Is 'contempt of court' blocking justice?

It is impermissible under the law to 'scandalise the courts'. But is this vague restraint contrary to the guarantees of liberty given to citizens in the Constitution?

The law relating to contempt of courts is once again in focus. Supreme Court lawyer Prashant Bhushan is facing contempt proceedings in the apex court for making allegations of corruption against some Supreme Court judges in an interview in September 2009. Tarun Tejpal, Managing Editor of Tehelka is also facing charges for publishing this interview. In a recent development, former Union Law Minister Shanti Bhushan - Prashant's father - has also attempted to implead himself in the case by repeating the same allegations. 

The law in question, The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 defines 'contempt', allows for a summary trial, and prescribes the maximum punishment for those found guilty - imprisonment up to six months together with a fine. Disobeying court orders, interfering with judicial proceedings, or obstructing the administration of justice all amount to contempt of court. If those three are fairly easy to understand, there is a fourth provision which leaves great room for discretion - scandalising or lowering the authority of the court - and this has been the problem provision in many cases. 

Courts need the power to see that their directives are implemented, that the functioning of the courts is not disrupted, that parties in a trial are not threatened, that witnesses or court officials are not offered inducements and so on; in short, the power is needed to ensure that the judicial process works. This is an objective of the law of contempt. However, Dr Rajeev Dhavan, an eminent lawyer who has written extensively on contempt and the press explains, "(t)he overall purpose of the law of contempt is not just to make the judicial process work, but to protect, sustain and enhance the majesty of courts and the justice system." The contempt of 'scandalising the court', it seems, has much to do with this purpose. 

Pre-independence law

The Act of 1971 does not clarify what constitutes scandalising the court. Its predecessors, the Act of 1952 and the Act of 1926, did not even define contempt. However, courts in colonial India had adopted the idea of contempt even earlier from English common law and assumed powers for punishing it,  following the precedent of English courts. A couple of examples will illustrate the sensitivity of the colonial courts to any public criticism of judges and the judiciary. 

The Bengalee published an article in 1883 after the conclusion of a case criticising the zabardasti (high handedness) of a judge of the Calcutta High Court in ordering a sacred Hindu Saligram to be physically produced in court. The court found the article to be contemptuous and defamatory of the judge, and sentenced the editor of the newspaper, Surendra Nath Banerjee, to prison. 

The Amrit Bazar Patrika reported a speech made in 1935 in the Legislative Council, which contained some general criticism of the judges of the Calcutta High Court. The following extract from the report came in for scrutiny by the Court:

"We are glad to find that in the Bengal Legislative Council yesterday there was a discussion about administration of the Calcutta High Court. Every word of Mr. N.K. Basu was true. It is so unfortunate and regrettable that at the present day the Chief Justice and the Judges find a peculiar delight in hobnobbing with the Executive, with the result that the judiciary is robbed of its independence, which at one time attracted the admiration of the whole country. The old order of things has vanished away. We wish the Chief Justice and the Judges appreciate the sentiments of the public. The generation that has gone by should be an ideal to them." 

While the Court could not take any action on the proceedings in the legislative council, it determined that the article in the Amrit Bazar Patrika was capable of "great public mischief" and sentenced the editor to prison for contempt of court. 

The promise of the Constitution

Article 19 of the Constitution of India guaranteed the right to freedom of speech and expression, but also allowed restrictions on this right to be imposed by law, including any Law of Contempt, provided only that the restrictions were reasonable. Articles 129 and 215 of the Constitution explicitly spelt out the power of the Supreme Court and High Courts to punish someone for contempt. 

The law, when it was ready - The Contempt of Courts Act, 1952 that replaced the Act of 1926 - did not define 'contempt'. This omission on the part of the legislature was apparently deliberate, and designed to maintain the elastic character of the law, to enable its application over a wide field by the courts. Clearly, the immediate concern of the legislature of that period was to preserve continuity in the powers of the judiciary. 

An interesting contempt prosecution from this period is that of the Telugu weekly, Praja Rajyam, published at Nellore, for an article it carried under the caption: "Is the Sub-Magistrate, Kovvur, corrupt?" The article stated that the person in question was known in the locality as a bribe taker, cited instances where he had either taken bribes or put parties to undue harassment and concluded with the appeal: "Will the Collector enquire into the matter and allay the public of their fears?" 

