| October 29, 2003 | Wednesday | Ramazan 2, 1424 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
Baghdad chaos
Strange exceptions
THE introduction of the Fiscal Responsibility and Debt Limitation Bill 2003 in the National Assembly is a welcome move as the proposed law will make it binding on the government to bring down its annual revenue deficit to zero point by June 30, 2008, and maintain a revenue surplus thereafter. The other equally important aspect of this bill is that the economic managers of the country will now be made answerable to parliament in case of any deviation from target. While presenting the bill, Finance Minister Shaukat Aziz said that transparency in respect of public spending and borrowings will be ensured through comprehensive public disclosures of incomes and expenditure each year.
The bill has two important elements in it. First, it attempts to set some achievable targets for the country’s economic managers. These targets not only give direction to the economy but also ensure that the mistakes of the past, where governments borrowed heavily, often recklessly, to balance the budget, will not be repeated in the future. The huge debt burden acquired through repeated borrowing was crippling for the economy and dampened investor confidence. The other aspect is that the economic managers will now have to explain every major economic decision to parliament and no deviations from the targeted expenditure will be allowed except on grounds of an unforeseen national security situation or a natural calamity. All in all, an effort has been made to bring government spending as well as how the economy is being run and whether the economic managers are striking the targets set under greater public scrutiny. This in turn will help parliamentarians to keep on eye on the management and performance of the country’s economy and suggest changes if and where needed. There are few other countries in the developing world that have taken such an initiative to control government spending and to go public with basic information relating to these.
Under the proposed law, a target would be set to reduce public debt to 60 per cent of GDP by the year 2013 and to keep cutting it by 2.5 per cent annually in subsequent years. Similarly, government guarantees would not amount to more than two per cent of GDP. In this manner, a check will be maintained on how much the government borrows in the future and how well it utilizes the money. Equally important would be the move to keep tabs on wasteful public expenditure since economic managers will now have to justify their spending before parliament. One hopes that this will bring in some discipline in spending and that a judicious order of priorities would be maintained in the allocation of resources. The manner in which government servants, politicians and the military spend huge amounts of money on benefits for themselves will also be subject to scrutiny. The same funds, it is hoped, will now be channelled to where they are needed most, as in education, health, and basic facilities like water and sewerage. The only matter of concern is whether the government means to adhere to the new norms and discipline of economic management the proposed law stipulates or start breaking these on one pretext or another. What we have seen in the past is that similar well-meaning pieces of legislation, when passed into law, were respected only so long as it was politically convenient to do so. After that, these were respected more in the breach than in observance.
THE series of blasts that shook Baghdad and Fallujah on Monday and Tuesday shows in no uncertain terms that the US occupation is facing determined resistance from the Iraqis. The synchronization of the attacks and the choice of targets all clearly prove that the blasts were not the work of isolated individuals. Instead, a well-organized group seems to have masterminded the attacks with professional skill combined with a political will. Who are the brains behind the group is a matter of speculation. One American general saw the hand of foreigners behind the blasts, while another general said foreigners constituted “a very, very small percentage” of those resisting the occupation. The tragedy is that of the 50 or so persons killed, all except one were Iraqis, including those working for the International Committee of the Red Cross. Why the resistance should have targeted the ICRC is a mystery. But one of the aims could be to prove that the Americans were not in control of the situation and that the resistance groups were capable of striking at will. The killing of civilians in any case cannot be justified, and could lead to a backlash against the resistance.
Reacting to the blasts, President George Bush has merely indulged in rhetoric, promising to arrest the attackers and saying the US “will stay the course.” That exactly is the issue. The US has no “course” but is adrift in a chaotic situation. The Baathist regime was ousted more than six months ago, but there is no evidence that America is in control. Its forces are taking casualties, the interim governing council does not enjoy the people’s confidence, and its administrator for Iraq, Paul Bremer, is unable to show his face to the people or move freely. It would be unrealistic, of course, to expect the US to get out of Iraq immediately — there will be greater chaos and, possibly, an Iraqi civil war. But Washington should prepare for an early and honourable exist by handing over Iraq to the UN in stages. Once in full control, the world body could then make arrangements to have the country policed by a truly international peacekeeping force followed by elections.
THE onset of the winter hunting season has led to quite a stir in Dera Ghazi Khan district. Keeping in mind the protected status of the houbara bustard, the Punjab wildlife department cancelled the licences of all local hunters. However, in violation of its own rules to protect the endangered bird, the department has gone ahead and given permission to hunt to some foreign dignitaries. This action has left the local hunters understandably perplexed, not least because many of them depend on hunting of the bird, which they then sell to richer buyers from the Gulf to make a living. The approach followed by the Punjab wildlife department is wrong because it seeks to factor out the local population completely in the matter of hunting.
In certain exceptional cases of endangered species, hunting is allowed but with stringent restrictions on the number allowed to be hunted and on payment of a hefty fee. In the case where low-income countries such as Pakistan are involved, the hunting fee is spent on the socio-economic development of the communities where the endangered animals are found. In fact, in the NWFP a limited hunting programme has been initiated, with considerable success, where foreigners have paid several thousand dollars to hunt markhors with the proceeds being spent on local communities. Also, the hunting permits are kept limited so as to keep the animal population at a sustainable level. If the Punjab wildlife department must allow exemptions to its own rules that prohibit the hunting of the houbara bustard, then it should devise a similar mechanism, so that the impoverished population resident in the areas where the bird is found might also benefit from the hunting. Getting a high price for a licence should not be difficult since those fond of hunting happen to be from affluent backgrounds.