| September 21, 2003 | Sunday | Rajab 23, 1424 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
Punjab tragedy
Snub to Blair
THE meeting of the US-Pakistan Defence Consultative Group in Washington appears to have produced satisfactory results for our defence planners as well as American arms manufacturers. With the United States promising to consider Pakistan’s requests for conventional arms favourably in order to maintain the conventional balance of power in South Asia, Islamabad should feel reassured. Pakistan managed to get its voice heard in Washington by skillfully playing the nuclear card — the US was told that any upset in the conventional balance of power in the region would lower the nuclear threshold. This is significant in view of India’s recent arms acquisitions which threaten to upset the balance of military power in South Asia. As has been Pakistan’s traditional strategy, it needs to seek the support of outside powers to counter the predominant military strength of its much larger, antagonistic neighbour. This is important in the light of the uneasy equations between them and their failure to resolve the Kashmir dispute which lies at the heart of the tension in the subcontinent.
Though the DCG’s joint statement would be encouraging for the military planners in Pakistan, a note of caution would not be out of place here. This is important in view of Pakistan’s long history of strategic cooperation with Washington and its experience of the negative political impact of an unbridled military alliance with the United States. Our policy makers should remember that in international relations no power offers free lunches to another. The DCG has been generous in its appreciation of the cooperation between the US and Pakistan in the war on terrorism — against Al Qaeda and the Taliban — which includes the Pakistan army’s operations in its own territory (the NWFP and Fata). This is to be strengthened further. But the tone of the statement changes somewhat when it comes to the regional security situation in South Asia and Afghanistan. It says that the two sides provided “briefings” and “presentations” on South Asia, Afghanistan and Iraq, which helped them understand each other’s points of view. Reading between the lines, one can see that the two sides do not see eye to eye on all issues. As a quid pro quo for the conventional arms it has agreed to supply, the US might try to persuade Pakistan to send its troops to Iraq, which still does not seem to be a closed issue.
It is therefore important for our policy makers to decide to what extent they would want to accept military assistance from the US and get further sucked into its strategic problems and complications without obtaining corresponding political/diplomatic advantages. Without obtaining an American commitment of a corresponding peace process and confidence-building measures in South Asia, Pakistan will be treading on sticky ground. Moreover, this approach will simply promote an arms race in the region, which is not in the best interest of any of the concerned parties. Besides, spiralling defence expenditures — be it in Pakistan or India — will only add to the growing poverty in the region while adversely affecting human development in the already backward South Asian countries.
SATURDAY’s ghastly train-bus collision at Malakwal in Punjab that claimed over two dozen lives is a shocking reminder of the grave dangers that lie in wait at unmanned level crossings. The accident happened when the Chenab Express travelling to Karachi ploughed into a crowded bus. The death toll may rise in view of the impact of the crash. All those killed and injured were bus passengers, almost all from the surrounding villages. If the train had derailed, the tragedy would have been graver.
Similar accidents have occurred in the past due to the failure of drivers of buses and other vehicles to exercise the necessary caution while crossing unmanned railway lines. There have also been accidents due to fog and failure of train drivers to blow warning whistles at short intervals. Three years ago, six school children and a driver were killed when a train hit their pick-up at an unmanned crossing in thick fog near Sargodha. In May 2000, a passenger train collided with a trailer at a crossing, killing a boy. In July the same year, one person was killed and four others were injured when a train rammed into a stationary truck near Sahiwal. Early in 2001, two people were killed and 11 injured when a Sialkot-bound train collided with an NLC trailer near Sialkot.
No significant effort has been made to make passage of vehicular traffic safer at unmanned level crossings or to take steps to eliminate such crossings, which have become veritable death traps. Gates and gate keepers must be provided at all crossings, irrespecture of whether they are located amidst crowded areas or in the countryside. Owners of bus companies should also be forced to educate their drivers about the hazards of going across level crossings without due care. There is a deep-rooted callousness and indifference surrounding such issues that calls into question the concern repeatedly expressed by the authorities for the people’s welfare.
ONE can always read too much in the result of a byelection, but the outcome of the one held in the London constituency of Brent East on Friday certainly reflects a loss of faith in British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s leadership of his country and the Labour Party. Opposition to the war in Iraq, Mr Blair’s toadyism and the unravelling of his case for the war are seen as constituting a major factor in Labour’s defeat in its heartland. Brent East is an ethnically mixed constituency, and the Muslim Association of the area has already hailed the Liberal Democrats’ victory as its own.
Labour had not lost a single byelection since Mr Blair took over the party leadership nine years ago, and that some of its support has now wandered over to the Liberal Democrats reflects a steady erosion of confidence in his New Labour policies and resentment at his cockiness in dealing with criticism of the war. He had repeatedly dismissed such criticism as being confined to the loony left, saying no one among the general public was much interested in Iraq. He will have to think again. The uncertain and messy course of the Anglo-US campaign in Iraq, the death of the scientist Dr David Kelly, allegations about a “sexed-up” intelligence dossier, and the Hutton inquiry now being conducted into the allegations are obviously having an impact on British public opinion. Whatever spin Mr Blair may put on the Brent result and irrespective of the fact that he may still win the next general election, it provides, in the words of The Guardian newspaper, “a clear intimation of his political mortality”.
The Liberal Democrats have scored a great victory, not only defeating the incumbent Labour candidate but almost halving the Conservative vote in the constituency. The Liberals had won 57 seats in the House of Commons in 2001, although in terms of voting percentages, their performance was better in 1983 when they had garnered a 28 per cent share. Whether there is a trend here for the Liberal Democrats to finally be accepted as an established third force in British politics — their long cherished goal — is hard to say. But the emerging coalition of liberals, Greens and angry minority voters should be interesting to watch.