The Publisher and Managing Editor of the weekly appealed to the Supreme Court against a Madras High Court judgment finding him guilty of contempt. Dismissing the appeal (heard in 1952), a Constitution bench of the Supreme Court explained why the editor was indeed guilty of contempt: 

The Government acknowledged, under pressure of public opinion, that the law of contempt is "somewhat uncertain, undefined, and unsatisfactory" and impinged upon the fundamental rights of the citizens. 

The article in question is a scurrilous attack on the integrity and honesty of a judicial officer. Specific instances have been given where the officer is alleged to have taken bribes or behaved with impropriety to the litigants who did not satisfy his dishonest demands. If the allegations were true, obviously it would be to the benefit of the public to bring these matters into light. But if they were false, they cannot but undermine the confidence of the public in the administration of justice and bring judiciary into disrepute.  

The appellant, though he took sole responsibility regarding the publication of the article, was not in a position to substantiate by evidence any of the allegations made therein. He admitted that the statement was based on hearsay. Rumours may have reached him from various sources, but before he published the article, it was incumbent upon him as a reasonable man to attempt to verify the information he received and ascertain, as far as he could whether the facts were true or mere concocted lies. He does not appear to have made any endeavor in this direction. As the appellant did not act with reasonable care and caution, he cannot be said to have acted bonafide, even if good faith can be held to be a defense at all in a proceeding for contempt.

The judgment identified the issues that were important in the defense against contempt of scandalizing the court - 'public interest', 'truth', and 'good faith'. 

It took a decade for the Government to acknowledge, under pressure of public opinion, that the law of contempt was "somewhat uncertain, undefined, and unsatisfactory" and impinged upon the fundamental rights of the citizens - the right to personal liberty and the right to freedom of expression. The Sanyal Committee was set up in 1961 to examine the law and suggest reforms. It took another decade for the recommendations of this committee to be implemented in the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 

The Act of 1971 offered some guidelines for reporting and comment on judicial proceedings that would not attract contempt charges. For example, "fair and accurate report of a judicial proceeding" and "fair comment on the merits of any case which has been heard and finally decided" would not be contempt. The Act also provided that contempt would not be punishable unless it "substantially interferes, or tends substantially to interfere with the due course of justice". Notwithstanding these improvements, the definitions of contempt did not do away with the uncertainty. 'Scandalising the Court' was contempt, but what constituted 'scandalising the Court'? 

Justice Krishna Iyer captured the problems inherent in the contempt law, in a 1974 judgment, in these colourful phrases: "A vague and wandering jurisdiction with uncertain frontiers, a sensitive and suspect power to punish vested in the prosecutor, a law which makes it a crime to publish regardless of truth and public good and permits a process of brevi manu conviction, may unwittingly trench upon civil liberties ..." 

These problems, he argued, imposed a special responsibility on the higher judiciary to be vigilant and protect free speech "even against judicial umbrage". The subsequent judgment of Justice Krishna Iyer in the Mulgaonkar case in 1978 (where contempt charges against the Indian Express were withdrawn) has been seen as the beginning of a liberal trend in the treatment of contempt by scandalizing the court. However, this is not the only or even dominant trend. 

"Truth" as defense

The most recent attempts to reform the contempt law started with the recommendation of the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (NCRWC) in 2002 to allow 'truth' as defense in matters of Contempt of Court. While making this recommendation, the Commission observed:

"Judicial decisions have been interpreted to mean that with the law as it now stands, even truth cannot be pleaded as a defense to a charge of contempt of court. This is not a satisfactory state of law. It would, indeed be ironical if, in spite of the emblems hanging prominently in the court halls, manifesting the motto of Satyameva Jayate, in the High Courts and Yatho dharma statho jaya in the Supreme Court, the courts could rule out the defence of justification by truth." 

The NCRCW recommendation was not particularly revolutionary. In the UK and Australia, truth as defense to a charge of contempt by scandalising had been available for several decades. The recommendation eventually resulted in a bill to amend the law related to contempt. 

The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personal, Public grievances, Law and Justice (Standing Committee) examined the Contempt of Courts (Amendment) Bill, 2004 and provided several interesting insights in its report. The Government had proposed to amend the 1971 Act by adding the clause: "The Court may permit, in any proceedings for contempt of court, justification by truth as a valid defence if it is satisfied that it is in public interest and the request for invoking the said defense is bona fide". However, the Standing Committee felt that the requirement that the 'truth' used as justification should be in public interest was an additional burden imposed on a person accused of contempt and would "virtually defeat the objective of the proposed legislation"; therefore, it recommended that the term 'in public interest' be deleted. 

