| 27 January 2004 | Tuesday | 04 Zilhaj 1424 |
Truth about WMDs
Regulating petrol prices
The government must respond positively and quickly to the proposal made by a Chinese company offering desalination technology to Pakistan. The offer comes from China's Tianjin Institute of Seawater Desalination, which achieved a scientific breakthrough in desalination technology three years ago by harnessing seawater for the purpose of human and agricultural consumption at an affordable cost.
Desalinated seawater has since been made available for farming purposes as well as in many Chinese cities, including the capital Beijing, facing a shortage of potable water. The Tianjin Institute, under instructions from the Chinese government, has already installed one of its desalination plants at the new Gwadar port, which is being constructed by Chinese marine engineers. The five-million-dollar plant, with a reasonable capacity to meet the new port's needs, has come as a gift to Pakistan from the Chinese government.
The offer made by the Tianjin Institute should be seen as a blessing, particularly for a city like Karachi whose perennial water shortage has been a constant source of agony for millions of residents and the authorities alike. Karachi has a shortfall of about 200 million gallons of water a day on a year-round basis.
The shortage becomes more acute during the long summer months when demand increases. The government has been deterred from considering the option of desalination for Karachi in view of the high costs involved.
The Chinese technology is, thus, extremely relevant from the point of view of Pakistan's short- and long-term water needs because of its cost-effectiveness. Moreover, it is aimed at making seawater available on a larger scale so that it can be used for agricultural purposes also, as has been successfully shown by the Chinese experiment in that field.
The government should not let go of this opportunity, especially when the Chinese offer has come in the form of technology transfer f a special kind. The Chinese official who made the offer public in Beijing the other day reportedly assured the media that it contained a "special low-cost package" designed specifically with Pakistan's financial constraints in mind.
What else does the government need? one may ask. The shortage of water is not confined to Karachi alone, as other big cities like Lahore, Islamabad and Quetta, in particular, have also begun to experience such shortages more frequently in recent years.
Even if the technology requires some initial heavy capital investment, there are ways to make it a sustainable proposition. Here again, one can follow the Chinese example of keeping the cost factor manageable by bottling and selling desalinated water on a commercial scale.
Since bottled water is a high-end product which fetches a good price in the market, it can well be used to subsidize the public water supply. In the immediate context of growing shortage, there cannot be a better, and over the longer term, perhaps more affordable, answer to Karachi's and other big cities' water problems.
Moreover, the Chinese experience over the past two years has shown wider application and viability of this option. Therefore, any procrastination on the part of the higher authorities regarding the offer will be nothing short of self-defeating. As they say, an opportunity missed is often an opportunity lost.
Truth about WMDs
In spite of American arms expert David Kay's categorical statement on the issue, American and British governments continue to hold an indefensible position on the question of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Kay resigned last week after making the categorical statement that Iraq did not possess any WMDs.
He said he did not think WMDs "existed" at all and vowed he would not go back to Iraq again because his job was over. His statement was supported by Mohammad ElBaradei, chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency, who said he was "not surprised." Speaking at Davos, Switzerland, ElBaradei said his organization had made it clear even before the war that "there was no evidence" of WMDs being in Iraq's possession.
Kay's statement is embarrassing for President George Bush in an election year, because the arms expert's declaration demolishes the very basis of his war against Iraq. In his state of the union address to Congress, Mr Bush said the American attack was necessary, because if Washington had failed to act "the dictator's WMDs programmes would continue to this day.
" Vice-President Dick Cheney did not think Kay's statement was final and said "the jury's still out there" - referring to the Iraq Survey Group which is still hunting for WMDs. The same line was taken by the British government, which said the survey group had still not finished its job.
What Kay has said is nothing new. Much before the war, Hans Blix, chief of the UN Monitoring and Verification Commission, had said his team had found no "smoking gun" in Iraq. Yet a war was launched because America wanted it, even if the case it had made for the war was scuttled by the UN.
Regime change - that was what Israel wanted, and Mr Bush had to oblige, WMDs or no WMDs. America has won a resounding military victory, but in that process it has not only undermined the UN, it has also wrecked its own moral authority. It is not for the Republican administration now to sermonize to other nations on truth, freedom and justice.
Regulating petrol prices
The decision by the government of Sindh to allow an increase in transport fares (as a result of the latest increase in oil prices) warrants a closer look at the rationale behind the current system in place under which oil prices are revised every 15 days.
Of course, there is the oft-repeated argument against an upward revision in transport fares according to which the move is unfair to commuters. The transporters, too, seem to have a valid point since frequent increases in the price of diesel would increase their operating costs, which is both unfair and unrealistic.
However, something needs to be said about the way in which petrol prices are regulated. The current system, under which a committee comprising nominees of private-sector oil companies revises prices every fortnight, creates uncertainty in the economy.
A frequent revision of a price for a product like petrol, with widespread commercial and industrial use, can cause unwarranted short-term fluctuations in the price of not just public transport but many other goods and services with a significant impact on household budget.
The rationale for such a revision seems unclear since deregulation (which led to the formation of the current system of pricing) should not mean that the determination of petrol prices should be left entirely in the hands of oil companies.
If the government is keen on deregulation in this sector then it should at least ensure that the concerns of the commuting public are taken into account when prices are fixed. One would like to ask the oil companies whether they import oil on a fortnightly basis because if they do not, then why subject poor consumers to this? In the greater public interest, it would be better if oil prices were revised every quarter or so.