The Russian invitation

PAKISTAN has done well to accept Mr Putin’s invitation to President Musharraf and Prime Minister Vajpayee to attend a summit meeting of some Asian nations at Almaty in Kazakhstan early next month. Speaking in the presence of President Bush in Saint Petersburg, the Russian president hoped that the two South Asian leaders would be able to make it to Almaty so as to talk to lessen tension between their two countries. While the Russian leader regretted the latest missile tests by Pakistan, he hoped that when the Pakistani and Indian heads of government are in Almaty “we can discuss the matter here and prevent further escalation of the conflict.” A note of optimism was injected into the situation when President Bush said he believed President Musharraf and Prime Minister Vajpayee will be there at Almaty.

As was only to be expected, Pakistan’s foreign office spokesman welcomed the Russian proposal and stressed that Islamabad had always believed that all outstanding issues between the two countries should be solved through talks. The Indian reaction to the Putin initiative has not come as a surprise, for it is in line with New Delhi’s strange reluctance to talk to Pakistan on contentious issues with it, especially Kashmir. Reacting to the Russian invitation, the Indian external affairs ministry spokeswoman did say that Mr Vajpayee would be attending the Almaty summit but ruled out the possibility of a direct meeting between him and President Musharraf.

Does India realize that diplomatically its position is wholly untenable? The whole world is asking Pakistan and India to talk, and while doing so most world capitals have maintained strict impartiality between the two sides. Even countries like the US and some members of the European Union which are Pakistan’s allies in the current war on terrorism have carefully avoided tilting towards Pakistan on the issue. On the contrary, there is relentless pressure on Islamabad from all sides to “do more” to rein in the terrorist groups and prevent them from causing trouble in held Kashmir. In doing so, however, they have also called upon India to exercise restraint and initiate talks with a view to de-escalation along the common border. To all these exhortations India has turned a deaf ear, apparently wanting to maintain tension along the border to keep Pakistan on the defensive during the current confrontation. This simply will not work. Pakistan refuses to be browbeaten: it has made it clear that it will not abandon its principled position of moral, political and diplomatic support for the Kashmiri people in their struggle for self-determination.

The invitation from Moscow is from a country that has been New Delhi’s traditional friend and ally. For that reason, it is Pakistan which could have hesitated before accepting the Putin invitation. That Islamabad should have responded promptly and positively to the Russian move shows Pakistan’s peaceful intentions. About 35 years ago, in the wake of the Indo-Pakistan war of 1965, the Soviet Union had taken a similar initiative to bring the two belligerent powers together and secured an agreement between them. Even though the Tashkent Declaration was highly unpopular in Pakistan, it did avert a second round of fighting between the two sides on Kashmir. Good sense and realism require New Delhi to respond positively to Mr Putin’s invitation, so that the two South Asian leaders are able to meet and talk with a view to pulling their troops back and resuming the Agra process to solve all disputes and differences, including Kashmir, plaguing their relations all these years.

Row over tariffs

A serious row has broken out between the US and a number of developed countries over the sharp rise in steel tariffs recently imposed by the Bush administration. The 30 per cent increase has provoked howls of outrage, prompting the EU to take the matter to the World Trade Organization. The EU seeks to determine whether the increase represents a violation of WTO rules. A number of other countries, including Japan, China, Brazil, South Korea, New Zealand and Switzerland have also threatened to join the EU in taking action against the US. These countries say that Washington is imposing barriers simply to protect its inefficient steel industry. The US, for its part, argues that the WTO allows such protectionist measures in certain cases to safeguard an industry threatened by imports. Critics of the move, however, attribute political motives to the raising of tariffs arguing that the step has been taken to appease the strong domestic steel lobby. Fears are that such protectionism will beget more protectionism. Already, some countries like Japan have raised their tariffs to reduce steel imports from the US, with the EU and China seriously considering taking similar steps. The US is currently trying to block the setting up of a WTO panel that would look into the EU’s complaints. What has irked many is that a country that projects itself as a champion of free trade and liberalization should rush to unilaterally raise protectionist barriers when its narrow interests are at stake. It is actions of this nature that fuel suspicions in the Third World and among anti-globalization activists. It is a sad reflection on the emerging unjust world order that while poor countries are pressured into pulling down trade barriers, more powerful nations feel free to resort to protectionism when it suits their interests.

Restrictions for heavy vehicles

THE Supreme Council of All Pakistan Transporters has made it known that it would not abide by a directive of Karachi’s Nazim banning the movement of heavy goods vehicles within the city limits from 7 am to 9 am and from 4 pm to 8 pm. The transporters have three objections. One, that the oil depots they service are not open round the clock and, second, that the ban creates a security problem for them in that they then have to travel through interior Sindh after dark. The third is that any such ban should also apply to tankers of the National Logistics Cell, a point that can hardly be disputed. However, the benefits of the ban are significant and far-reaching. The heavy traffic that passes through Karachi’s main thoroughfares not only drastically reduces the lifespan of these roads, motorists and motorcyclists who travel on them are much inconvenienced by the problems of congestion and pollution.

Heavy vehicles are in fact some of the worst emitters of smoke and other toxic substances, affecting the health of the people living along the routes and of school-going children in particular. The decision of the Nazim is clearly aimed at reducing the incidence of these problems. In any case, such restrictions have been put in place in the past without any serious harm to the transporters’ or their clients’ business interests. Besides, major cities all over the world have such restrictions and there is no reason why Karachi’s residents should be deprived of the benefits of these measures. The city government should, however, try to persuade the transporters to abide by the restrictions in the larger public interest.