The law today

The Government however did not accept this demand and the contempt law was amended in 2006 in line with the above proposal. In the law as it now stands, while a person accused of contempt can seek his defense in "truth", he must get the permission of court for this defense after satisfying it that this truth will be in public interest and that he is acting bona fide, that is, with reasonable care and caution. 

Other countries have progressed to a more liberal regime. In UK, prosecuting a person for contempt for scandalising the court is considered virtually obsolescent and the Courts have rarely used this power for several decades. In the US, the offense of scandalizing the court is unknown and US Courts initiate action for contempt only when they determine that there is 'clear and present danger' to the administration of justice. 

In our country, it is still too early to assess the impact of the recent changes in the law. However, what is clear is that only the judiciary, of its own accord, can make the move towards a more liberal interpretation of contempt that allows healthy criticism that can aid its own development as an institution.  

Won't someone hand these people some pitchforks?

The lack of economic-driven anger among many Americans :


In America, the language of the angriest is very similar to that of the plutocrats themselves. Indeed, the complaint that today’s elite lack the noblesse oblige of the aristocrats of old, and are therefore risking public anger, seems to badly misread American public opinion. The middle class doesn’t want hand-outs from condescending rich people. They want moralistic language and complaints about deficits.

It’s really mistaken. The only problem here is that populist rage in America doesn’t happen to line up with the policy objectives of the mainstream Democratic Party.


Every poll shows strong support for higher taxes on rich people and lower taxes on non-rich people. That’s straight-up redistributive politics relative to the status quo and it’s what the public wants. Democrats flirted with making this part of their agenda, but ultimately blinked...And it polls well. But it wasn’t on offer because leading politicians didn’t—and don’t—want to offer it.

Amazing, isn't it? After nearly destroying the world, the plutocrats just dipped into their petty cash accounts, funded a Tea Party Movement dedicated to promoting their interests, and won the next election. Problem solved! Now, where should we have dinner tonight? Paris or Rome?


What's interesting about these responses is that they assign a critical role in populist movements to organisation and direction at a high political level. That seems like the exact opposite of an expression of populist sentiment. People express support for populist policies like tax increases on the rich, but where are the angry manifestations of this desire? Shouldn't we care something about preference intensity? A populist movement that's essentially invisible in the absence of DNC leadership is no populist movement at all. And political markets aren't perfect, but it also seems that so few political actors are trying to exploit an explicitly populist message (and those that have done so on the left haven't had a great deal of success).

When I wrote about the surprising lack of rage, what I meant was just this: there does not seem to be an angry bunch of Americans holding politicians' feet to the fire over populist issues, and forcing their concerns to the centre of the political agenda. That's surprising to me given the state of the American economy. And no amount of polling is going to push Democratic leaders toward ambitious populist politics so long as the only pitchfork points against their backsides are those wielded by the Tea Partiers.

Superstition drives Bollywood star cars

MUMBAI: The dark forces of superstition have always driven Bollywood. But now it transpires that three-fourths of the industry also drives on superstition. Take Shah Rukh Khan. Whether its his BMW or his other cars, they all have the number 555 on them.


Sanjay Dutt, on his part, confesses that all his vehicles — his latest Rolls Royce Phantom or Ferrari or even the Bugati Veyron that he intends to buy some day—have and will continue to have a registration number plate reading 4545. The star is clear that however much it costs him, the number plate must total up to nine and he likes it best if this is via 4545.

Dutt isn't alone in his quest for certain numbers. Kareena Kapoor, whose white Mercedes has the registration number 7887, says, ''All my car registration numbers must total up to three. I was born on September 21 and I like the number three. Saif wants his car numbers to total up to seven because he's born on August 16, and seven is his lucky number." Amitabh Bachchan's Toyota Land Cruiser has a registration number that adds up to two, just like his birth date, October 11.


Even 'Dabangg' villain Sonu Sood, who has three cars and is awaiting a fourth, wants a number one for all his new vehicles. Says the Bollywood baddie, ''When a series opens, No 1 is usually not given out. It's a VVIP number and is auctioned.'' Sonu, however, has managed to get a No. 1 for two of his new vehicles.

