DIVORCE is on the cards. Europe and the United States’ long-standing union is on the rocks. As is the norm, the split is taking place in a welter of bitter recriminations — particularly by Europe, the party petitioning for divorce.

Forged in the Second World War, and cemented by the common struggle against communism as well as, increasingly, a shared cultural diet of TV, fast food, music and fashion, the marriage between Europe and the United States showed some signs of strain during Bill Clinton’s Presidency (e.g. over Iraq). But these became really pronounced after George W. Bush entered the Oval Office and proceeded to dismantle the entire framework of multilateralism and international cooperation: Kyoto, the ABM Treaty, efforts to curb small arms proliferation, and so on.

Then came September 11 to effect instant reconciliation. The immense tragedy experienced by the United States caused Europe to overlook its own grievances and wholeheartedly support the American-led ‘war against terror’. Europe and the rest of the world: George Bush had what was probably the biggest global consensus in recent history for action against those responsible for 9/11. It wasn’t just sympathy that created that consensus. It was also America’s apparent return to multilateralism: Washington sought the help of Europe and the Muslim world in its new campaign.

The latter were the first to break ranks, expressing disquiet over the military (if not rhetorical) targeting of Muslims and the murder of innocents in Afghanistan. Europe stood faithfully by America throughout the war. It was only as it drew to a close, and the Taliban collapsed but the bombing of civilian areas continued that the Europeans started to voice muted criticism. Over the past few weeks, that muted criticism has increased in volume and intensity to reach its present state: open condemnation of US policy.

The deployment of international forces was the first major disagreement. Europe wanted troops in Afghanistan to maintain order and prevent a descent into pre-Taliban warlordism and anarchy. America wanted a cleared plain to search for Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. That disagreement was resolved without too much bitterness: after a slight delay troops were sent in.

A more serious row developed over the treatment and legal status of Taliban and Al Qaeda “unlawful combatants” transported by the US to Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. While European concern about torture and deliberate maltreatment was unexpected, concern about the status of the detainees was entirely valid. Europe quite rightly objected to Washington’s attempts to wriggle out of both the Geneva Convention and the US civil law by denying the detainees POW status and holding them outside American territory. Donald Rumsfeld’s initial response was to indignantly dismiss European objections. Since then, the US has made only cosmetic efforts to improve the conditions of the prisoners. The basic rejection of international law for the Guantanamo detainees remains.

The Middle East is a region and a conflict on which parties on either side of the Atlantic have long held divergent views. Washington rarely strays from its traditional line of unquestioning support for Tel Aviv. The Europeans have a less jaundiced perspective: they appreciate the underlying causes of the problem there, and the rights and frustrations of the Palestinian people. Hope that 9/11 would occasion less partisan American engagement in the Middle East postponed surfacing of US-EU differences for a while. But as that hope proved forlorn, and as the aggressive tactics employed by Ariel Sharon’s government and the violent Palestinian response have led to a massive escalation in the region’s ‘dance of death’, Europe has spoken out.

In sharp contrast to Washington, which has pinned responsibility for the violence solely on Arafat, European leaders have condemned the confrontation which Sharon has provoked and made use of as a cover for his so-called retaliatory action, and described Arafat as ‘a partner to negotiate with’. They have also threatened to take legal action against the Israeli government for its destruction of EU-funded Palestinian infrastructure (a broadcasting station, Gaza airport, etc). As America increased the pressure on Arafat, Europe has increased its calls for a Palestinian state as the basic component of a comprehensive peace settlement.

International peacekeepers in Afghanistan, Camp X-ray, the Middle East have been major sources of discord between Europe and Washington. But by far the biggest stems from where the war on terror is going next. Hints by various members of the Bush administration that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq — the unfinished agenda of the first Bush presidency — could face military action, have been received with alarm by European leaders. They have made it clear they would not support such a widening of the war on terror. German Deputy Foreign Minister Ludger Volmer bluntly told Washington ‘this terror argument cannot be used to legitimize old enmities’.

