| 17 February 2004 | Tuesday | 25 Zilhaj 1424 |
Pakistan's nuclear outlook
World Bank report on water issue
The flour shortage, which had been hitting many cities in the country since December, finally reached the Capital around Eidul Azhar.
For a week, Farzana, a housewife, could not find atta in any of the grocery stores that she usually went to. A resident of G-9 sector, she also tried the Utility Store at the main G-9 market, popularly known as Karachi Company, but to no avail.
She was obviously surprised when she read the statement in the press last Tuesday by the district food controller, who categorically stated that there was no shortage of flour in the federal Capital.
Why then, if there was no shortage, was she not able to buy any atta, Farzana asked? What consoled her at least was the fact that on the same day that the food controller's statement was published, several reports appeared in the press about flour shortages not only in the Capital, but also in Rawalpindi, Taxila, Wah Cantonment and other adjoining areas.
Why is it that they try to gloss over what is plainly and evidently happening, asked an irritated Farzana? For a whole week, her family had been surviving on rice, and the little atta that she managed to beg or borrow from neighbours and relatives, who were fortunate enough to have been better stocked.
Since the reports appeared in the press about the flour shortage in and around the Capital, the flour situation has eased somewhat, and Farzana has been able to buy atta in the shops.
Since December, one after the other many cities and their surrounding areas have been hit by a flour shortage and record high flour prices. These include Bahawalpur, Hyderabad, Karachi, Sukkur, Dadu, Sheikhupura, Attock, Faisalabad, Gujrat, Mirpurkhas, Vehari and Mithi. By Eidul Azhar, it had reached the twin cities here and its surrounding region.
The real reason for the shortage and high prices was blurred by contradicting statements from the government and the mill owners and traders. Mill owners claimed they did not get their wheat supply quotas from the government.
But officials of the respective local food departments claimed they had released the necessary stocks to the mill owners.
Officials, including the federal and provincial food and agriculture ministers, persistently said that there was no wheat shortage in the country/province.
The Agriculture Development Commissioner also categorically told PTV on January 10 that there was no shortage of wheat in any part of the country. Instead, hoarders and profiteers were blamed for creating the shortage.
In Punjab, officials blamed the flour millers for smuggling atta to the other provinces and Afghanistan. In Sindh, officials blamed the millers for not lifting the stocks as per agreement.
Between the officials of the food departments, flour mill owners, wholesalers, retailers, and the smugglers, the helpless people, like Farzana's family, were left scrounging around for a piece of roti.
No matter who are really to blame for the flour crisis, responsibility ultimately rests on the government for mishandling a situation that involves the people's staple food.
Mishandling may be an understatement, judging by the way the government-run Pakistan Agriculture Storage and Supplies Corporation panicked by first ordering and shortlisting tenders in January for the emergency import of 150,000 tons of wheat and then scrapping the tender early this month "following a review of domestic supplies" which was found to be "normal". An earlier tender issued by Passco in December 2003 for import of wheat from Australia was also reported to have lapsed.
Little wonder the government has got a flour crisis on its hands; it can't even figure out how much wheat stocks is available nor decide whether it needs to import wheat or not.
Were Passco's tenders to import wheat merely threats to local wheat traders and millers to cooperate with the government or else face doom with imported wheat flooding the market?
Fortunately, the flour crisis has not reached the proportions of that which occurred during the PML-N government when food riots and looting took place on a scale never known before in Pakistan. However, it is doubtful if measures like the current Punjab government's "sasta atta" scheme can resolve the problem.
A similar earlier scheme by the PML-N government to circumvent the market in the midst of the flour crisis then and distribute atta directly to the people at special bazaars had only compounded the crisis when rioting and looting occurred.
The real solution surely lies not in such stop-gap measures but in taking steps that guarantee the availability, and affordability, of this staple item in the market at all times.
Admittedly this is not an easy task given the pressures from different sides. These include the pressure from farmers and landlords to increase the support price as well as the pressure from international lending agencies to eliminate subsidies, phase out the government's role in procurement/supply, and let the market forces determine the price of wheat.
Blackmarketing and profiteering aside, the flour crisis may have its roots in the government's recent partial privatization of the wheat sector. The latter measures included opening up the procurement and storage of wheat to the private sector, partial withdrawal of the subsidy on wheat, and passing on the transportation costs to the millers, who naturally resented it.
As the recent flour crisis has shown, if left to the private sector, there is no guarantee that flour prices will remain affordable for the people.
Privatization of the petroleum, electricity and gas sectors has already resulted in escalating costs of these commodities. Pakistanis generally, however, have taken these escalating costs in their stride, considering the multiplier effect which the rise in prices of these commodities have had on the general price line.
But the wheat sector could be a somewhat different ball game, where thousands of individual farmers, traders and flour millers are involved, instead of a few big corporations. Although the price of this staple item of diet has already risen steadily over the years, a steep rise in its price over a short period beyond the affordability of the masses can be an explosive issue.
