| September 2, 2003 | Tuesday | Rajab 4, 1424 |
Tasman Spirit in a nuclear setting
Personal guarantee is not enough
LFO tug-of-war to lead to anarchy: Nasrullah
Your twelve days are up, Mr Mahar
CAN we, or rather should we, boast of being a nuclear power after our shocking incompetence in dealing effectively with such occasional occurrences as the Tasman Spirit spillage or natural disturbances such as the recent heavy rains? Sindh stands as a grim testimony to the dismal collapse of any system of damage control.
On August 19, after attending a briefing organized by the Karachi Port Trust, Sindh Chief Minister Sardar Ali Mohammad Khan Mahar, declared that the “glory of Seaview and Clifton would be restored in 12 days”. Those 12 days end today. The glory of Karachi’s beaches has not been restored. The spilling of the crude oil from the Maltese registered tanker Tasman Spirit has not stopped. Who should we hold responsible?
LAST week, President Musharraf was reported to have said in Hyderabad, Sindh, that in a year or two, Pakistan must be in a position to lend money to some poor countries instead of borrowing. One wonders if this is not an overly optimistic expectation. On the same day the Asian Development Bank unveiled its quarterly update in Islamabad. According to the Bank report appeared in an English daily the level of poverty had deteriorated further to 32.1 per cent in 2001-2002 against 30.6 per cent in 1998-1999.
What was worse, according to the newspaper’s report, was that the poverty had increased despite government revision of the poverty definitions — by reducing the standard per capita Recommended Dietary Allowance from 2550 to 2350. This was done in order to yield lower poverty estimates.
The ADB is not the only organization painting a gloomy picture about the poverty situation. Last week, another Lahore- based English daily published the results of a recent survey conducted in 15 Punjab districts, which revealed that 84 per cent of the population were categorized under the “very poor” and “poor” groups (33 per cent very poor, 51 per cent poor) while only 16 per cent were in the “better off” and “well off” groups. The survey, conducted by a Lahore-based NGO and the Punjab Planning and Development Department, was part of the research being carried out on poverty under the Pakistan Participatory Poverty Assessment Programme.
In some ways, it is puzzling why poverty has not reduced. There does not seem to be a dearth of poverty alleviation projects in Pakistan. Nor is there a shortage of organizations (international and local) pledging their commitment to poverty eradication. The World Bank, the IMF, the ADB, the United Nations Development Programme, the United Nations Development Fund for Women, and the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) are some of the foreign agencies that have been running one poverty alleviating scheme or the other in Pakistan since the 1990s.
The prominent projects include the World Bank’s Pakistan Poverty Alleviation Fund (PPAF), established in 1997; the IMF’s Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility (PRGF), established in 1999; and the Balochistan Community Irrigation and Agriculture Project (funded by the World Bank and the Netherlands government). The World Bank has also been involved in conducting studies and research on poverty in Pakistan under the programme called the Pakistan Participatory Poverty Assessment (PPPA) in 1994, 1998 and in 2001-2002.
There is also a host of local NGOs, many of them established during the 1980s and 1990s, which are aimed at promoting sustainable development and eradicating poverty. These include the Aga Khan Rural Support Programme (1986), the National Rural Support Programme (1991), Punjab Rural Support Programme, Sarhad Rural Support Programme, ePoor.org, Sindh Education Foundation (1992) Sindnet (1994), Sachet (1999), the Lachi Poverty Reduction Project, ActionAid Pakistan, Northern Area Development Project, Karakuram Area Development Programme, Khidmat Foundation, , he Society for Community Awareness and Mobilization Balochistan (1998), Bunyad, Asianics International, etc.
In addition, according to one report there are some 6,000 NGOs known to be registered with the Social Welfare Department of the Punjab government, all of them engaged in different welfare activities. Then there are also the national social welfare programmes like the Zakat Fund, the Baitul Mal, Khushal Pakistan Programme, the Food Support Programme, and the Microfinance Bank.
Given the above armoury arrayed against poverty, one would have thought that it would have been reduced somewhat by now. Instead, the combined effect of all the above organizations on poverty has been a drop in the ocean. So what is the problem?
