| October 28, 2003 | Tuesday | Ramazan 1, 1424 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
Iran’s wise move
Ministerial privileges
THE chief ministers’ conference ended in Lahore on Sunday on a positive note, with all the four provincial chief executives agreeing on the need for building new reservoirs and dams after a consensus is reached on each such project. This can serve as a starting point for a formal dialogue on the Kalabagh and Bhasha dams, and any other new water reservoirs or dams. A sense of urgency on this score has been prompted by the apprehension of an acute water shortage facing the country by 2010, on the one hand, and by the intense nature of the controversy surrounding the projects in question. What with the failure of successive governments to handle the river water issue in a proper manner and at an appropriate level, the Kalabagh dam and the Thal canal projects have become so badly politicized over the years that it is now impossible to talk about then without inviting an outcry of protests from smaller provinces. During the meeting in Lahore, the NWFP chief minister was right in pointing out that since everyone was convinced of the need to increase the country’s water storage capacity, the construction of smaller, non-controversial reservoirs at places other than Kalabagh could be taken up immediately. When the four chief ministers meet again in Quetta after Ramazan, as they have agreed to do, there is hope that things would start moving in the right direction.
We have time and again argued in these columns that no province is opposed to the idea of increasing the country’s water storage capacity by building new reservoirs; differences come up over the nature and siting of such projects. This is mainly because of the commonly shared perception in Sindh and the Frontier regarding the negative consequences big dams — like the one being considered at Kalabagh — might have on their agriculture and ecology. As a lower riparian, Sindh has already suffered enormously as a result of what is now a decade-long dry spell and that has considerably reduced the volume of water in the Indus. Fisheries, agriculture and coastline environment in the Indus delta region have sustained extensive damage, with sea water making its way up the dry Indus bed, destroying crops, mangroves and marine life. The main point of the NWFP’s objections to the construction of a big dam has to do with the losses already incurred by it due to the lack of a canal system and agricultural infrastructure. It feels that some of the money that would be spent on a mega project could be better utilized in improving its agriculture which deserves a higher priority. Little wonder, then, that both the NWFP and Sindh assemblies have passed resolutions opposing the construction of the Kalabagh dam.
The chief ministers’ meeting in Lahore was a good idea, but one wonders why such a meeting could not be held under the aegis of the Council of Common Interests which, besides the four CMs, also includes the prime minister and an equal number of nominated MPs from the four provinces and the federation. As a wider and more representative forum, the CCI comprises a constitutional mechanism to address matters requiring national consensus. The government should activate this forum without any further delay. Politics aside, Pakistan’s water woes are also a technical challenge and require expert handling. Once activated, the CCI could invite a team of foreign experts to give their impartial opinion on the question of water management and seek their guidance on how best to develop and manage the country’s existing water resources.
IRAN’s decision to suspend its uranium enrichment programme should serve to lessen tension in the Middle East. The Iranian move comes in the wake of the initiative taken by Britain, France and Germany as the October 31 deadline given by the International Atomic Energy Agency nears. Under the agreement with the three European states, Iran has agreed to let the IAEA team inspect its nuclear installations and conduct snap inspections. In announcing the decision, the Iranian foreign ministry spokesman made it clear that Tehran reserved the right to resume the enrichment programme “if we feel it is necessary.” Under the agreement reached with the EU states, Iran will enrich uranium to a level where it would be able to use it for power production and not to the level where it could be used for weapons production. The decision to cooperate with the EU means that the three EU states will not support any US move to punish Iran or seeking a UN authorization for attacking it.
Iran is already a member of what America calls “the axis of evil.” In the wake of the Iraqi war, Washington seemed to be looking for a pretext to have a go at Iran, too. In the nuclear issue it found a handy pretext for attacking this country, which is among the Palestinian people’s most consistent supporters. However, by agreeing to let the IAEA have “unrestricted access” to its nuclear installations, Iran has denied America any pretext for a war. It now remains to be seen how the neo-cons in the Bush administration read the new development. Iraq, too, had given “unimpeded access” to the UN weapons inspectors, who found no “smoking gun.” However, the US still forced a war on Iraq to find weapons of mass destruction — and has failed to find any till this day. One hopes common sense will prevail and the hawks in Washington will not repeat their terrible mistake in Iraq in the case of Iran.
THE relaxation of rules by the government to allow the import of a special car for a federal minister, for reasons of better security for him, could set a bad precedent. According to a report, the federal minister for food and agriculture had raised the issue of his personal safety in a cabinet meeting, pointing out that his son was killed as a result of a tribal feud and he feared for his own life. He asked the government to grant exemption to import a bullet-proof car. The minister is head of his own tribe and hails from a part of Balochistan known for its tribal warfare. While he may have good reason for his fears, the government’s decision will send the wrong message. It will reinforce the impression that the state has all but abdicated its responsibility to guarantee protection to the lives of its citizens and those that can afford it should make their own arrangements.
Our governments have developed an unfortunate propensity for adopting policies or allowing exemptions from the rules in favour of the rich and the powerful. When crime began to get out of hand, the first thing that the government did was to require commercial business, shops and so on to arrange for their own private security. Then it encouraged residents of the cities to hire their own security guards, and you see them now before almost all houses and residential compounds. In the case in question, if the government believed that the minister’s life was really at risk, a sensible option would have been to strengthen security arrangements for him. Besides, what will now stop other members of the federal cabinet from asking for similar privileges in the name of personal safety?