President Bush’s State of the Union speech appears to have been the last straw for the Europeans. Calling Iraq, Iran and North Korea ‘an axis of evil’ has provoked a chorus of protest from Europe. Even the traditionally supportive Britain has spoken out against it — albeit in an almost apologetic manner. Foreign Secretary Jack Straw tried to explain the speech away as domestic electioneering [referring to next November’s Congressional elections], only to be corrected by Condoleeza Rice saying that the president meant everything he said.

The French have been characteristically more forthright in their criticism. Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine made a scathing attack on US foreign policy. “We are threatened today by a new simplism which consists in reducing everything to the war on terrorism. We cannot accept that idea. You have got to tackle the root causes, the situations, poverty, injustice.” He has accused Washington of approaching foreign policy “unilaterally, without consulting anyone, based on their own interpretation and on their interests”.

If Vedrine’s criticism was scathing, that by EU Commissioner for International Affairs Chris Patten was absolutely devastating. He echoed Vedrine’s comments by accusing the Bush administration of a dangerously “absolutist and simplistic” stance towards the rest of the world, stressing the need to tackle terrorism’s root causes and objecting to American ‘unilateralism’. Patten went even further: he called for Europe to have the courage to defy America and forge an international stance of its own, and urged it to stop Washington before it went into “unilateralist overdrive”. In effect, a call to arms against a new global menace: the United States.

As yet it is too early to say if Bush really meant the threats he made in the State of the Union address (and on subsequent occasions). Privately, some EU officials think it could just be a vote-winning ploy, or a or blustering to disguise the fact that Washington doesn’t know where to take its anti-terror war next. But the possibility that Bush if serious and that he does plan to mount an attack on Iraq, or, worse, on Iran, cannot be ruled out. Also, if he sticks to his policy of letting the Middle East burn and pushing Iran back into the hands of the Ayatollahs, the consequences will be disastrous.

Which is why Europe has to heed the warnings of Hubert Vedrine and Chris Patten. It has to take a united stand against America’s unilateralism. It has to remain engaged with Iran and back the reformist agenda. It has to put forward alternative solutions for the Middle East based on Palestinian statehood. It has to push for alleviation of poverty, deprivation and injustice that feed terrorism.

ENERGY pricing has become a major issue in Pakistan. In fact it is not only the basic price of the energy in all its forms which has become a contentious issue but also the taxation on it which has been becoming increasingly heavy.

And they are varied taxes beginning with the petroleum and natural gas surcharge which is to raise Rs 47 billion this year and ending with the sales tax of 15 per cent on power. When the world price of oil rises, and the taxation remains high or becomes higher, the hardships of the consumers increase further.

Discovery of more oil or larger gas reserves in Pakistan does not lead to a drop in prices of oil or gas. The oil companies which explore and then extract the oil have to be paid world prices and then pass them on to the consumers.

The government gets a large share of the revenues of its Oil and Gas Development Corporation wells and of other well in which it is a partner, but not the people. In this regard the people of Pakistan are treated far differently than the people of the Gulf states with their oil wells.

Energy prices are very important for us as they have a multiplier effect on prices as a whole. When oil or gas prices go up the people have to pay higher prices not only for them but also for all the products made by using them and the services which utilize such high cost energy. And transport cost, of course, goes up whether one owns a car or not or travels by bus.

The government is happy the high rate of inflation of the past has come down to around 5 or 6 per cent, while the people dispute that. But the government on its part is now pushing up the cost of living by raising the energy prices one way or another, and adding to the Consumer Price Index.

In the western countries energy is accepted as a basic need of the people rather than a luxury as the government tends to regard it in Pakistan. Hence the overall taxation on it is low there. The US until recently was known for its less than a dollar gallon petrol. They prefer to tax more what is produced using the cheap energy and its consumption.

But we have high taxes all along the line, and yet the overall tax revenues is low, primarily due to extensive evasion, and corruption in the tax departments. While the ex-refinery price of a litre of petrol is around Rs 10 the tax is about Rs. 16 to 17. So the ultimate sale price is around Rs 30 or rs 135 per gallon. In addition the government is determined to collect 15 per cent over all electricity bills except the