The Bank last week pointed the finger at several factors, including the slow creation of more employment opportunities, the continued political uncertainty in the country and, most interesting of all, the poor implementation capacity of the government. As evidence of the latter, ADB cited several cases: one, it had funded the establishment of 300 middle schools during the last three years mostly in Sindh, Balochistan and NWFP but only 30 were operational; two, 6,000 other facilities financed by the Bank in the Punjab are not functional; three, a $100 million fund allocated for rural development has been lying unutilized for the past five years.
It is obvious from the above that there needs to be a more stringent scrutiny of the management of public sector financial resources, particularly with respect to increasing the accountability and transparency in budgeting and spending of public funds to achieve programme results.
It is also obvious that the reconstruction of the local government by the federal government to make the former an effective governance and development unit through the devolution of power and the decentralization of administrative authority is not quite working as planned.
Part of the problem lies in the fact that the devolution plan brought into power at the grass-roots level people who are generally untrained in the art of public sector administration and management. The other major problem, of course, is nagging corruption.
Not that development work was being carried out any more efficiently under the old district management system, although it must be said that the people manning that system were supposed to be professionally trained in public management. A combination of abuse of power, corruption and official inertia was responsible for leaving behind a trail of ghost schools and unmanned basic health units in the past, apart from a lot more else of underdevelopment.
Replacing an old system with a new or rehashed one doesn’t guarantee delivery of programme results. Neither does pumping in funds into the social sector alone guarantee the eradication of poverty. To ensure results, first the values of the society need to be changed, particularly those values pertaining to corruption, human dignity, justice, peace and freedom.
Only when the importance of such principles of humane governance are recognized in the society, and the accountability of political structures are enhanced through strengthening the rule of law, the independence of the judiciary and the effective securing of human rights, particularly by vulnerable groups like the poor, women and children, can any reform of public sector management hope to result in developing good governance, and hence, in a reduction in poverty.
Recent reports indicate that more funds are pouring in left and right into the social sector. The US will give a $3 billion aid package over a five-year period, of which according to the finance minister, half will be spent on the social sector.
The UNDP, under a gender support programme, will be contributing Rs1 billion over a five-year period. The World Bank, it is being reported, is expected to provide $5 billion over the next five years for various reforms.
This in effect means Pakistan will continue to be a borrower for the next five years. The generous foreign funding notwithstanding, unless there is sufficient political will and determination to change the status quo in society and break the vicious circle of corruption and bureaucratic inertia, at the end of the day, poverty will not reduce and a more just and equitable society will not develop.
The Tasman Spirit, split in the middle and spewing poisonous cargo, for over a month after it ran aground, is an insult to the intelligence of our experts, civil and military, and evidence of their inability at crisis management. Mere PR gimmicks coupled with a medley of vague and mutually contradictory statements from the minister concerned to the naval head of the KPT kept the public hoping for the best until the stink of the disaster overtook the best part of Karachi along the shores of the Arabian Sea.
Perhaps the only redeeming feature of a sinking ship is that she takes her own time to disintegrate and go under. She releases toxic matter slowly and not too quickly to contaminate the atmosphere and infect the life around. There is no bang.
Now consider a nuclear strike. It comes like the Doomsday trumpet to smother all other sounds and vaporize everything, animate and inanimate, within the radius of its impact. Depending on the tonnage of the bomb the radius may extend to a whole mega city like Karachi or Mumbai to kill and destroy everything within it and beyond through radiation depending on the wind direction.
The late General K. Sundarji in his ‘Blind Men of Hindoostan — Indo-Pak Nuclear War’, projects a strikingly lurid description of the initial impact of an imagined nuclear strike: “Two of the bridgeheads that had a larger concentration (of forces) were attacked by multiple nuclear warheads completely decimating them (the forces securing the bridgehead). The tactical headquarters of the Indian 2 Corps and parts of a reserve division both located in Pak territory (manning the bridgehead) were also nuked. The total dead exceeded 10,000 in the tactical battle area.
“Around the same time, 20 kiloton weapons (approximating those dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki) were dropped on Jodhpur airfield and the civilian dead in Jodhpur were over 80,000, according to initial estimates...”.