Pakistan's nuclear outlook
After the IAEA brought to the government's attention references in documents handed over by Iran and Libya about alleged transfer of nuclear technology to them from Pakistan in the past decades, the President of Pakistan had a challenging responsibility to carry out a probe that was credible, and internationally acceptable.
The debriefing of the scientists, including Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan, the "father of Pakistan's atomic bomb" caused widespread anguish since he is revered as a hero who played a key role in developing nuclear deterrence against the threat perceived from India.
The past few days have witnessed dramatic developments, with Dr. Khan admitting personal responsibility for passing nuclear know-how to Iran, Libya and North Korea.
Though he stated that he had 'acted in good faith' his assumption of personal responsibility helped clear the government of official involvement.
The President was able to personally reassure the international community that Pakistan had never officially followed a policy of sharing nuclear technology with other countries, as it had consistently supported the goals of non-proliferation.
Many feel that this confession was yet another act of service and sacrifice for the nation, since Dr Khan could not have acted without some involvement of other persons, holding high office.
The current scenario, presented to the world, is that Dr Khan was involved in an international black market with links to several countries. The CIA Director, George Tenet, spoke on February 5 to an audience at Georgetown University to defend the role of his agency, and claimed that they had already identified this network in which Dr Khan was a major figure.
As CIA remains seized of the probe into this network, and IAEA is being reactivated to look into the material they have found in Libya and Iran, the process of unmasking proliferation activities is likely to continue.
The Indian Foreign Minister has already suggested that the matter should not end with the pardon of Dr Khan, and should be openly debated in the IAEA, a suggestion rejected by Pakistan.
A survey of Pakistan's past record reveals a consistently responsible attitude towards the issues of nuclear proliferation, and preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction.
Since the United Nations was set up following the end of the most destructive war in history, the Second World War, its primary purpose was to banish the "scourge of war". Disarmament became one of its major goals.
Right from the time of its entry as a member, Pakistan took an active part in discussions on disarmament and arms reduction. The UN set up an eighteen-nation disarmament committee (ENDC) in 1968, When it was expanded to 26 in 1969, Pakistan was also included in what was renamed as the conference of the committee on disarmament (CCD), and has played an active role in its deliberations.
The first major measure to prevent nuclear proliferation was the adoption of the non-proliferation treaty (NPT) in 1968. Pakistan supported this treaty in the General Assembly, and later, when it was opened for signature, announced it was ready to sign it provided India did so.
As India did not sign the treaty, Pakistan also did not do so. However, Pakistan played a major role in the organization of a UN conference of non-nuclear States to secure security guarantees from the nuclear powers.
There is a contrast between the nuclear goals of India, which had started its nuclear programme in 1946, and Pakistan. India under Nehru aspired to the role of a great power, and its development of nuclear capability was status-oriented, to bring India at par with the world's great powers.
Pakistan did not get round to establishing an atomic energy commission till 1957, with the intention of harnessing nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. Pakistan cooperated closely with IAEA, and when it set up a research reactor at Nilore, and later the nuclear power plant at Karachi in 1969, they were placed under IAEA safeguards.
It was only after India detonated a nuclear device in 1974, that Pakistan felt obliged to begin a programme of nuclear deterrence since its relations with a much larger India were far from friendly, due mainly to the Kashmir dispute.
The two countries had fought three wars till 1971, and India's hostility to the very existence of Pakistan as a sovereign country was evident from the Indian role in the separation of East Pakistan.
Following the Indian nuclear explosion of 1974, Pakistan tried hard to get the international community to react to India's bid to join the nuclear club, but found that instead of penalizing India, stringent restrictions were being placed on its own peaceful programme.
Keeping in view India's hegemonic goals, and hostile policy, the acquisition of nuclear deterrence was considered as vital to Pakistan's survival as an independent state.
From the beginning, the policy of the western powers was discriminatory. While India was able to obtain nuclear know-how and materials from a variety of sources, Pakistan was suspected of sharing nuclear technology with other Muslim countries and its project to develop deterrence was described as the ambition to build an "Islamic bomb".
Many laws were passed by the US Congress that were Pakistan specific. Though India was making much greater headway in its nuclear programme, US sanctions were imposed on Pakistan in early 1979.
After the Soviet Union attacked Afghanistan in December 1979, and Pakistan became a frontline state in the last proxy conflict of the cold war, the US relaxed its sanctions, and Pakistan was able to develop nuclear deterrence over the 1980s.
However, being conscious of the western reservations and suspicions, Pakistan followed a strict official policy based on non-proliferation. Indeed, the thrust of Pakistan's diplomatic efforts was to get South Asia declared a non-nuclear zone, but India refused to join in any regional or bilateral arrangement to ban nuclear weapons.
Mindful of the threat from India, all political parties as well as military governments in Pakistan supported the nuclear programme, which was India-specific and designed to safeguard the country's security and survival.
After the cold war was over, the US again imposed sanctions on Pakistan over its nuclear programme. When the BJP government in India carried out nuclear tests in May 1998, it adopted a threatening attitude towards Pakistan, till the latter also carried out tests two weeks later.
