations even more important?
Does your country's image make a difference? Were you less inclined to donate money to help Burma in the aftermath of the cyclone in 2008, because of the secretive authorities and that they weren't letting aid through? Or is a humanitarian disaster the over riding factor?
Your comments
Comment sent via Facebook
Bill writes on Facebook - Its just the first step, a good one, but a dificult journey is ahead in the implementation of organs and institutions on the one hand and enactment of laws to make the constitution on the other. This responsibility lies on our politicians which makes it harder.
Comment sent via Facebook
Fleur posts on Facebook - I am really pleased that the entire process has been peaceful so far. However, the document is still, in my view, extremely flawed. Kenya is not an open society and neither is it ready to be one just yet. Americanized models of democracy won't work in a developing nation such as Kenya.
Comment sent via Facebook
Mubanga writes on Facebook - I am so impressed that an Africn country is reducing the powers of the president. Zambia's draft constitution still gives the president discretion to appoint and remove the vice president and many other powers even though the public have indicated that this must end. Congatulations Kenya
Comment sent via host
On air talking about the referedum on the Kenyan constitution for the last few minutes of the programme
Comment sent via Facebook
Kane writes on Facebook - While decriminalizing drugs may provide a measure of relief in Mexico, illegal drugs remain illegal in the States so the violent people involved in the drug trade won't go away.
Comment sent via Facebook
Jorge posts on Facebook - It's a very dumb idea. Mexico isn't The Netherlands. The problem in Mexico is not consumption, it's production! Mexico drug business would increase non stop with a solution like this.
Comment sent via YOURSAY
Michael emails - No one wants everyone messed up on drugs, but the so-caled 'war on drugs' is a farce, and an expensive one ... legalization, control by legitimate authorities (to keep them away from children), and taxation seems an attractive alternative to the status quo, esp. where marijuana is concerned.
Comment sent via YOURSAY
Dorothy in North California emails - Legalization of drugs in Mexico is not a productive economic activity. It will only benefit those already in power--those with political power and those with criminal power. Corruption will follow legalization as the cartels, "legitimately" if legalized, will get control of sources, production, distribution, etc. Their "legal profits" will not be used for humanitarian purposes.
Comment sent via YOURSAY
Colin emails - Once drugs are legalised more and more people become drug addicts because drugs will become cheaper. Though it is Utopian to think that Latin America can be one government etc. all Latin American countries must have the same policies on drugs and the drugs war.
Comment sent via Facebook
Margaret posts on Facebook - After alcohol was made legal again, there were still people making bootleg alcohol. Legalizing drugs won't stop the criminal activities.
Comment sent via host
We''re going to be talking about Mexico now: Is legalising drugs going to stop the drug related violence there? Let us now what you think.
Comment sent via YOURSAY
Jeff in California says - I agree with those who say that they don't want to give money to Pakistan when the money is not getting to the people who need it, especially when the Pakistan government isn't helping its own people. However, if there are ways to get aid to the people who need it, then i agree we should help them.
Comment sent via YOURSAY
Jude in Canada emails - Giving Pakistan more money is about as logical as giving North Korea money. Arguably less so, since from time to time there are elections in Pakistan and the voters opt for populist mullahs or nationalist thugs.
Comment sent via Facebook
Stephanie writes on Facebook - No country ought to give tax dollars to a country that allows terrorists to be based in their country unless they can demonstrate that they are doing EVERYTHING possible to drive them out.
Comment sent via Facebook
William writes on Facebook - These people need urgent help so politics should not come into It.
Comment sent via Facebook
Dee writes on Facebook - I tend to think any money given to Pakistan would end up in the hands of the wealthy who control the country. 10 years from now the rich will be richer and the poor will still be suffering.
Comment sent via Facebook
Jay posts on Facebook - I never would have given to begin with. Sure, it's a sympathetic cause but there are a lot more issues closer to home for me to tithe.
Comment sent via host
On air now talking about Pakistan