The scenario painted by Sunderji is based on the sober assessment of a ‘thinking’ general and a former Indian army chief. The loss of life estimated by the general might well look somewhat modest at a glance. The figure of 10,000 quoted relates to a brigade group or an infantry division about 17- 18,000-strong, that is, more than half of it killed straightaway, not to speak of those wounded or disabled. In the case of the Jodhpur airfield with surrounding villages and helmets, the figure shoots up to 80,000. In the case of megacities like Karachi, Kolkatta, Mumbai, etc, it would be in terms of megadeaths.
Now something about the fallout of a nuclear strike even in a 15 KT mode. An atomic explosion releases energy (devastating, vaporising firepower) in three forms, blast, thermal radiation (heat) and nuclear radiation. The blast is a ‘high-powered wind’ swept away from the point of impact (explosion). It is caused by a sudden increase in the pressure around the area of the blast, leading to ‘over-pressure’. According to an Illinois University study (Asia’s Day After: A Nuclear War Between India and Pakistan by Rashid Naim), most of the material damage caused by a typical nuclear explosion on the surface (a la Hiroshima/Nagasaki) at low or moderate altitudes in the air is caused directly or indirectly by the shock or blast wave which accompanies the explosion. The magnitude of the blast effect depends on the yield of the weapon and the height of the burst.
A second type of destructive energy released by a nuclear explosion is thermal radiation. Thermal radiation causes incalculable fire damage and personal injury. ‘The vertical updraft of heated air may cause a fire-storm made worse by existing winds. Temperatures can exceed 1,000 degrees C.
A nuclear explosion releases direct radiation and fallout. Direct nuclear radiation is a ‘stream of atomic particles which can be injurious or fatal to a human being depending on the extent of the exposure. Fallout is nuclear radiation caused by contaminated debris lifted by the explosion and carried by the wind to other areas...’.
The relevant study was done in the mid-80s. The capacity of missile/bomb nuclear power to inflict damage has increased by leaps and bounds since then. It’s one thing, therefore, to wax eloquent about the acquisition of nuclear power but quite another to make a serious and scientific assessment of our own capacity and resources for crisis management.
The havoc wrought by the rains in Sindh followed by the Tasman Spirit disaster should act as a rude eye-opener about our inept handling of a crisis and the inadequacy of resources available for damage control. Our failure at the bureaucratic, technocratic and human levels was underscored. Although we have our own C-130 transports, none was equipped properly to undertake a decontamination operation over the area of the oil spillage in Karachi. Accordingly we had to hire one from Singapore.
At the humanitarian level, the national response to the crisis was regrettably poor. Even at the level of the top leadership, the prime minister, on arrival in Karachi from his tour of Saudi Arabia, skipped even a short drive to the Clifton beach. The president, along with the corps commander, appeared in a news photograph surveying the scene of disaster from the Clifton wall.
The rain havoc and Tasman Spirit episode should persuade us to make a serious reappraisal of our status as a nuclear power in terms of our resources and capacity for crisis management and damage control.
The writer is a retired brigadier of the Pakistan Armys
COMMENTING on the president’s Sindh tour, Awami Awaz writes that instead of focussing on efforts to resolve the Legal Framework Order issue, Gen Pervez Musharraf has opted for launching a consensus campaign on the Kalabagh dam project.
In this respect, the president has held meetings with irrigation experts, farmers’ representatives, intellectuals and MPAs in Karachi and Hyderabad. In these meetings, he has said that he is protecting the interests of Sindh and nobody will be allowed to deny the province its rights including its water share, while he is in power.
The daily says that it seems that Wapda and a particular lobby are using the president by misguiding him on the water issue with the help of concocted facts and figures. And even if the president’s personal guarantee is accepted, what if Punjab takes undue advantage of the Kalabagh dam afterwards when he is no longer in power.
The daily says that the 56-year-old history of the water dispute, which is full of instances like the filling of the floodwater Chashma-Jehlum Link Canal with the normal flow of the Indus, compels one to think that the president’s personal guarantee will not be enough to make water-starved Sindh accept the dam. Therefore, the president should not insist on the dam project and instead work on the Thal canal should be stopped until the technical and political committees on the water issue present their recommendations.
Ibrat writes that on the arrival of the president at the Mehran University of Engineering and Technology, women protesters were baton-charged and some journalists were arrested. It says that the government claims to uphold the freedom of expression but the incident suggests that the people are not free to register their protest.
