Targeting Iran too?

IS the United States now going to go after Iran after the Iraq job is over? The question is pertinent, given the fact that precisely at this moment bombs and missiles are raining on Iraq despite Baghdad’s full cooperation with the UN inspectors and the International Atomic Energy Agency. Iran is, of course, a member of George Bush’s so-called “axis of evil” — so is North Korea. In the latter’s case, however, Washington has refrained from showing the same trigger-happy approach that it seems to reserve for Muslim countries. Instead, Washington has offered to settle the issue by a dialogue. Would it be too much to expect America to follow the same policy toward Iran and have its concerns removed by recourse to inspections and diplomacy?

Earlier this week, IAEA chief Mohammad ElBaradei’s statement on Iran’s nuclear facilities contained nothing that could be construed as his indictment of Iran. The IAEA chief merely said that the gas centrifuge enrichment pilot plant at Natanz was nearly operational. Also under construction nearby was an enrichment facility — nothing that could even remotely be linked to the production of nuclear weapons. Iran’s nuclear plans are open to international inspections. ElBaradei and his colleagues visited these facilities and made no complaints that they were denied access to any sites. Yet his words sounded a little ominous when he asked Iran to sign the IAEA’s “additional protocol” to give his agency freer access. This is a little scary and sounds very similar to the line the US and US-controlled international agencies have pursued against Iraq. Nothing satisfied them. Baghdad had made all its facilities open to UN inspectors and to the IAEA. Yet Iraq has been attacked. Is ElBaradei’s insistence on the “additional protocol” going to set the stage for America doing another Iraq — this time to Iran?

It is time America knew that by ignoring Israel’s stockpile of nuclear weapons, Washington has destroyed its moral right to object to any other Middle Eastern country having weapons of mass destruction. It is not that America has merely ignored Israel’s WMDs; it and some other western powers have actively helped Israel develop WMDs and rewarded it with money, arms and diplomatic support. By a conservative estimate, Israel possess 400 nuclear weapons — some of them submarine-based. One could have perhaps looked the other way if these weapons were for Israel’s defence. Instead, the history of the last half a century shows Israel has predatory instincts. It has repeatedly attacked all its neighbours, and has remained in illegal possession of their territories in violation of UN resolutions. It has no intention of withdrawing from Gaza, the West Bank and Golan Heights (which it has annexed). To pave the way for gobbling up Palestinian territories, Tel Aviv has scuttled the Oslo peace process and re-occupied the West Bank and Gaza. Yet America has continued to ignore the possession of these WMDs in the hands of this land-grabbing, expansionist country.

Iran has no such record. It has attacked no country. In fact, in 1980, it was Iran which was a victim of Saddam’s aggression partly at the instance of America. Yet the US and Israel are both taking a malicious interest in Iran’s nuclear plans despite their transparency. By offering talks to Pyongyang while launching an attack on Iraq, has not America compromised its credentials with the Muslim world? It insists that its war on terror is not against the Muslim world. But going by the actual policies Washington is pursuing, Muslims the world over will accept such claims only with a big pinch of salt.

Afghanistan’s worst fear

AS bombs begin to rain on Baghdad, the US and its allies are already promising a massive post-war reconstruction programme in Iraq. This talk of an injection of billions of dollars into Iraq has provoked an acute sense of deja vu in Afghanistan. Less than two years ago, Afghanistan was the main front in the US-led war against terror and, for a few heady months, was the central focus of Washington’s attention. After the fall of the Taliban regime, the Afghans were promised $ 4.5 billion in aid over a period of five years to help reconstruct and rehabilitate the war-ravaged country. Recently, Afghan President Hamid Karzai pointed out that even this sum was inadequate given the scale of Afghanistan’s problems and that the country needed at least $ 15 to $ 20 billion for reconstruction work. The prospects of such a vast sum being made available to Afghanistan seem increasingly dim. The US has shifted its attention to Iraq, leaving the Afghans feeling left out in the cold for the second time in recent history.

The donors blame the poor law and order situation as the main stumbling block in the way of reconstruction and rehabilitation. The writ of the Karzai government remains virtually confined to Kabul, while the rest of the country is firmly under the control of squabbling warlords who remain a law unto themselves. With no central army or proper police force, the Karzai government is unable to take on the warlords. Given the lack of progress in rebuilding the war-ravaged country, many Afghans are beginning to fear that history is repeating itself and that their country is being abandoned as was the case in the eighties following the withdrawal of Soviet occupation forces. Leaving the country to its fate led to a long and bloody civil war following which the war weary people turned to the Taliban as saviours. The Taliban allowed Afghanistan to become a hotbed of terrorist activities, ultimately culminating in the September 11 attacks on the US. Washington must take time off from its Iraq adventure and fulfil its responsibilities towards Afghanistan. The alternative is to see Afghanistan slide back into anarchy — something this volatile region simply cannot afford.

Higher than elsewhere

RAWALPINDI’s district nazim has highlighted a worrying social trend in his area: the population growth rate in the district is a good half per cent higher than the national average. Speaking at a local seminar on population, he revealed that population growth in his district was 2.6 per cent as compared to the national figure of 2.1 per cent. Equally disturbing is the fact that 43 per cent of the district’s population is below the age of 15. As the nazim rightly pointed out, the high population growth not only hinders development in the district but makes the job of economic planning well nigh impossible. The population pressure exerts pressure on everything else — resources, social and health services and employment opportunities.

If Rawalpindi district is not to lag behind other districts in terms of development and progress, it will need to reduce the pace of its population growth rate and bring it down to at least the national level if not even lower. The nazim has placed the responsibility of creating awareness and checking the high population growth rate on the union council nazims. This objective can best be achieved with the collaboration and assistance of the Ministry of Population Welfare and the provincial department of population welfare. It has been internationally recognized that the population problem has to be tackled from the angle of family planning service delivery as well as from an approach focusing on the welfare of the individual. The latter orientation involves recognizing the important linkage between population stabilization and socio-economic development, gender equality, empowerment of women, and as the Rawalpindi district nazim himself pointed out, the increased involvement of men in family planning. Given the respect for religious leaders and scholars, the nazim also rightly stressed the importance of involving this section in future programmes aimed at controlling the population growth.