The major powers were concerned over the entry of two new countries into the nuclear club. The US, in particular, which is the sole superpower since 1990, sent a high-powered delegation to India and Pakistan, to persuade them to adhere to the CTBT and NPT.
Both agreed to measures designed to assuage US concerns on non-proliferation, such as a commitment not to transfer nuclear technology to other countries, as well as a moratorium on nuclear tests.
President Bush has followed a policy over nuclear weapons that is designed to acquire total global hegemony. The concept of Ballistic Missile Defence announced on May 1, 2001, was immediately supported by India, which has also embraced the concept to achieve regional hegemony.
It may be recalled that close cooperation has developed between India and Israel, both of which are now strategic partners of the US.
Since the events of 9/11, Bush is heading a war against terror. Pakistan has become an important ally of the US in its region. However, the "war against terror" is targeting mainly Muslim countries.
Though the war on Iraq was justified primarily on the basis of the threat from its weapons of mass destruction, no such weapons have been found. As Pakistan is the only Muslim country having nuclear capability, many of the neo-cons around President Bush share Israeli objections to that capability.
President Musharraf has to face a difficult challenge in safeguarding Pakistan's nuclear assets, which are in safe hands. The way we have responded to the IAEA request to look into its reports shows that Pakistan is a responsible nuclear power that has consistently supported non-proliferation goals.
Faced with the threat of nuclear blackmail from India after its nuclear test of 1974, Pakistan found its quest for deterrence virtually blocked by restrictions placed by major powers on the supply of any equipment or materials that could be used in nuclear weapons technology.
An international black market had developed, with countries like India, Israel, South Africa and Pakistan making purchases mainly from suppliers in Europe.
Indeed, it is worth recalling that the spread of nuclear technology since the Second World War has involved surreptitious utilization of foreign scientists (the US employing German scientists after the German defeat) or industrial espionage (resorted to by the Soviet Union).
What we are witnessing after 9/11, and following the adoption of the doctrine of pre-emption by the Bush administration, is a policy of eliminating any threats to the US hegemony on the basis of its military and technical superiority.
This being an election year in the US, President Bush is unlikely to allow nuclear or intelligence issues to cloud his prospects. He has constituted a multi-party committee of inquiry to look into US intelligence that apparently did not read Iraq's capabilities accurately.
The committee will report in March 2005, long after the elections. The aspects of Pakistan's role in proliferation are likely to be raised again, and pressure may well mount for a rollback of our nuclear deterrence.
India is counting on being retained as a strategic partner of the US, especially in its goal of containing China. The outlook for safeguarding our nuclear assets remains daunting.
The writer is a former ambassador of Pakistan.
World Bank report on water issue
Kawish writes that a World Bank report on water availability, management and future reservoirs has endorsed Sindh's point of view. The WB report says that the Indus river system has 102 million acre feet of water and not 114 MAF water as stated in the 1991 water accord.
The report, according to Kawish, confirms that the Indus River System Authority has been prone to political influence due to which it could not ensure implementation of the accord.
The report proposes that Pakistan should sort out problems related to water distribution among its provinces on the basis of fresh figures about water availability.
The daily argues that Sindh water experts have been saying that the figures of available water in the 1991 accord are a thing of past, and it would be foolish to construct a dam on that basis.
Now that an impartial international institution has strengthened Sindh's case, the rulers should review their decision to build the Kalabagh dam.
The WB report makes it imperative that a new study on water availability should be conducted through a reputed international organization after which a new formula for water distribution should be evolved in the light of new figures. Till then, it should be ensured that 1991 water accord is implemented in letter and spirit, the paper adds.
Ibrat points out that the Supreme Judicial Council has proposed amendments to the 1888 Code of Criminal Procedure which allows police to arrest a person or search a place without any warrant. The council has termed the power a violation of basic human rights.
The police force is meant to protect citizens but in our country and province, it has become a symbol of terror, the paper asserts. Its anti- people activities range from custodial death to implicating innocent people in fabricated cases.
The situation is more alarming in the rural areas where residents are sandwiched between bandits and the police. Villagers are tormented by bandits and, on the other hand, they are arrested when the police fail to lay hands on the criminals. Even the recent police reforms have failed to change the scenario.
Tameer-i-Sindh laments that in this age of enlightenment, Sindh still has archaic traditions like Karo-kari, tribal feuds and marriages of minors. Recently, an eight-year-old girl was married to a 16- year-old boy in the Kandhra area near Sukkur. The government as well as civil society have turned a blind eye to the mediaeval practice, the paper says.
Awami Awaz points out that a number of farmers and residents of the suburbs of Larkana are being pressured by the government to vacate their land and houses so that 740 acres of land can be acquired for defence purpose.
The army's Civil Works Organization has begun purchasing land near the central jail through the Sindh revenue department. Several villagers have been served notice and told that they will have to surrender their land whether they sell it or not. According to the villagers they are being offered meagre rates for their land.
The paper says that either the government should offer the villagers market rate for their land or acquire unused land.