Kawish says that the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Hyderabad, has issued marks certificates of only 25 per cent of science students and these too are full of errors. This is despite the fact that only a few days are left for the tests for admission to medical colleges. The health department should order the board to immediately issue marks certificates and in the meantime postpone admission test, the paper says.
Tameer-i-Sindh says that the formation of an alliance by the taluka/town Nazims of Sindh reveals that the local government system is still mired in confusion and power has still not been devolved to grassroots.
Sach asks Hesco to improve its service instead of focussing on a power supply disconnection drive.
LAHORE, Sep1: The following is the edited text of the Dawn Dialogue interview:
Question: The struggle against martial law and for strengthening democracy has been going on for the past four decades. But when we look at the outcome, the situation remains unchanged. Military interventions could not be prevented, and the democratic system is as fragile as ever. How will you explain the failure of political parties on this front and your own failure as the leader of almost all opposition movements?
Answer: There are several reasons responsible for the present state of affairs. Unlike India, which had the leadership of Mr Nehru for quite some time after partition and which framed its constitution early on, Pakistan experienced a completely different situation. The Quaid-i-Azam’s untimely death created a serious leadership gap here. Nawabzada Liaquat Ali Khan assumed chairmanship of the Muslim League but the party remained cut off from the masses. This provided the bureaucracy an ideal opportunity to fill the vacuum. A game of musical chairs started. The framing of the constitution was delayed. The induction of General Ayub Khan as defence minister in the cabinet developed in the army a taste for power, and subsequent military interventions were motivated by this ‘taste’. The present situation in the country may be likened to an armed person taking the inmates of a house hostage. Of course, the nation would not like to be held captive, but the powerful man is calling the shots. I admit that apparently the political parties have not been able to overpower dictators, but it is possible to draw a parallel between our experience and that of the Congress and the Muslim League during the Raj: though they could not attain their objective for 100 years, they never recognized the Raj. Thus, the political parties’ consistent struggle must be recognized.
Q: It is alleged that your own role in various periods also contributed to destabilizing the system. For example, you joined hands with Mian Nawaz Sharif to oust Ms Benazir Bhutto and then worked with the PPP chairperson to oust Mr Sharif. These days you are taking both the parties along to work against a new set of people in power.
A: Let me correct you here. This is not the right conclusion. It was in 1988 when after the elections I addressed the Multan Bar and proposed that the PPP and the PML should form a coalition to overcome the alienation caused by 11 years of Gen Zia’s misrule. I cited the example of Israel where rival Labour and Likud parties had formed a coalition to revive the national economy. I thought that if the two parties joined hands, they would be able to solve most of the country’s problems and as partners in power, the bitterness of the past between them would also vanish.
I had just concluded my speech when a lawyer stood up to ask as to who would play the role of the opposition in case both the major parties formed a coalition. I told him that this humble worker would be there to discharge that duty. Now, I’ll take a few minutes to recall how Ms Bhutto had got power in 1988. The PPP had got over 90 seats against the PML’s 50 plus. The then president Ghulam Ishaq Khan phoned me in Muzaffargarh and asked me over to Islamabad for consultations. I was planning to fly to the federal capital when Ms Bhutto sent Sardar Farooq Leghari and Rao Rashid to me with a message that before calling on GIK, I should meet her. I agreed.
But, unfortunately, my flight got delayed and when I landed at Islamabad airport it was about time to meet GIK. I told the PPP leaders who had come to the airport to receive me that I would now meet BB after calling on the president. I drove to the presidency where Mr Ishaq Khan asked me who should be invited to form the government as no party had a clear majority. I told him that even a primary school student would know that a party with 92 seats had a stronger claim to power. I also told GIK that the people’s mandate should be respected to avoid re-emergence of an East Pakistan-like situation. On my return from the presidency, I met Ms Bhutto who told me that she was being denied power. I advised her that she should tell the president that she was not a candidate and he was free to hand over power to anyone he liked. I offered this advice because I was convinced that GIK had no option but to transfer power to Ms Bhutto. The PPP chairperson agreed with my advice but shortly thereafter rushed to General Headquarters (GHQ) to hold talks with the military leadership. She was offered power on the condition that she would retain Ghulam Ishaq Khan as president and Sahabzada Yaqub Khan as foreign minister. In fact, initially the army was in no mood to hand over power to Ms Bhutto. But then it attached these ‘strings’ to keep her under control.
