FINALLY the much talked of and much touted Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility of the IMF is to provide Pakistan with an amount much smaller than earlier expected. Our finance officials led by minister Shaukat Aziz had spoken of two billion dollars and above for the three years package, unlike the stand-by agreement of last year for ten months which provided 596 million dollars.

But now the PRGF is to provide 1.5 billion dollars which is equal to the IMF quota of Pakistan. As far as the finance minister is concerned the situation is far better than feared earlier when the IMF was offering only 60 per cent of the quota of Pakistan which meant around 600 million dollars. That would have meant the new PRGF would have been no better for extending for three years than the stand-by package for 10 months. So Pakistan insisted it should be provided with at least its full quota of 1.5 billion dollars. The final outcome may be known today when the IMF Board meets.

After all the importance which the West is giving to poverty reduction and its acknowledgement as eventually a major cause of terrorism, a far larger amount was expected by Pakistan. And that was all the more so after the US and Western European leaders had said international financial institutions would be coming to the help of Pakistan in a big way following Pakistan’s full cooperation with the international coalition in the fight against terrorism and its role as a critical frontline state. They had also acknowledged Pakistan needed 8 billion dollars over a three year period to cover its net external deficit, including 3.2 billion dollars in the current year.

But now the amounts to be received from the three major international financial institutions is to be far less than expected earlier. If the IMF is to give an average of 500 million dollars a year, the World Bank is to give 300 million more apart from the 300 million dollars given already this year, says Ms Mieko Nishimzu, vice-president of the World Bank and its principal negotiator with Pakistan. But it may get more if it gives a better performance in the area of reforms. The Asian Development Bank will give more as its contribution is expected to rise to 900 million dollars. It is keen on funding our economic reforms.

There is a feeling among the people in Pakistan of being let down by the West which had promised a great deal of assistance following the attack on Afghanistan on October 7, but has since delivered too little. There is spirited speculation in respect of the reasons. Is it because the war is ending much earlier than expected as compared to the 10-year Russian involvement in Afghanistan and America’s long involvement in Vietnam? Is it because the West did not expect the Taliban to surrender most of Afghanistan without a fight?

Is the reason also that Pakistan offered restricted cooperation unlike Central Asian countries such as Uzbekistan and Tajikistan? Pakistan’s support has been confined to three areas — use of its air space, exchange of intelligence and logistics. Still Pakistanis who sided with the Taliban in Afghanistan have paid a very heavy price.

Is it because the extremist fringe of the religious groups in Pakistan have been demonstrating their support for the Taliban openly and still want a fight with the US forces? Such demonstrations, as seen on US TV, have alienated many Americans from the Pakistanis resident there, who have paid price for that.

But the US and European governments can argue they are now coming to the help of Pakistan more directly in various ways to make up for the modest aid from international financial institutions. Finance minister Shaukat Aziz says the US has given a cash grant of 673 million dollars, Britain 151 million dollars for two years, European Union 56 million dollars and Japan 325 million dollars for two years, making a total of 1,205 million dollars.

In addition three countries have agreed to swap our debt for social sector development to the extent of 354 million dollars, inclusive of 284 million dollars from Canada, 45 million dollars from Germany and 25 million dollars from Italy. Norway, which has been generous in its aid to the developing countries, has yet to decide on the amount.

Mr Shaukat Aziz has been saying the importance of the PRGF lies not so much in the volume of aid forthcoming now as much as in that it opens the gates for the debt reduction talks at the Paris Club meeting later this month. What is obvious is most of the countries will not agree to write off the debt and would instead prefer debt rescheduling. They may expect us to make the repayment over a longer period and reduce the interest on the 12.5 billion dollar bilateral debt, inclusive of Japan’s five billion dollars and the US’s three billion dollar.

When it comes to the multilateral debt of 15.4 million dollars, the IMF, World Bank and the Asian Development Bank would not write off the loans but can reduce interest payments. In fact at a time when Pakistan was putting off repayments to many countries these three financial institutions were repaid their interest payments as well as the principal due by holding them as preferred creditors, commitments to whom must be honoured punctiliously.

