| January 12, 2003 | Sunday | Ziqa'ad 8, 1423 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
Sugarcane price row
Ministerial locomotion
PRESIDENT Pervez Musharraf’s remarks that isolated incidents will not be allowed to affect US-Pakistan relations negatively are timely. They come in the wake of the bombing of the abandoned madressah on the Pakistan-Afghan border and the controversy about “hot pursuit.” Speaking at a Pakistan-American symposium, the president said Pakistan and the US needed to have a “broad-based strategic vision.” More specifically, he said the two countries ought to have a political and economic relationship based on mutual trust and a broad understanding. There is no doubt that Pakistan and the US have come closer to each other in a manner no one could have foreseen before 9/11. The present warmth in their relationship is in sharp contrast to the situation that developed in the wake of the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan. Suddenly, the American president stopped issuing the annual certificate required under the Pressler Amendment, and all economic and military aid to Pakistan came to a halt in October 1990. The bilateral relationship hit a new low when the military elbowed out an elected government in October 1999. An indication of the American antipathy towards the military regime was the five-hour visit President Clinton paid to Pakistan as against his five-day Indian tour in 2000.
Under the changed circumstances since 9/11, relations between Pakistan and the US have been to the advantage of both. Pakistan provided air space and close military support to the US-led coalition against terror, while the US literally bailed out Islamabad economically. It not only lifted the sanctions imposed on Pakistan following the May 1998 nuclear tests, it also resumed economic aid and promised to increase the quota for Pakistani textile products. Recently also, the US agreed to resume arms sales. These are all healthy developments that serve the interests of both Pakistan and the US. However, what is needed is a long-term relationship that should not come to an end once America’s war on terror is over. Already, the crisis over Iraq and the speed of the American military build-up in the Gulf region show that the focus of America’s concerns is shifting. Islamabad would, thus, do well to assess its ties with Washington and try to base these on a more solid foundation. This is essential because Pakistan has not fine-tuned its relationship with the US since the end of the cold war.
Traditionally, Pakistan has been America’s friend and ally. What had brought them together were interests that, despite differences in shades, had many factors in common. While Pakistan needed to bolster its security, the US found Pakistan a useful link in its global network of anti-communist military alliances. That situation underwent a dramatic change in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union and the perceived dilution of Pakistan’s strategic value. However, it would be wrong to believe that Pakistan’s equation with the United States will suffer a similar fate after the current phase of America’s war on terror is over. The truth is that Pakistan’s geographical location is one of its enduring assets. Situated in proximity to Central Asia and the Gulf region, Pakistan can contribute to peace and stability in a region where America has vital economic and geopolitical interests. Unfortunately, the pull of this asset has been weakened by the country’s chaotic domestic situation and the mismanagement of its economy. A politically stable and economically vibrant Pakistan would be an ardently sought partner by all those nations interested in peace, progress and regional economic cooperation. Whether it is its quarrels with Iraq and Iran or its stakes in having friendly regimes in the oil sheikhdoms, the US is going to stay in the region. Pakistan would do well to set its house in order and develop itself economically and socially. America’s relationship with such a Pakistan will then not be dependent on the transient needs of crisis management or be vulnerable to incidents of the kind that occurred earlier this month in the border region. It needs to find a firmer footing in the enduring factor of mutual benefit, respect and understanding.
THE long-running dispute between sugar mill owners and growers in Sindh has come to a head, with both sides threatening drastic action in the days ahead. On Friday, the growers staged a sit-in near Nawabshah, blocking traffic on the National Highway for several hours. They were protesting against mill owners who they accuse of not paying them the agreed price for their produce. The growers have vowed to continue their protest until their demands are met. The owners, meanwhile, are threatening to shut down their mills if the crisis is not speedily resolved. They claim that they simply cannot afford to pay growers beyond the Rs 36 per 40 kilos of sugarcane that they are now giving and cannot meet the Rs 43 price fixed under an agreement reached between the two parties and the government on January 4. Ten sugar mills have challenged the government’s decision in the Sindh High Court. The growers point out that the owners are not only violating the January 4 agreement, but are not even paying the Rs 36 rate that they claim. They allege that the smaller growers are being forced to sell their crop for as little as Rs 28. With the sugar mills refusing to buy their produce, many growers have no option but to sell their crop at a loss in order to pay off loans taken to buy fertilizers and seeds. It is time the government intervened to break this deadlock which is badly affecting Sindh’s agricultural economy. The authorities should immediately bring the warring sides back to the negotiating table and thrash out a compromise that could at least hold for this season. Meanwhile, it is important that certain long-term steps are taken to finally bring some order to the complex and increasingly contentious issue of farm price control.
A REPORT says the Punjab government has decided to buy 60 new cars for ministers and “administrative secretaries” at a cost of Rs 72 million. The cars being used by the out-going ministers will be auctioned. The provincial governor had previously bought 20 new cars, 15 of which have been given to the new ministers. No one will disagree with the proposition that ministers must have cars to move around. But there are some 33 ministers in the Punjab cabinet while 60 plus the governor’s 15 makes 75 cars. Are all the rest meant for secretaries? Why should the latter have new cars anyway and what have they been using so far for their transportation? And were the previous ministerial cars in such a state that they have to be discarded? Better sense and judgment were expected from the chief minister, who should have put his foot down on this bit of unnecessary and wasteful expenditure. His ministers will not be judged by the number and make and shine of their cars but by their performance.
A country which is already under an unbearable debt burden as a result of financial mismanagement certainly needs to practise greater austerity to help put its finances in order. Provinces other than Punjab also cannot lay any strong claims to prudent spending, having already placed orders for new cars. Surely one of the tests of good governance lies in fulfilling promises of reining in needless consumption, and those in positions of authority can give a better account of themselves by demonstrating that they are at least making an attempt to achieve that goal.