Mian Nawaz Sharif came to ask me that I should persuade Maulana Fazlur Rehman to become a candidate for the office of the prime minister and the PML would support him. I refused, saying he should talk to the JUI leader directly. I was a candidate for the office of president. Ghulam Ishaq Khan was the rival candidate. The then ISI chief, Gen Hameed Gul, met me and told me that the army wanted to retain GIK as head of state and I should withdraw my candidature. I told him that I would stay in the field, no matter what decision was taken by the army. BB became prime minister and before the election of the president, she told me that she was left with no option but to support GIK. The point I want to make is that both the PPP and the PML opposed me in the election for president. My differences with the PPP started when Mir Zafarullah Khan Jamali, then Balochistan chief minister, got the provincial assembly dissolved because he could not muster a majority. I, ANP leader Wali Khan and JUI leader Maulana Fazlur Rehman met Ms Bhutto and protested at the development. She told us that she had nothing to do with the decision and assured us that if the matter was challenged in court, the government would not oppose the petition. We took the matter to the Balochistan High Court where, contrary to Ms Bhutto’s commitment, then attorney-general Yahya Bakhtiar spoke for three days in favour of the dissolution.
Q: You have always said that you don’t oppose anyone for personal reasons. But after the dissolution of the Balochistan Assembly, a decision that was reversed by the court, you continued to oppose Ms Bhutto till her government was sacked in 1990.
A: I was the staunchest opponent of the dissolution of the 1990 assembly. I remember that Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi, myself, Nawab Akbar Bugti, Mian Nawaz Sharif, Ghulam Haider Wyne, Maulana Fazlur Rehman, Agha Murtaza Poya and some other leaders held a meeting in Lahore. They wanted the BB government and the assemblies dismissed, but I disagreed. I proposed that we should send president Ishaq Khan a resolution that we will oppose the sacking of the legislature. After arguments and counter- arguments, the other leaders supported my point of view. But GIK was determined to pack up the assembly and he did it. Mian Nawaz Sharif supported the president’s action.
Q: What was the cause of your differences with Mian Nawaz Sharif?
A: Nawaz Sharif was aspiring to become prime minister on account of the support he enjoyed in Punjab. He turned against me because he thought I would support Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi for the slot. Since the 1990 elections were rigged, I raised a voice against malpractices. I was right to do so, or else there was no justification for us to have opposed the rigging of the 1977 elections. I can’t go against my past.
Q: When the ruling coalition, the courts and the National Assembly speaker have accepted the LFO as part of the Constitution, why don’t you respect their opinion and let the system work smoothly?
A: While referring to those supporting the LFO, you should not forget that all bar associations have rejected the package of constitutional amendments. They have repeatedly said that the Supreme Court itself did not have the power to amend the Constitution and thus it could not delegate any such authority to an individual. The entire nation is opposed to the LFO. Even Gen Musharraf has accepted that as a matter of principle the offices of president and army chief should not be with the same person but he is having to combine them in view of the requirements of the situation. This only vindicates our point of view. The general should let the nation know if all presidents everywhere should put on army uniforms before talking to their military leaderships.
Q: Are you not undermining the authority of the courts, parliament and the National Assembly speaker by refusing to accept the LFO as a component of the Constitution?
A: These institutions don’t exist and therefore there is no question of their authority being undermined. We don’t have any system in the country at present. The present situation is worse than military rule. It is like painting dictatorship as democracy. The situation will not change with the rulers’ insistence that the present system is democratic. If a cock crows at midnight, it doesn’t mean that it’s morning.
Q: A senior PML-N leader said at the Independence Day rally that opposition parties should not let the government bring the LFO into parliament till election of the president is first held to complete the parliament’s composition. Do you agree with this point of view?
A: We don’t accept the LFO at all as it changes the very basic structure of the Constitution. And let me tell you that the basic structure of the Constitution can’t be changed even by the entire parliament. For that purpose parliament will have to seek a fresh mandate from the electorate.
Q: What will be the possible end of the present tug-of-war between the government and opposition parties?
