Going after Iran?

IRAN has done well to invite Mohammad ElBaradei, chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency, to visit Tehran to sort out the “technical problems” relating to its nuclear programme. This is one more positive step Iran has taken to address western concerns about its nuclear plans. The Bushehr nuclear plant is open to international inspection and Tehran has repeatedly declared that it has no intention of making nuclear weapons. However, America seems to have succeeded in winning greater European and Russian support for its anti-Iran policy. In fact, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw made it clear during his recent talks in Tehran that the EU too wanted Iran to sign the additional IAEA protocol immediately and unconditionally. More surprising is the change in Russian policy. Even though it is Moscow which helped Tehran set up the Bushehr nuclear facility, Russian policy now seems designed to fall in line with Washington’s. On a five-day visit to Iran recently, Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said his country wanted Iran to sign the additional protocol as “a confirmation of the peaceful character of the Iranian nuclear programme.”

Iran’s nuclear plans have always been a thorn in Israel’s — and therefore America’s — side from the very beginning. However, the bogey of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction was drumbeaten for so long and with such schizophrenic frenzy and fury that all other questions had receded into the background. With the invasion and occupation of Iraq — without any legal or political justification, for no WMDs have been discovered there — American and Israeli fury has now turned on Iran. The IAEA also wants Iran to agree to tougher, intrusive and short-notice inspections and share more data with it. The IAEA may be an international agency paid for by the UN, but to an extent it seems to work for America’s benefit. If it was really concerned about preventing nuclear proliferation it should have demanded of Israel the same kind of “cooperation” and “compliance” which it wants from Iran. As is known, Israel is the only country in the Middle East that possesses chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Its nuclear weapons alone are estimated to number 400. However, those now pressuring Iran do not seem to have any qualms about ignoring the large stockpile of WMDs in Israel’s possession. Not only that, they believe in patronizing and rewarding Tel Aviv for its violations of all international treaties and protocols designed to check the spread of WMDs.

Israel, for instance, has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, while Iran has. Tehran now demands that since it is a signatory to the NPT, it is entitled to western help in seeking nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. However, Iran is unlikely to get it. In fact, as conveyed to Iran by the British foreign secretary, conditions imposed by the EU for normalizing relations with Tehran are quite tough. The EU, according to him, wants Iran to recognize Israel, break ties with anti-Israeli militias and improve human rights records. Obviously, these are tactics designed to keep Iran under pressure. Clearly, if Iraq’s fate is any pointer, WMDs are only a pretext for toppling a regime that is not acceptable to Israel. Even if Iran agrees to all the conditions regarding its nuclear programme, it is unlikely the western pressure on Tehran will cease. What America and the EU want is a total change in Iran’s policy, especially its attitude towards Israel. The nuclear issue is just a ploy for effecting a regime change in Iran.

Another unkind cut

THE federal government’s decision to further reduce the rate of return on National Savings Schemes (NSS) will be a set-back for small savers in general, and especially old-age pensioners. The rationale behind the government’s moves from time to time to lower the rate of return, which now stands as low as 8.5 per cent, is to reduce the cost of servicing its own internal debt. The rate cuts have been defended vigorously by several senior finance ministry officials, besides the State Bank governor, who have all said that it does not make sense to offer such high rates of return to savers at the expense of the exchequer. Their line of argument is that since most benchmark interest rates have been lowered to spur investment, it is only natural that rates of return on savings schemes, too, should be reduced. The final reason for the cutback is that designed actually to help pensioners, widows and other needy segments of society, the NSS has been widely misused by affluent investors attracted by its high rates of return.

The government might have a point when it says that the cost of servicing its debt has to be reduced. However, the fact of the matter is that such a reduction could also be obtained by cutting back on inessential and wasteful government expenditures which would spare genuine savers. As for the plea that profit-seeking investors make use of the scheme, this is nothing new and financial policy-makers have known this all along. To now use it as an excuse to reduce the rate of return, and hurt hundreds of thousands of small savers and old-age pensioners in the process, is not the right approach. In any case, it would be unrealistic to expect investors to ignore any savings scheme that offers an attractive rate of return. Senior citizens and pensioners, who have spent their best years in serving society, must be given the right kind of opportunity for earning an income out of hard-earned savings or else they might risk losing everything by placing their money in phoney investment schemes run by shady operators. National savings schemes are just the kind of avenue pensioners need. The new scheme for widows can also be expanded to include senior citizens. A mechanism, including perhaps a ceiling on the maximum amount to be invested by a small saver, could be put in place to prevent misuse by professional investors.

Bizarre new rule

THE Karachi city district government’s decision to give private contractors the right to clamp vehicles found parked in violation of parking rules is an excessive measure by all standards. Nowhere in the world do private contractors enjoy such powers. Under the existing rules, the traffic police alone are authorized to clamp or impound a vehicle if it is parked at a wrong place or hinders the flow of traffic. Private contractors are known to harass and fleece motorists stopping for a short while in the designated parking areas even if a driver is sitting at the wheel. This, too, only happens in Karachi; in the rest of the world you do not have to pay a parking fee unless you get off the car. The facility to park a vehicle temporarily for a few minutes with a driver sitting at the wheel is available at all public places universally, and the traffic police alone have the right to check violations.

The proposed measure defies all logic and is likely to be strongly resented by motorists. The agreements signed between the city government and the contractors absolve the latter of any responsibility in case of theft of, or damage to, a parked vehicle. That said, the question still remains: how will the contractors enforce their writ in cases where some motorists refuse to pay? Clearly, the flawed arrangement seems likely to involve unpleasant possibilities, including brawls and even worse between insistent contractors and defiant motorists. The whole idea is so bizarre and other-worldly that it is difficult to understand how such a thing could have occurred to any responsible person as a desirable, necessary and practical proposition in the first place.