The obsession with a certain number doesn't come cheap but loaded Bollywood stars don't mind — they have been paying huge premiums to get themselves the registration numbers of their choice. ''We sometimes pay as much as Rs 3 lakh,'' says Sood, whose obsession extends to the Q 7 number plate. He reportedly spent Rs 3.5 lakh to get a Q 7 number plate for his Audi which belongs to the Q-7 series. While he refused to confirm this story, sources say that the actor once actually bought a Maruti in Haryana with the registration Q 7 just for the number plate and then resold the car because he had no use for it. This exercise cost him lakhs of rupees but what evidently mattered was that the actor's obsessive-compulsive streak was pacified.


Director Milan Luthria, who recently shot to fame with his 'Once Upon A Time' In Mumbai, has a black Skoda bearing the number 9211 like his earlier film 'Taxi 9211'. Soap queen Ekta Kapoor prefers all her vehicles to have numbers totalling up to three, six or nine a quirk which, according to screenwriter Rajat Arora, is rampant in Bollywood. Most of the industry wants its car number plates in multiples of three while four and eight are numbers everyone avoids, he says.

However, that's not entirely true. Ranbir Kapoor loves No. 8 on his car — he considers it lucky because his mother Neetu Singh was born on July 8. And finally there's Bollywood's offbeat actor Abhay Deol who has a Maruti jeep with the number AD (his initials) 420. Nice to know that superstition is sometimes accompanied by some tongue-in-cheek humour.

Sheela rivals Munni, others make music

By the time winter arrived in 2010, most Hindi film music lovers had only one question on their lips: Munni or Sheila? And it goes without saying that rhythm or melody had little to do with the interest. But the truth remains that these item numbers were among last year's biggest chartbusters and, judging by YouTube hits, also the biggest eyeball grabbers. Across the border too, they were talking points and news stories. Anorexic Munni raised Dabangg's repeat value, fleshy Sheela became the finest promo for Tees Maar Khan.

It's been said that Munni badnam hui was inspired by a timeless eastern Uttar Pradesh folk song. Pakistani's too stake claim that the original version belongs to them. But after listening to the track on YouTube one feels the Pak assertion appears as sincere as their stand on 26/11. The beauty of Munni lies in its lyrics; in its use of immortal expressions like Main Zandu Balm hui and Main cinema hall hui darling tere liye. And in the inspired selection of little-known singers, Mamta Sharma and Aishwarya Nigam, who bring a coarse, folksy edge that becomes the floor-scorcher's soul.

On the other hand, Sunidhi Chauhan's muscled voice matches the body tone of the playing-hard-to-get Sheila. But the lyrics, I know you want it but you're never gonna get it, seems to have been written for a risqué Bhojpuri number before being translated into English. But to move beyond these two tracks that have received disproportionate media attention, Bollywood 2010 has reaped a fairly fecund musical harvest. Among the year's most innovative track is Dil to bachcha hai ji (film: Ishqiya). Many years after penning Dil padosi hai, Gulzar's new simile for the heart is endearing, and in the context of the movie's aging protagonists, wonderfully apt. Rahat Fateh Ali Khan's rendition is different from anything he has done before. What stays with you long after the song is over is the sound of a wailing guitar with a Spanish feel and the dull ache that often comes reminiscing unrequited love.

Then again, two tracks from Once Upon a Time in Mumbai (music: Pritam) stand out for their melody. With his moody rendition of Pee Loon, Mohit Chauhan again demonstrates how he has matured as a singer from his Silk Route days. There's an emotional honesty and intensity about his singing. Tulsi Kumar, late music baron Gulshan Kumar's daughter, miraculously manages to hold her own against Rahat Fateh Ali Khan in Tum jo aaye, a delicate romantic duet with a neat melody line.

But perhaps the year's most imaginative music came from Amit Trivedi, the 31-year-old composer who sprang to prominence with Dev D (2009) and got the National Award for its music this year. In 2010, Trivedi composed music for Udaan, Aisha and No One Killed Jessica (to be released this year). Few new millennium Bollywood composers have been able to create music that blends with the film's situation so beautifully as Trivedi. Not all his compositions are hummable but listening to them is like taking a guided tour through the film's emotional landscape. In Udaan and No One Killed Jessica, lyricist Amitabh Bhattacharya provides him first-rate support. Just listen to Naav (film: Udaan) and Aitbaar (film: No One Killed Jessica) and you'll see what one means.

Sheela Ki Jawaani

The song is an item number by Katrina Kaif  for Farah Khan's "Tees Maar Khan". It has a different feel ,which viewers would have never seen before. Kat will be seen in 6 different shades in this song and more special about this song is its last sequence - a rustic bar setting.