When it comes to swapping the debt for funding social sector development that was what the donors did with much of the debt of the Highly Indebted Poor Countries, mostly of Africa. In such cases they will want the unreturned loans used for social sector development but also with matching funds provided by Pakistan. Anyway they will not agree to Pakistan cutting down its own education and health budgets simply because external assistance is available for that purpose. They would want the external assistance to boost the overall social sector development outlay to make up for the critical laxity in such areas over a long period of time.

They want us to do everything possible to reverse the trend of two-third of our people remaining illiterate and 40 to 50 per cent living below the poverty line of a dollar per day. This is an uphill task in which the rich donors and the government in Pakistan have to cooperate earnestly over a long period of time if globalization is to be a real success and truly popular in the developing countries.

But for more aid to become available for social sector development we should have less scandals. If the EOBI explodes with a misappropriation scandal involving over Rs. one billion,and if it is found that medical equipment costing over Rs one billion has been rotting for years that will not impel the donors to come to our aid with any zest. The Social Action Programme I and II have produced enough scandals, and made the donors demand of the government to check such abuses. If instead the scandals in the social sector become larger and more alarming the donors will be reluctant to give large aid and instead make the international financial institutions come up with more rigid conditionalities for aid and enforce them severely. Official laxity in such areas is inexcusable.

Major donors like Japan which used to give up to 600 million dollars a year before nuclear explosions suspended that aid, want us to develop financial discipline. Japan was earlier opposed to rescheduling of loan repayments and later to debt forgiveness. And if it is found that we are unable to repay the loans as we misused or misappropriated the aid, they will reduce new aid and be more rigid in the recovery of the old loans.

While there is disappointment over the fact the aid to be delivered now is less than what was indicated earlier, it is probable that we might have got far more aid if the war in Afghanistan had lasted longer than is likely to be. But if the war lasts too long we would have far more refugees than the three millions we have already. Our economy would have suffered far more and we would have faced more serious political problems at home.

Our exports might have fallen by more than half a billion dollars by the end of December and our revenue deficit would have been far more than Rs 9.6 billion incurred during July to November and our industrial production would have been far lower than what is today, particularly because of the fall in exports.

Our economy was not in good shape before September 11. The GDP growth projected this year was only 3.5 to 3.8 per cent, which following the September 11 incidents is projected now at 2.5 to 3.1 per cent.

The reason for that is not only the war in Afghanistan. Global recession too is a major contributory factor. The US economy recorded a fall in its growth of 1.1 per cent in the quarter before September. East Asian exports to the US have suffered. So our exports too are bound to fall, until we see more exports to the US and the European Union following the larger market access they have promised. But if our exports are less our imports have also fallen. The imported inputs in our exports have also been reduced.

The war has helped Pakistan in other ways as well. The world price of oil has come down from about 28 dollars to a barrel to 19 dollars. Prices of our imports overall have also dropped. And following the crackdown on holding illegal funds abroad and Havala operations more funds of Pakistanis overseas are coming in. The rupee has become stronger by about 8 per cent against the dollar and home remittances have increased.

Above all, the two layers of sanctions against Pakistan have come to an end and our external relations are back to normal. And foreign investment can come in and our privatization programme can take off. And Iran has reaffirmed the deal to have a gas pipeline running from its gas wells to India via Pakistan, which would mean only more gas for Pakistan but also some revenues annually as royalty for the pipeline going to India.

To be able to break out of the shell in which Pakistan had got locked in following the nuclear explosions and imposition of military rule is a great thing. And additional aid in toto brings real relief. What matters now is how well we can make use of the aid and the new economic opportunities. It is not a matter for the government alone. Trade and Industry too has a large role to play in a period of de-regulation, privatization and globalization. We can afford no laxity or confusion in this area.

PRESIDENT Musharraf’s recent visit to Britain underlined the close links between our two countries and our shared determination to tackle the menace of international terrorism. There is a tremendous admiration in our country for Pakistan’s courageous stance, in difficult circumstances, to the challenge we face to peace and security.

The president’s in Britain and the United States gave him a chance to express Pakistan’s views and concerns on the military campaign, on the diplomatic efforts to bring Afghanistan back into the family of nations and the vital humanitarian operations under way.