A: I think we are heading towards anarchy, complete destruction. The future of the democratic system is bleak. The man who calls himself president — though we don’t recognize him as such — is supposed to be the symbol of national unity. But the other day he encouraged some ruling party legislators to take on the opposition. This is no way to run the system. If such dictatorial methods are not resisted, and democratic norms and values are allowed to be trampled, we are doomed.
Q: You met ambassadors of EU states in Islamabad and briefed them about the implications of the LFO. Did it not amount to seeking their intervention in the internal affairs of the country?
A: No. We did not meet to request them that they should fight our war. We only expected moral support from them. I may point out here that we Pakistanis have been holding rallies for Vietnam, Angola and Mozambique, but this did not mean we were interfering in their internal matters. At our meeting with the EU diplomats, we expressed our desire that their governments should side with the people, not with a dictator. It is against the principles of parliamentary democracy that President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair should invite Gen Musharraf, not Prime Minister Jamali, for visits to their countries. If we convey our point of view to them, there’s nothing wrong with it.
Q: As most of the leading democratic countries have recognized Gen Musharraf as the legitimate president of Pakistan, shouldn’t the ARD also review its stand?
A: We are not bound to follow the policies of other countries. Our stand is very clear—that a serving general can’t become president of Pakistan. And there’s no provision in our Constitution to elect the president through a referendum.
We’ll have no objection if Gen Musharraf gets himself elected through the procedure laid down in the Constitution.
I’ll like to point out that President Bush’s predecessor Bill Clinton had a totally different policy about Gen Musharraf. He had come to Pakistan for a few hours and set a new precedent by making a televised address to the people of Pakistan when he stated that the country would face isolation if it did not restore democracy. The status of Gen Musharraf at present is no different from that of the viceroy during the Raj. Though all orders were passed by him and were binding, the people of the subcontinent never accepted them as legitimate. We did not accept Gen Musharraf as president even when he met us. We had held talks with him to persuade him to vacate the occupation of the country.
Q: You insist that only parliament can amend the Constitution and that the Supreme Court has no role to play in this regard. You also argue that the apex court can’t delegate any such authority to any individual. But in the Nawaz Sharif period, parliament passed an amendment empowering heads of parties to remove legislators violating party discipline and you challenged the amendment before the apex court. Did the court then have any power to undo any act of parliament?
A: I don’t question the parliament’s prerogative to amend the Constitution, but my point of view is that even the bicameral legislature doesn’t have the authority to change the complexion of the basic law. The amendment you are referring to was dictatorial. It usurped the individual’s right to free speech guaranteed by the Constitution. I challenged the amendment in the apex court so that it could decide whether it ran counter to the spirit of the Constitution.
Q: If that’s your argument in respect of that amendment, why don’t you adopt the same course now and take the LFO to the apex court and get a decision whether Gen Musharraf has transgressed his jurisdiction?
A: When Gen Musharraf promulgated the LFO, parliament was not in existence. Thus, it is for the general to bring the LFO to parliament and get it ratified.
Q: I was saying you should take the matter to the Supreme Court.
A: We are not adopting this course because of the attitude of the judiciary. You know it had given Gen Musharraf three years without any request from the latter. Then it gave him the right to amend the Constitution, although, itself devoid of any such authority, it could not delegate it to the general. Then, I’ll like to invite your attention to the gulf between the bar and the bench. All bar associations have unanimously decided not to take any matter of constitutional nature to the Supreme Court. Such a lack of trust in the apex court was unheard of in the past. Lawyers are saying that judges who accepted the LFO’s gift of extension in their retirement age will be treated as retired judges.
Q: If the entire LFO is so objectionable, will it not be a good damage-control exercise if the MMA, through talks with the government, succeeds in getting parts of it deleted or amended?
A: This approach can be likened to the one adopted by India to improve its relations with Pakistan. Putting the core issue of Kashmir on the back-burner, it is stressing promotion of trade relations and resumption of rail and air links. In our thinking, adherence to principles is the main issue. If they are traded off, nothing is left. Principles should not be sacrificed at the altar of expediency.
Q: Gen Musharraf says that if the LFO is withdrawn, the entire system raised through it will come down.