This bar part is dedicated to the song ‘ JUMMA CHUMMA DE DE’. It was the blockbuster song of Big B in ‘Hum’. Few of its lines are included in the last part of ‘sheela ki jawani’. Also Kat is surrounded by men holding beer-mugs and ever ready to splash water on her.

Another part of the song is a tribute to the musical Chicago. The song itself is a mix of Bhojpuri meets Bob Fosse.
 
The most awaited, seductive Kat is out there to entice you for her next release and its non other than Farah Khan’s Tees Maar Khan starring Akshay, Katrina and Akshay Khanna.

The moves and the styles of the Kat in this song are definitely incredible and she will earn a big round of applause after her best dance performance of the year.

With the moves shown – its proved that Farah Khan can make anybody dance. Its the best dance Kat has given ever in Bollywood history. 

The song was released as “the most awaited sizzling, sexiest, seductive item song of the year.” So, when Kat dances a la Shakira or Madhuri Dixit, mercury levels are going to go through the roof.

For Sheela Ki Jawani, she donned six looks, from performing jumma chumma in ghagra choli to a modern gal dressed in an enticing white shirt and black hat. Later conman Akshay Kumar too joins her in the song.

Who else but Sunidhi Chauhan could sing Sheila ki jawani..
Farah says, “Sheila Ki Jawani was supposed to be a raunchy item Bhojpuri kind of song as Katrina’s a wannabe actress acting in sleazy films but the song shaped out to be classy and a mix between Chicago and Broadway. I have never seen Katrina looking both hot and sensuous at the same time. In her earlier films, she’s dressed mostly like a Barbie doll Farah added, Katrina really trusted me and didn’t argue even once when I told her what she had to wear. She just told me that she needs to start working out and tone her body more.Her dedication is tremendous. She didn’t feel awkward with so many men around. The more they screamed and cheered for her, the more she got a high and her energy levels increased.”

Director/Choreographer Farah Khan renowned for capturing actors at their glamorous best made Kat give Shakira a run for her money. The song titled “Sheela Ki Jawani” saw Kat belly dancing much on the lines of Shakira videos for which Farah Khan had flown down one of the world’s most renowned trainers from Brazil. Talking about Katrina’s hottest song yet said Farah “You will see Katrina in an all new avatar. She has never looked this hot. Audiences are in for a treat." Kat worked hard on her physique and adhered to a special diet for the song.

Revealed a production source “Farah is known for creating iconic film songs. She revealed Shah Rukh Khan’s six packs in Dard-E-Disco and this time round she is going to exhibit to audiences Katrina Kaif’s hottest side yet as she gyrates to the song Sheela Ki Jawani.”

Earlier she was voted the “Sexiest Actress" by London Eastern Eye and featured second on the “Top Online Newsmaker of 2009” list by Yahoo.

'Sheela Ki Jawani' to rule roost in Surti Skies this Uttarayan

SURAT: 'Sheela Ki Jawani' will dominate the diamond city skies this Uttarayan. Competing with another bollywood hit song 'Munni Badnam Hui' by Maliaka Arora-Khan and Katrina Kaif kites are in hot demand this season.

This time though, the kites are up to 40 per cent costlier and Surti manja rates are up by about 25 to 30 per cent. A wholesaler of kites in Bundela Wadi Yogesh Telwala said, "As the goods are in short supply, the market is hot. We have received 25 per cent less stocks than last year. Delayed monsoon extending till Diwali has ruined kite making to an extent and not many have a huge quantity to sell. Moreover, rates of paper and sticks have also gone up, so we have no option but to sell kites at higher rates."

However, the manja market is very dull and there are no buyers. Manja makers of the city have not increased their rates of making a manja, but all types of bobbins are costing at least 25 per cent more so the effect is passed on to the customer. As a result, rates are up by 25-30 per cent when compared to last year.

Dipak Saddiwala of J Bhagwan Manja said, "We have no buyers, but there is a reason. School exams have begun today and many students will think of Uttarayan after that. We expect the sales to pick up in last five days like previous years. I feel real sales would begin by weekend." He also added, "We have not increased our manja making rates and they continue to be Rs 20 for 1,000 yard bobbin, Rs 50 for 2,500 yard and Rs 100 for 5,000 yard bobbins."