As a British Muslim MP with many Muslim constituents, I understand fully the concerns about civilian casualties, and about the mounting humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan. I regret deeply the loss of lives of civilians in Afghanistan. But while al-Qaeda has shown it deliberately kills as many civilians as possible, I know the international coalition is making every effort humanly possible to avoid civilian casualties in the campaign against al-Qaeda and the Taliban regime which has supported them and given them shelter.

Of course there was a grave humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan before September 11. Six million Afghans are dependent on international relief and only 13 per cent have access to clean water. Two decades of war have done enormous damage to the country. That is why the Coalition fighting the war has placed as much emphasis on securing a stable government for the future of Afghanistan, as well as essential aid and reconstruction as they have on removing the Taliban and destroying the Al Qaeda network.

No one in Britain or in the British government wants to see the military action to continue a day longer than necessary. But there is a determination not to allow Afghanistan to be used as a base for launching terror around the world. This is the objective of the military campaign now taking place. It’s a campaign that must be continued until those responsible for the September 11 atrocities are brought to justice and al-Qaeda’s machinery of terrorism in Afghanistan is completely destroyed.

It is hard to believe that anyone could have planned and ordered the appalling attacks we saw on September 11. Thousands of innocent men, women and children, with no links to the military or foreign policy of the United States were murdered. They included hundreds of Muslims and many of them citizens of Pakistan and Britain.

There can surely be no doubt now that Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda are responsible for these attacks. A body of evidence linking them to the atrocities has now been published in Britain. Every threat from Osama bin Laden and his associates in their videos and statements since September 11, confirm their guilt. Look, for instance, at the warning to Muslims from Abu Gaith, Osama’s deputy, to stay away from aircraft or tall buildings.

Deeply insulting is Osama’s attempt to use Islam to justify mass murder — something which King Abdullah of Jordan condemned as an attempt to hijack Islam — and his suggestion that the military action to bring him to justice is a war against Islam or ordinary Muslims.

How can Britain wage a war against Muslims when there are over a million Muslims living and worshipping freely within its borders, where one can see Muslims running British towns and cities, where we are elected to parliament and rise through every profession?

If Britain and the United States were waging a war against Islam then why did they risk the lives of their armed forces to defend the Muslims in Kosovo in an air campaign against the evil of the Christian Serbian state just two years ago?

No, this is not a war against Islam but a war against the terrorists who have killed thousands of innocent civilians, including many from Muslim states in the past, and who have threatened to kill thousands more from their bases in Afghanistan.

This is not a war against the Afghan people. If it were so, why would Britain, the United States and the countries in the international coalition be making such massive efforts to get humanitarian aid to the Afghan people? Britain has stepped up massive relief operations since September 11. We have also increased our support to Pakistan which shoulders such a burden.

The best hope for the Afghan people is to see, as quickly as possible, the removal of the al-Qaeda cancer from their country and the final end of the Taliban regime from the areas they still control — one of the reasons four and a half million people fled to Pakistan and other neighbouring countries before September 11. Only then can the refugees return and the reconstruction of their country begin with international support under a broad-based government.

The writer is a Labour MP for Birmingham Perry Barr.

IF the chain of events that led to the massacre of Taliban prisoners at Qila-i-Jangi in the last week of November, let’s presume, is contentious in respect of how it happened and who are to be blamed for it, can there be any doubt about who bears the moral and political responsibility for the bloodbath?

There are no two opinions about that. It lies with the United States and its allies. In the days leading to the massacre, UN officials and humanitarian bodies had been warning of such an eventuality. General Musharraf had also been calling for precautionary steps, having sensed such a happening was not unlikely. But not the US officials. Their tone, instead, smacked of their obsession for revenge towards the Taliban even when they were taken prisoner.

And they created a psychological climate for that as one could judge from the chronology of events.

On November 19, Northern Alliance’s Gen Daud suggested that he would be willing to grant foreign Taliban fighters safe passage out of Afghanistan if they agreed to surrender at Kunduz. Next day, US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld showed anger saying: “It would be most unfortunate if the foreigners in Afghanistan who have been working with the Taliban were set free and in any way allowed to go to another country and cause the same kind of terrorist acts.”