A: No. This is not so. You must know that when the legislators-elect were administered oath, they were told by the presiding officer that the Constitution they were swearing their allegiance to did not contain the LFO. It was only after this categorical assurance that the new representatives took oath.
If it be assumed that the LFO is part of the Constitution, as is being claimed, then the legislators’ oath was flawed and none of them has the right to sit in parliament or draw salaries.
Q: Your party has been shrinking with the passage of time which gives one the impression that people are not in agreement with your policies and they don’t like to join the PDP which is one of the oldest parties of the country. How will you explain this phenomenon?
A: Let me admit very frankly that I did not pay much attention to my party. I have spent most of the time in the struggle for democracy which was important for the integrity of the country. And since the war for democracy cannot be fought single- handedly, I formed alliances on various occasions. For me the interest of the country is more important than the interest of the party. I firmly believe that parties are formed for the country, not vice-versa. I am thankful to the major parties which have trusted me and elected me as head of various alliances.
Q: How in your opinion would you go down in history because of your political role in various periods?
A: I don’t know. I am a humble political worker whose sole asset is the love people give me. Unlike dictators, with whom nobody likes to shake hands once they are out of office, a political worker is recognized by the people in all situations.
— The interview was conducted by Ashraf Mumtaz.
The episode of the Tasman Spirit, which has already been forgotten by officialdom in both Islamabad and Karachi will long be remembered by the hapless residents of Karachi who will bear the after-effects of this disaster. The health effects are already there. Local hospitals have registered a rise in the number of chest and throat related ailments. People are complaining of breathing problems with children and old people most affected. The rotten fish is now expected to enter the food chain through chicken feed that is made from dead fish. There has been no study done to determine how this will affect us in the long term.
What one finds perplexing is the fact that those in a position to punish those responsible for the criminal neglect that led to the environmental disaster actually take their briefing from the very persons who should be taken to task. On his visit to Karachi, President Musharraf did what our CM and Governor had done earlier. Attend a KPT briefing.
For its part, the KPT has given its own spin to the incident in a bid to save its skin. It has deliberately mixed up the issues. The KPT maintains that any attempt to put blame on the organization for causing the oil spill would be used by the shipping company to renege on its promises to compensate for the damage it has caused. Therefore, at this stage, in the “national interest”, it is best we all kept quiet. This is a line that the media, particularly those in the newly set up television channels, have swallowed hook, line and sinker. There are two issues here. The first, obviously, is who is to blame for the accident that led to the grounding of the Tasman Spirit. The other issue is how quickly did the relevant authorities react to the incident and whether more could have been done to avoid the damage that has been caused to our beaches, our marine life and our health. This is where the KPT and other government agencies have failed us and continue to do so, despite all the statements made to the contrary.
On July 27, the Tasman Spirit ran aground at the mouth of the Keamari channel. The next day a KPT spokesman said that help had been sought from a foreign shipping company to send its oil tanker to take fuel off the Tasman Spirit. The spokesman also asserted that a “minor leakage had been spotted on Sunday night but no fresh leakage has been observed and there was no threat to marine life”. On July 30, the interview of the chairman of the KPT, Vice Admiral Ahmed Hayat, was published in which he talked extensively about the desalination plant and the real estate port tower project that the KPT was undertaking. He also talked about the commercial success of the KPT — a no brainer considering the monopolistic situation this trust enjoys.
The next statement came from a joint press conference held on August 4, over a week after the accident, by the communications minister Ahmed Ali and the KPT chairman. Mr Ali blamed high tide and rain for the grounding and said: “Thank God everything is under control and the ship is intact and above all there is no oil leakage.” The KPT chairman also said that he had not seen any leakages.
On Aug 6, the KPT announced in a press release “owing to the KPT’s strong vigil and professional reaction, any oil spillage catastrophe had been avoided”. Till this time the KPT was denying an oil spill while residents of the beach areas had begun complaining of toxic fumes and smell on the shoreline.
On Aug 10, the PRO of the KPT wrote a letter to this newspaper in which he stated “some quarters are expressing apprehensions over the slow salvage operations. There are also misleading reports about the inaction on the part of the KPT and about excessive oil spillage, impacting the environment. The fact is that because of KPT’s strong vigil an oil spillage catastrophe has been avoided”. By this time, say observers, a considerable amount of oil had started to drift towards the Clifton beach.
