| January 25, 2003 | Saturday | Ziqa’ad 21, 1423 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
Gas pipeline safety
A mismanaged affair
IT now seems to be a case of the Bush administration being pitted against the rest of the world. Never perhaps since the Suez crisis has a world consensus against war emerged as forcefully as in the present instance. In Europe, France and Germany have been vocal for quite some time in their opposition to an American military strike against Iraq. But, on Thursday, at a meeting in Brussels of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the French and German delegates joined hands to frustrate an American attempt to table a resolution that would get Nato to pledge military assistance to Washington in case of war. More categorical was the stance adopted in Berlin by President Jacques Chirac and Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder. Both said it was wrong to believe that war was unavoidable. Schroeder was specially firm and seemed to have returned to his strong anti-war stance which he had diluted after his election victory.
The extent of disagreement between France and Germany on one side and the US on the other is evident from the unusually strong reactions coming from both sides of the Atlantic. Donald Rumsfeld’s statement that Chirac’s and Schroeder’s views represented “old Europe” have evoked a negative reaction from Germany and France. By “old Europe”, the US defence secretary obviously meant that other centres of power had emerged in Europe and that Washington need not take the Franco-German opposition too seriously. Many European leaders have deplored Rumsfeld’s remarks and said he was trying to play off Eastern Europe against Western Europe. Sources say that many Nato countries are opposed to war and that the meeting in Brussels was “acrimonious.”
It also appears unlikely that the Security Council will pass a resolution authorizing military action against Iraq. The council’s president for the month, French Ambassador Jean-Marc de la Sabliere, said the majority of the council’s 15 members was opposed to a new resolution. Speaking as his country’s representative, and not as Security Council president, he said a new motion was not needed as long as the mechanism laid down by Resolution 1441 was producing results. Moreover, he said, the UN must first hear the inspectors’ report, due on Monday. Meanwhile, in Istanbul, heads of government from six Arab and Muslim countries met to work together to find a peaceful solution to the Iraq crisis. Called on the initiative of Turkish prime minister Abdulla Gul, the Istanbul meeting issued a communique that was characterized by moderation. While it called upon Baghdad to cooperate fully with the UN, the communique made it clear that the regional countries did not wish to “live through yet another war and all its devastating consequences.”
With China and Russia already known to favour a diplomatic solution, three of the Security Council’s five permanent members see no need or justification for a military move against Iraq. This means that entire Eurasia and the Middle East are opposed to war. This opposition to the Bush administration’s jingoistic policy is not confined to governments alone. Anti-war protests are taking place throughout the world. In America itself peace activists have made their voice heard. Opinion polls show Bush’s popularity standing with his own people is dwindling. A unilateral American attack will, thus, mean that Washington will swim against the tide of world opinion. One hopes the hawks around President Bush will pause for a moment to realize what the consequences of a war will be not only for the Middle East, but for America’s own long-term interests in the region.
THE supply of gas to Punjab and the NWFP remained suspended for a third day following the rocket attack on two pipelines near Rajanpur on Tuesday. To make matters worse, the repaired pipeline caught fire again when the gas supply was being restored. Meanwhile, domestic consumers and industry in the northern parts of the country have continued to be deprived of gas supplies during what has been a particularly severe cold spell. The authorities are planning to impose night curfew in the area to prevent further attacks on the installations. Initially, the attack on the pipelines were seen as part of the on-going tribal clashes between the Bugti and Mazari tribes. However, the attacks could also be part of a long chain of similar incidents in the area. The Bugti tribes in the vicinity of Sui, where the country’s largest gas fields are located, have been agitating for many years for more jobs in the gas fields and other perks and privileges. In July last year, there was a tense stand-off between the tribesmen and paramilitary troops, following a series of attacks on the installations. The authorities say that such attacks are a form of blackmail to pressure the government to give in to the tribesmen’s demands.
The Sui gas and oilfields are a vital national asset that must be protected at all costs. The poor law and order situation in the area has deterred companies from carrying out further exploration work which could bring development and job opportunities to this backward area. It is essential, however, that the fruits of development should conform to an equitable pattern of distribution among all the people of the area. The government must move away from its current policy of appeasing the sardars and find a way to directly reach the common people. The power of patronage bestowed by this policy allows such retrogressive forces to remain entrenched in the area. The authorities must also ensure that locals are not overlooked in the process, a factor that often fuels resentment and strengthens the hands of powerful chieftains who see development as a threat to their absolute power.
THE send-off in honour of the Pakistan cricket team at Lahore’s Gaddafi Stadium on Thursday seemed to be a most ill-planned and disorganized affair. Although the spirit behind the event — to display solidarity with the team ahead of the World Cup series in South Africa — was laudable, things took an ugly turn when thousands of people forced their way into the main arena to have a glimpse of the players. In the melee that ensued, a number of cricketers could not even come on to the stage. This wild display of enthusiasm by cricket fans should have been anticipated as it was not unexpected. Nor was the spectacle of young enthusiasts being swept off their feet on such an occasion. Such ebullient behaviour is very much a part of our cultural milieu. However, the most unseemly aspect was the display of hooliganism by some elements in the crowd and the ensuing police baton charge to control the situation. The police action resulted in injuries to scores of spectators. Thus, what was supposed to be an occasion of joy and pleasure turned into a nightmare for many, leaving a bad taste in the mouth. If only a little attention had been paid to better management, security and regulation, the ugly situation could have been avoided. After all, the cricket team’s World Cup send-off function had been extensively publicized and the local administration had been informed well in advance that a huge turnout was expected. The administration should have anticipated the response and made adequate arrangements for crowd management. Knowing the popularity of the game and guided by the public mood during past cricketing events, practical steps should have been taken to ensure that people remained disciplined during the show.