The same day, the US-led coalition spokesman Kenton Keith opposed any negotiated settlement at Kunduz, saying: “As far as we are concerned, the only option is surrender.” The coalition, he said, has, however, used its best persuasive efforts to ensure there was proper treatment of prisoners.

On November 21, Rumsfeld told CBS he would prefer that Osama bin Laden was killed rather than taken alive. Next day, President Musharraf during a meeting with British foreign secretary Jack Straw in Islamabad called for UN intervention to avert a possible bloodbath. Straw issued an appeal to both sides to observe the laws of war.

On November 23, The New York Times quoted a senior Pentagon official, who opposed any release of captured foreign Taliban fighters, saying, “what we care about is that Al-Qaeda and Taliban are not capable of doing what they have been doing”. Meanwhile, The Washington Post reported there was widespread concern in the Arab press over Rumsfeld’s comments which were tantamount to giving a go-ahead by the US to the Northern Alliance to kill Arabs in Afghanistan.

Four days before the massacre, the Washington Post published a lengthy front-page review of the war situation likening American actions in Afghanistan to the US role in the civil war in El Salvador in the 1980s when the US special forces’ advisers worked with local forces on the ground (as they are doing now in Afghanistan) to “hunt down and kill Marxist guerillas”. The comparison only confirms that the US intervention in Central Asia is motivated by aims other than what is claimed officially. In El Salvador, 50,000 people were murdered by the US-backed death squads.

However, how the Americans should act in Afghanistan has been brazenly suggested in an op-ed column in the Wall Street Journal, a newspaper known for representing the thinking of the right-wing sections of the American ruling elite, now in power. The article was written by Ralph Peters, a retired army officer and military affairs analyst, on November 13. The article titled “As Taliban falter, we must show no restraint” reveals the mindset of the US policy-makers. He says: “This is a killing hour and we must rise to it.” He argues against any hesitation or restraint in the US drive for domination of Central Asia.

Peters writes: “War is no time to listen to the voices of moderation, as exemplified by the worried tones of diplomats (referring to Colin Powell). If we give in to the nonsensical caution that the Northern Alliance should not be allowed into Kabul (which it is there now) we may squander the best opportunity to bring about the Taliban’s broad collapse before the winter.”

“At present”, he says, “we are fortunate that Afghans are killing Afghans and foreign religious mercenaries for us. Instead of urging restraint upon them, we should be cheering them at the top of our lungs”. The “instincts” of the Northern Alliance, he said, are something to be admired, “something on which American military should model itself”. He was referring to corrupt, cruel and callous style of governance that the Northern Alliance is known for when it ruled Afghanistan from 1992 to 1996. About 50,000 people were killed in a barbaric manner by Gen. Rashid Dostum during Rabbani regime.

It is depressing to note that the American media showed little concern to the great tragedy in which 400 to 600 Taliban prisoners of war are believed to have been mercilessly killed in Mazar-i-Sharif. Amnesty International had demanded an impartial inquiry into the massacre which the British government has rejected. It is no secret that the mass murder of this scale was possible only after the US warplanes and helicopter gunships carried out at least 30 bombing attacks during the three-day siege and the targets were pinpointed by the US special forces. Never before have the prisoners of war been subjected to aerial bombing in this manner.

Most of the US newspapers, one may observe, were more alarmed by the death of a CIA operative there and more disturbed by an incident in which friendly fire by US warplanes hit about half a dozen American military personnel. British media has, however, adopted a different attitude showing sympathy for the Taliban prisoners’ brutal killings. Article 3 of the Geneva convention, 1949, says that “members of the armed forces who have laid down their arms... shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith... or any other similar criteria.”

This is not the first time in recent years that the US military forces have disregarded or shown indifference to the laws of war. In the final days of the Gulf war, US warplanes massacred thousands of retreating Iraqi troops. One US pilot compared it to “shooting fish in a barrel.” In view of the prevailing moral climate, there is every likelihood that an even bigger bloodbath may take place at Kandahar where hundreds of US marines and US special forces and their allies among the Pakhtoon tribal chiefs are closing in on the last Taliban stronghold.