The first time the KPT acknowledged there was a spill was on Aug 11, over two weeks after the grounding of the tanker. Even then, the KPT spokesman stated: “There was a spill but now it has been plugged.”
On Aug 13, when the ship had developed a major leak and oil was now spilling into the sea at an alarming rate, the KPT issued a statement that said “the next 24 hours are crucial as the tanker could break”. Up till now, no government agency including the KPT has informed the people of the city about the possible dangers such a spill could cause. There was no medical advice on what precautions to take, no steps taken to clear the beach, not even a mention of what is the actual position with regard to the spill. The knee jerk reaction of the government was to close the beach and post the Rangers and police there. There were no arrangements made for these personnel as well, and many developed health problems in the ensuing hours.
It was after some hard-hitting reporting in the newspapers — as till then most of the television stations were toeing the KPT’s line, the Sindh Environmental Protection Agency sought reports about the spill. The SEPA was woken from its slumber two weeks after the grounding of the tanker.
On Aug 14, Pakistan’s officialdom woke up to the disaster. The President and the Prime Minister finally took notice. The KPT suddenly swung into action and the KPT chairman told a press conference, which was arranged on a watch tower with the sinking tanker as a grim backdrop, that the ship could split from the middle. He also told reporters: “We have managed to shift 20,000 tons of oil but the rest (over 40,000 tons) could spill into the sea.”
On Aug 15, communications minister Ahmed Ali again addressed a press conference in which he said that he had ordered a fast track probe to inquire about the accident to pinpoint responsibility “within a week”. He also said: “The worst is over. We should thank God we have been saved from a disaster.” Mr Ali also claimed that “the oil’s carbon would settle down on the seabed and disintegrate without causing any damage to sea life and the beaches”. By this time, the beach of Karachi had been coated in black and thousands of sea creatures were being washed ashore dead.
In his statement, the KPT chairman told reporters the same day that Rs10 million had been sought from the shipping company for the disaster. This amount would not have been enough to cover the first day’s work of cleaning the beach, let alone the whole operation.
For its part, the city administration brought in tractors to clear the spill off the beach. But this was stopped by foreign experts who had been brought in by the shipping company as it was a premature move since there was oil still remaining on the tanker. The experts also said the manner in which the cleaning operation was being conducted by the city administration would damage the beach even more.
In the meantime, over 15 tons of chemicals had been dropped from the air to disperse the oil slick but that too with limited success. Again, the government did not inform the people of the precautions needed during this aerial spraying.
On Aug 17, a suit was filed against the KPT and the PNSC along with the EPA for recovery of damages amounting to Rs10 billion for losses caused to the city and its residents. Within a day, Pakistan lodged a formal complaint with the International Maritime Organization claiming damages from the Greek owners of the tanker. It was at this time that the Merchant Navy Officers Association accused the KPT and its management of criminal negligence.
On Aug 20, communications minister Ahmed Ali told a press conference that within four days the oil from the tanker would be extracted and then work would be done to bring the broken ship to shore. Mr Ali also said he would not blame any one for error unless a comprehensive inquiry was completed. There was no mention of his fast track inquiry.
The operations to extract oil continued on and off for the next week or so but by Aug 21 the link between the ship’s parts snapped and again a major spill started from the guts of the tanker.
On Aug 23, the Fair Jolly, the ship extracting oil from the Tasman Spirit developed technical problems and stopped its work. By this time, disagreements had developed between the city government and other stake-holders about where to dump the polluted sand that was being scooped up from the beach.
On Aug 25, President Musharraf visited the Clifton beach for a cursory glance at what is now one of Pakistan’s worst environmental disasters. KPT official Brig Iftikhar later told newsmen that the president “had appreciated the efforts of the KPT”.
On Aug 28, the KPT said it feared more spillage from the Tasman Spirit. A day earlier a coordination committee had been formed to “deal with the after-effects of the huge oil spillage”. On the same day, the WWF said in a statement that it feared that the oil spill would not be limited to the Clifton beach and could travel further to Sandspit and Hawkesbay.
To date, the Tasman Spirit continues to spew crude oil while the operations to siphon off the remaining oil from within the tanker remain intermittent. Efforts to contact the KPT chairman have proved futile.