| 15 April 2004 | Thursday | 24 Safar 1425 |
Hashmi's conviction
Cement: price of export
The US-sponsored draft resolution on non-proliferation which is before the UN Security Council since March has met with reservations from some members. Pakistan has raised objections to the language and definitions of a few terms.
This is not entirely surprising, given the controversial nature of the non-proliferation regime operational in the world today. The resolution requires all 191 UN members to enact laws to prevent non-state actors and terrorist organizations from acquiring and trafficking in nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.
On the face of it, such a resolution should be acceptable to all governments which are firmly committed to peace and disarmament. It makes a lot of sense that such prohibitions should apply to non-state actors as well.
This is crucial at a time when international relations between governments in the conventional sense have given way to a new pattern of interaction beyond state frontiers between non-state entities. The presence of the non-state actors in this sector only complicates matters and makes it more difficult to regulate.
Having stated this basic principle, one may also emphasize that no non-proliferation regime can work if it is not based on fairness and equality. There are bound to be problems in the new regime being proposed by the resolution under debate.
First, it is feared that it may be used to put pressure on Third World countries rather than to genuinely restrict the spread of weapons of mass destruction. Thus individuals and companies in the smaller countries may be targeted for allegedly smuggling banned items while the suppliers in nuclear states may go scot free.
Secondly, these provisions have been drafted in such a way that they fall under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. This makes the prohibitions mandatory and could open the door to the use of force on the pretext of enforcing the resolution.
The discriminatory nature of the non-proliferation regime as instituted by the NPT is evident from the differing treatment meted out to India, Pakistan and Israel, which are now nuclear states.
Their status is not recognized as such. While a blind eye is turned on Israel's large nuclear arsenal, India and Pakistan have come under pressure on the same count.
The fact of the matter is that nuclear proliferation is impossible to check as long as nuclear weapons continue to be stocked in the arsenals of major powers - even just a handful of them.
It hardly needs to be pointed out that apart from their political and strategic implications, nuclear armaments are ecologically dangerous. The sooner they are done away with, the better it will be for the world.
The most sensible approach would be to totally ban all kinds of nuclear weapons. If a few privileged powers are allowed to manufacture, stockpile and deploy nuclear weapons, it may well be asked why others should be prohibited from doing the same.
This approach implies the acceptance of the principle of might is right and also that the small powers are not responsible enough to be trusted with nuclear weapons. This is a flawed approach that has triggered the spread of weapons of mass destruction. Those who do not have such weapons feel threatened by those who have them, thus making it difficult to prevent their spread.
Hashmi's conviction
Angry PML-N workers have demonstrated across the country to protest against the conviction of Mr Javed Hashmi, their leader. In this they are not alone, for other political parties and the legal community have also criticized the way the Hashmi case was handled by the government.
The common contention has been that, for political reasons, Mr Hashmi has not been given time and opportunity to prove his innocence, and he has been sentenced to 23 years in prison. Seen against the background of Pakistan's history, these allegations carry some weight.
It goes without saying that Mr Hashmi's action itself was politically motivated, but governments in Pakistan have a tradition of persecuting political opponents. Rulers who have implicated dissidents on trumped-up charges have been both military and civilian.
Often, resort was taken to the judicial process but in a manner that was far from being transparent. Mr Hashmi is not the first politician to be accused of treason; many others too had this charge made against them, and some of them were convicted.
In each case, the public at large remained sceptical of the genuineness of the charge and of the government's motive. In the case of the acting PML-N chief, the people have special reasons to suspect the government's motive because he belongs to the party whose government was overthrown by the military.
Also, all along the events leading to the general election in 2002, the Musharraf government's policy and arbitrary amendments to the Constitution often appeared designed specifically against the PML-N (and, of course, the PPP).
Accused of inciting the army to mutiny, Mr Hashmi never had the benefit of an open trial, because the court proceedings were conducted in the Adiala Jail. Incidentally, the government did not try Jamaat-i-Islami chief Qazi Hussain Ahmad for treason when he asked the army to mutiny against Gen Musharraf during the protests against the US attack on Afghanistan.
One hopes that the trial before the Lahore High Court will be open to the public and media, now that the Hashmi camp has decided to appeal against the conviction.
Cement: price of export
The rise in the export price of cement is good news as it assures better profit margins to producers as well as more foreign exchange earning for the country. However, this situation can also have a negative impact.
An unchecked export drive, particularly by cement producers in the NWFP where it is more attractive to sell in the Afghan market, may cause scarcity at home. This should be avoided as it will push local cement prices even further up.
Already there is growing public criticism of the rise in cement prices in the country despite the concessions given to this sector by the government. The All Pakistan Cement Manufacturers Association had earlier promised to lower prices if local production went up. However, despite capacity utilization exceeding 90 per cent at some units, the prices have not come down.
Cement is an important input for the housing and construction industry and a rise in its cost has a widespread impact. In the absence of a rise in the prices of other inputs, one wonders why cement prices continue to climb.
One explanation is that a cartel of cement producers has been formed which is hiking prices for hefty profit. In the budget announced in June 2003, the government had allowed a 25 per cent reduction in Central Excise Duty (CED) on cement.
Instead of prices going down as a result of this concession, there was a rise in local cement prices. In the second half of 2003, cement prices increased by over 35 per cent as a bag which was selling for Rs160 before the budget was then sold for Rs220. Today, a bag costs over Rs240.
The government has to remain vigilant to ensure that prices remain at a reasonable level and that there is no scarcity of cement in the market. If this is not done, the country may witness a delay in many of the construction projects in both public and private sectors.