Human Rights Watch, which also supports independent inquiry into the massacre, has issued a timely appeal to all anti-Taliban forces to ensure a humane treatment of prisoners in their custody in future to avoid the repeat of Qila Jangi-like incident. Since none of the occupying forces have the capacity to keep a large number of prisoners in safe custody, the US and Britain should help devise procedures for the safe surrender, disarming and detention of the captured fighters.

ONE of the things I’ve noticed in Washington lately is that more and more people are wearing photo identity tags around their necks.

It’s a security thing and Nick Glover, a federal marshal, says he thinks they are a good thing.

“I like to know who everybody is,” he said. “An ID card is the best way to do it. In Washington, people now first look at your chest, and then your face, to see if they match up.”

He said, “I hope the whole country is forced to wear identification. It will not only make it easier to find terrorists, but it will make it much easier to know who the person in line in front of you in the cafeteria is. People have worked with each other in offices for years and never knew who the person in the next cubicle was.

“Parents don’t know the names of other parents their children go to school with, and on golf courses golfers don’t know the identities of anyone they are playing with.

“Photo IDs are now paying off in the family. I know a couple named Owens who have six children and 10 grandchildren. It was a mess until old man Owens made every person wear a photo identification tag. Now he has no problem figuring out every grandchild’s name.”

Before the crisis, the people you saw wearing tags and smoking on the sidewalk were mostly government workers. But now almost everyone in Washington is wearing a tag. You must wear one if you work in a department store, a school and even a CIA safe house in Virginia, where defectors now will know each other’s real names.”

I then asked Glover, “Suppose you don’t drive? How do you get into the airport?”

“You have to apply for a “non-driver’s” licence, which you must carry at all times to prove that you exist. It’s very hard in this country to accept the fact that someone doesn’t drive. It immediately goes into your profile and gives authorities the right to strip search you at any time.”

“What do you need as proof that you don’t drive?”

“A birth certificate, a Social Security card and a passport that has not expired. And it will help if you have two letters from members of your family testifying that though you’re not a terrorist, you look like one when you get behind the wheel of a vehicle.” “Why can’t a person who is up to no good present a fake birth certificate or passport?” I asked.

“Attorney General Ashcroft would never let it happen.”

To kill some time, we went over to the National Press Club and stood outside scrutinizing the people going in and out of the building. Finally Glover said, “There’s one who has no photo identification around his neck.”

“Maybe he’s not a reporter,” I said.

“He could be something even worse,” Glover said. “We better call the FBI.” —Dawn/Tribune Media Services

‘THIS is a moment of truth for Chairman Yasser Arafat,’ Secretary of State Colin Powell said in the wake of the Palestinian suicide attacks at the weekend. Is it a moment of truth for Palestinians or for the United States?

Caught in the war in Afghanistan, America’s sense of frustration at the new developments in the Middle East is understandable. But its obstinate refusal to draw the right conclusions from what is happening in the world around it can only complicate life for itself. It has to rise above the superficial and the simplistic. It only has to look to its European allies and their reaction to events in the Middle East and in Afghanistan to see where it is missing the point.

Does the US want Yasser Arafat eliminated? What then? Does it want the anarchy that will surely follow to result in an Israeli occupation of all of Palestine and the liquidation of the Palestinian identity and the Palestinian question? Will that bring peace to the Middle East and the US? And how does that square with Mr Powell’s declaration only last week that the Israeli occupation of Arab lands was the basic problem in the Middle East?

Ordinary Americans are so used to following the lights at pedestrian crossings, telling them when to Walk or Don’t Walk. Some of the same caution is perhaps required when negotiating the treacherous swirl of ideologies and politics on the international highway. The US cannot bring justice to the Osama bin Ladens of this world or bring the Osama bin Ladens to justice unless it recognizes the injustice of the Israeli oppression of Palestinians and the reasons for the desperation of Palestinians.

The Palestinians have nothing to lose except their dreary existence eked out according to the terms dictated by Israel. The United States has far more at stake in ensuring durable peace in the Middle East.