 "Whatever be the rates, Surti's fly kites worth nearly Rs 5 cr on every Uttarayan, " said Topiwala, who is used to a huge last minute sales of kites.

Anyways, this year let's see, who will rule the roost - Munni or Sheela

The United States, Israel and the Arabs

Please, not again


Without boldness from Barack Obama there is a real risk of war in the Middle East.

NO WAR, no peace, is the usual state of affairs between Israel and its neighbours in the Middle East. But every time an attempt at Arab-Israeli peacemaking fails, as Barack Obama did shortly before Christmas, the peace becomes a little more fragile and the danger of war increases. Sadly, there is reason to believe that unless remedial action is taken, 2011 might see the most destructive such war for many years.


One much-discussed way in which war might arise stems from the apparent desire of Iran to acquire nuclear weapons at any cost, and Israel’s apparent desire to stop Iran at any cost. But fear of Iran’s nuclear programme is only one of the fuses that could detonate an explosion at any moment. Another is the frantic arms race that has been under way since the inconclusive war in 2006 between Israel and Hizbullah, Iran’s ally in Lebanon. Both sides have been intensively preparing for what each says will be a “decisive” second round.

Such a war would bear little resemblance to the previous clashes between Israel and its neighbours. For all their many horrors, the Lebanon war of 2006 and the Gaza war of 2009 were limited affairs. On the Israeli side, in particular, civilian casualties were light. Since 2006, however, Iran and Syria have provided Hizbullah with an arsenal of perhaps 50,000 missiles and rockets, many with ranges and payloads well beyond what Hizbullah had last time. This marks an extraordinary change in the balance of power. For the first time a radical non-state actor has the power to kill thousands of civilians in Israel’s cities more or less at the press of a button.


In that event, says Israel, it will strike back with double force. A war of this sort could easily draw in Syria, and perhaps Iran. For the moment, deterrence keeps the peace. But a peace maintained by deterrence alone is a frail thing. The shipment to Hizbullah of a balance-tipping new weapon, a skirmish on the Lebanese or increasingly volatile Gaza border—any number of miscalculations could ignite a conflagration.


From peace process to war process


All of this should give new urgency to Arab-Israeli peacemaking. To start with, at least, peace will be incomplete: Iran, Hizbullah and sometimes Hamas say that they will never accept a Jewish state in the Middle East. But it is the unending Israeli occupation that gives these rejectionists their oxygen. Give the Palestinians a state on the West Bank and it will become very much harder for the rejectionists to justify going to war.


Easy enough to say. The question is whether peacemaking can succeed. After striving for almost two years to shepherd Israeli and Palestinian leaders into direct talks, only for this effort to collapse over the issue of settlements, Mr Obama is in danger of concluding like many presidents before him that Arab-Israeli diplomacy is a Sisyphean distraction. But giving up would be a tragic mistake, as bad for America and Israel as for the Palestinians. The instant the peace process ends, the war process begins, and wars in this energy-rich corner of the world usually suck in America, one way or another. Israel will suffer too if Mr Obama fails, because the Palestinians have shown time and again that they will not fall silent while their rights are denied. The longer Israel keeps them stateless under military occupation, the lonelier it becomes—and the more it undermines its own identity as a liberal democracy.


Don’t mediate. Legislate.


Instead of giving up, Mr Obama needs to change his angle of attack. America has clung too long to the dogma that direct talks between Israel and the Palestinians are the way forward. James Baker, a former secretary of state, once said that America could not want peace more than the local parties did. This is no longer true. The recent history proves that the extremists on each side are too strong for timid local leaders to make the necessary compromises alone. It is time for the world to agree on a settlement and impose it on the feuding parties.


The outlines of such an agreement have been clear since Bill Clinton set out his “parameters” after the failure of the Camp David summit a decade ago. The border between Israel and a new Palestine would follow the pre-1967 line, with adjustments to accommodate some of the bigger border-hugging Israeli settlements in the West Bank, and land-swaps to compensate the Palestinians for those adjustments. But there is also much difficult detail to be filled in: how to make Jerusalem into a shared capital, settle the fate of the refugees and ensure that the West Bank will not become, as Gaza did, an advance base for war against Israel after Israeli forces withdraw.


Mr Clinton unveiled his blueprint at the end of a negotiation that had failed. Mr Obama should set out his own map and make this a new starting point. He should gather international support for it, either through the United Nations or by means of an international conference of the kind the first President Bush held in Madrid in 1991. But instead of leaving the parties to talk on their own after the conference ends, as Mr Bush did after Madrid, America must ride herd, providing reassurance and exerting pressure on both sides as required.


