OIC’s apprehensions

THE Organization of Islamic Conference has done well to articulate the Muslim world’s anxiety over a possible widening of the fight against terrorism currently focused on Afghanistan. In a joint statement issued on Wednesday at Doha, the foreign ministers of the OIC’s fifty-seven members came out strongly against a possible expansion of the current US-led campaign against terrorism. The statement came in the wake of signals that the US and its allies were thinking of extending the current military action against Afghanistan to include some other states. Who these other states can be is obvious — they will be Muslim, especially those that America has labelled “rogue states.” No wonder, the foreign ministers’ emergency meeting rejected the idea that any other Muslim country be targeted “under the pretext of the fight against terrorism.” Understandably specially concerned, the Iraqi foreign minister told the meeting that the US may use the occasion to “take vengeance against the Iraqi people.”

An enlargement of the present military offensive against Afghanistan is too frightening to visualize. Its consequences would be terrifying in terms of a massive outbreak of anger and fury all over the Muslim world, besides putting the unity and cohesion of the world coalition against terrorism under severe strain. America and Britain should know that many Muslim states have agreed to join the fold as a matter of principle despite stiff opposition from large sections of their populations. In Pakistan, specially, Islamic hard-liners have been vocal in their opposition to the air strikes against Afghanistan and taken to the streets to protest against Islamabad’s decision to provide intelligence and logistic support to the US. The same is true of many Muslim, specially Arab, countries where governments have stood by the US despite opposition from vocal segments of their populations. Already, the US is highly unpopular in the Arab world because of its support to Israel on the Palestinian issue and its tacit approval of Tel Aviv’s policy of ruthless suppression of the Palestinians. Arab governments have, thus, found it very difficult to take a pro-US stand on any given issue. In Afghanistan’s case, however, the Muslim peoples have by and large shown a commendable understanding of the American position and realized that the terrorist attacks of Sept 11 had left the US with no option but to take military action again Osama bin Laden’s Al-Qaeda network and the Taliban for sheltering them.

Like Pakistan, most Muslim states have hoped that the action against Afghanistan would be short, swift and targeted, and that once the war aim has been achieved, the US and Britain would help in the country’s post-war reconstruction and ensure a neutral and broad-based government there. However, voices threatening an extension of the scope of the war have the potential to disrupt the unity of support behind the current move against terrorism and antagonize people and governments, especially in Muslim countries, on a wide scale. Indeed, any full-scale move against Iraq, Syria or Lebanon may make the entire region go up in flames and hurt the western world’s long-term interests in the Middle East.

Fallout on trade

PAKISTAN’s international trade figures for the first quarter of the current fiscal year, released on Tuesday, are not reflective of the after-effects of the September 11 events in the US and in South and West Asian region. These figures show cumulative increases in exports for the quarter compared to the corresponding period last year and also for the month of September compared to the previous month of August. Exports done in September related to orders received prior to the terrorist attacks on the US. The trend of gradual narrowing of the import-export gap that had emerged in the closing months of the last fiscal year continued in the first quarter of the current year. This trend had become so pronounced that it turned positive by $ 22 million in September. However, it is not likely to continue and may be stalled or reversed as a result of the latest events in the region.

While exports during the quarter increased marginally by 1.77 per cent from $ 2.225 billion to $ 2.264 billion, imports decreased by 8.18 per cent — from $ 2.730 billion to $ 2.507 billion. Increases in export of cotton yarn and fabrics and other textile products were offset by a substantial decline in earnings from raw cotton, carpets, synthetic textiles, cutlery canvas, tarpaulin, etc. The decline in imports was due to a fall in prices of crude oil, palm oil and the virtual elimination of sugar from the import list. The prospects of foreign trade have, however, worsened, at least in the short run, because of the uncertain conditions in the region which necessitated the imposition of war-risk insurance and higher freight for transportation. The perceived uncertainty has motivated some importers to cancel the existing orders and avoid placing or confirming new ones.

There may be some justification for exporters’ feeling that the government has not bargained for the right quid pro quo for the losses that Pakistan would suffer in the process of cooperation with the world coalition against terrorism. Increased preferential access to the US and European markets was the minimum that could have been asked for and perhaps obtained. Nor has the government taken measures to offset the additional burden of insurance and freight through payment of long outstanding sales tax refund and customs rebate. If these matters are not taken up and settled immediately the prospects of exports may become even bleaker at least in the short run. Already the ministry of commerce has projected a loss of $ 1.5-2.0 billion for the current fiscal year.

Bombs — and food too!

THE US decision to air-drop food packets during its bombing raids over Afghanistan has come under intense criticism from relief workers. Many charities have termed the policy ill-advised, while others have gone as far as to state that it is a cruel joke on the people of Afghanistan. The criticism is based on a number of grounds. First of all, there is a suspicion that the entire operation is simply a public relations exercise aimed at appeasing domestic sentiments rather than helping the drought-stricken people of Afghanistan. If anything, the raids have made the task of delivering essential food supplies to the people more difficult. The 37,500 packets containing high protein ready-to-eat meals are enough to feed the same number of people for one day. Over seven million Afghans are in desperate need of food, and the airdrops represent only a drop in the ocean. Doctors fear that the contents of the packets, containing rich ingredients such as jelly and peanut butter, may provoke an outbreak of intestinal and digestive diseases among Afghans who are accustomed to a more austere diet.

The meals are also not fit for children who are most at risk from starvation. It is also feared that the food will be picked up and consumed by the young and able-bodied rather than those most in need. Relief agencies warn of another potential risk: people may be tempted to venture into terrain infested with landmines to reach the packets. The truth is that there is something quite cynical about bombing people on the one hand and throwing food at them on the other. Morality aside, relief organizations are worried that the strategy could establish a link between food aid and the current military action in Afghan minds, making their already difficult work even more dangerous. The US may well have conceived this policy as a well-meaning gesture to win Afghan hearts and minds. There is a real danger, however, that the strategy could backfire and provoke a string of negative consequences.