The pressure part of this equation is crucial. In his first round of peacemaking, Mr Obama picked a fight with Israel over settlements and then backed down, thereby making America look weak in a region where too many people already believe that its power is waning (see article). This is a misperception the President needs to correct. For all its economic worries at home and military woes in Iraq and Afghanistan, America is far from weak in the Levant, where both Israel and the nascent Palestine in the West Bank continue to depend on it in countless vital ways.


The Palestinians have flirted lately with the idea of bypassing America and taking their cause directly to the UN. Going to the UN is well and good. But the fact remains that without the sort of tough love that America alone can bestow, Israel will probably never be able to overcome its settler movement and make the deal that could win it acceptance in the Arab world. Mr Obama has shown in battles as different as health reform and the New START nuclear treaty with Russia that he has the quality of persistence. He should persist in Palestine, too.

Chinese prowess

Is China closer than thought to matching U.S. fighter jet prowess?

  Images believed to be China's next generation of military air power have been buzzing around the internet, but Pentagon officials are insisting its appearance does not mean China has matched American air capabilities.

The new stealth fighter jet, known as the J-20, isn't supposed to be operational until at least 2017, but a Chinese air force commander told Chinese TV in 2009 that flight testing would begin much sooner. Stealth jets, such as the United States' F-22, are designed to evade detection by radar and anti-aircraft defenses.
Now unknown sources have posted photos of what appears to be the plane on an airfield runway in southwestern China.

"We are aware of their plans to develop this fifth-generation fighter," Pentagon spokesman Col. Dave Lapan said. "The photos that were released recently are presumably of some taxi testing."
The emergence of the photos come as Defense Secretary Robert Gates heads to China to discuss the military relationship between the U.S. and China. And later this month, President Hu Jintao is headed to Washington for a summit with President Barack Obama.

One China watcher says China's failure to censor the grainy images on the web prove the photos are of the new jet and the country wants them to circulate.

"The Chinese military and the police could have swept the area around the airfield very easily, but what they've done is they've controlled this. They've allowed Chinese to only take photos with cell phones, meaning that the photos that we have are low-resolution, do not give us a great deal of detail about the aircraft and they're put on the web with a low-resolution format," said China military scholar and author Richard Fisher. "The response within China has been overwhelmingly positive and has spurred national pride to an enormous degree."

The Pentagon is taking a low-key approach to the surge in publicity about the Chinese fighter, saying their existing top-of-the-line warplane has engine problems and that their next plane is years away. But Fisher says that timeline could be sped up if the Chinese buy an engine from Russia as opposed to developing it themselves.

"It's something that is in some form of development, as a fifth-generation fighter. As I noted, the Chinese are still having difficulties with their fourth-generation fighter." Lapan said in an off-camera question session with journalists in his office.

And he said that while the new jet was not mentioned in Pentagon's report on China that was sent to Congress in August as an annual update for China's defense capabilities, the Defense Department has talked about it.

"We as a department have publicly spoken about it in the past. It is not as if we have not acknowledged that they are pursuing a fifth-generation fighter," Lapan said. "So we are aware of it. But it is not of concern that they are working on a fifth-generation fighter."

Fisher, however, says it should be a concern, citing the Chinese jet's potential ability to overtake that of America's F-22 in thrust and "supercruise" speed, which is the ability to fly supersonically without using fuel-guzzling afterburners.

"We can't say precisely what the capabilities are, but we have a good idea. Right now, we should be reviving production of the F-22 and not just reviving production, we should be developing an advance version of the F-22," said Fisher. "And sadly even though it is a troubled program, already the F-35 needs another rework. It needs to be made competitive with this fighter."

The F-22 was scaled back in production in 2009. The production of the F-35, which is being developed and tested, could be slowed under Gates' budget-cutting initiative.

In 2009, Gates said that no nation comes close to U.S. air power, and he anticipated the Chinese having only "a handful" of fighters that challenges the U.S. advanced fleets by 2025. But Fisher cautions that this Chinese jet could cause a change in the balance of power in the Pacific.

"Since WWII, the American military has never gone into battle without the assurance of air superiority. China is a rising power, and it is determined to challenge the American position globally," said Fisher. "This fighter will allow them to do that on a military level....and from my perspective, that's simply unacceptable."