| 24 April 2004 | Saturday | 03 Rabi-ul-Awwal 1425 |
Troops for Iraq?
Infected blood
It is a matter of great satisfaction for Pakistan that the European Parliament has at last ratified the long awaited trade and cooperation agreement with this country. Though this does not have any direct financial implications for the present, it does provide an opportunity for Pakistan to strengthen its relations with the increasingly influential European Union.
The ratification is basically a recognition of Pakistan's crucial role in the fight against terrorism and the progress it has made towards normalizing relations with India. The step is also meant to encourage further progress towards democratic restoration and betterment of the country's human rights record.
It is noteworthy that the delay in the ratification of the agreement by almost three years has not had any dampening effect on Pakistan-EU trade and economic relations.
In fact, the EU members have not only been generous in their role as major donors, but the Union as a whole has given Pakistani products a relatively better access to its market. This made it possible for Pakistan to carve out a permanent place in the European market for its textiles.
This it must strengthen by introducing standardization at various stages of production and by raising the quality of its products to international levels. Very soon, we will have to compete for even this market with countries like China and India when the textile quota agreement expires in 2005.
For that not only do we need to have better machines and better production techniques to produce quality goods but be also price competitive. One hopes that the government's plan to establish a full-fledged textile ministry in the next fiscal year would take all this into account and initiate the necessary moves.
When the agreement was signed in November 2001, just two months after the 9/11 tragedy, it was more an attempt by the Europeans to help save the troubled economy of a front-line state in the war against terror than a condonation of Pakistan's nuclear weapons programme and the dominant role of the army in the country's politics.
The ratification of the agreement was postponed by the European Parliament because of what it had called the "unconstitutional" referendum and the "flawed" elections held by President Musharraf, his use of the LFO which, it said, had resulted in "sidelining the main opposition parties and in transforming Pakistan's system of governance from a parliamentary to a presidential one, where the president has the power to dismiss parliament".
A 13-point resolution accompanying the ratification calls for a review within one year of the implementation of the programme against human rights abuses and democratization benchmarks.
It also speaks of the European community's regret that the military continues to exert a strong influence in politics and government in Pakistan, and expresses concern that the LFO-sanctioned establishment of a National Security Council makes a mockery of the so-called roadmap for the restoration of democracy, which was supposed to transfer power from a military to a civilian administration.
The EU is also disturbed over honour killing, 'Hudood' laws, child labour, treatment of religious minorities, and journalists, and problems related to freedom of expression.
It is plain that both politically and economically, the substantive part of relations with the EU will critically depend on Pakistan's performance on these vital issues.
Troops for Iraq?
Foreign Minister Khurshid Mehmood Kasuri's statement that Pakistan is "considering" sending troops to Iraq is surprising. In Malaysia for a meeting of the Organization of Islamic Conference, the foreign minister told a news agency that the US had requested Pakistan to send troops for the protection of the UN personnel in Iraq.
This way, according to Mr Kasuri, Pakistani troops will not be there as peacekeepers. This is hair splitting. No matter in what capacity Pakistani troops go there, they will be seen as forming part of the US-led occupation forces.
Already, the people of Iraq are in a state of insurgency. More than a year after the fall of Baghdad, normality is nowhere in sight. In fact, considering whatever has happened recently in Shia south and the Sunni triangle, anti-American sentiments are rising.
The level of violence has gone up from bomb blasts and sniping to pitched streets battles between the occupation forces and Iraqi resistance groups. For that reason, many people doubt whether power can be transferred to a new provisional government on June 30 as promised.
Let us note here that Spain has decided to withdraw its troops. That Pakistan should send in its troops is indeed a serious misjudgement. Washington has given no indication of when American forces will be withdrawn.
This means, even after a constitution is put to vote in October 2005, Iraq would still be under occupation. The absence of a cut-off date for ending occupation has added to the Iraqi people's anger.
At their last meeting, President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair agreed that the UN should be given "a central role" in Iraq. How this will happen is not clear. If Islamabad sends troops to Iraq under the present circumstances, it would be seen by most Arab and Muslim peoples as collaborating with the occupation regime. Pakistan should send troops to Iraq for peacekeeping only, and that too only when the UN is in full control of that unfortunate country.
Infected blood
The report that some private blood banks are selling infected blood to unsuspecting patients in Peshawar should jolt the NWFP government out of its complacency on the subject of safe transfusion.
Indeed, given that the provincial assembly had passed the Safe Blood Transfusion Bill - calling for the monitoring of blood banks and their products - in 1999, the government should not be found sleeping over a matter that has grave implications for the health of all those requiring transfusions.
Unfortunately, it appears that there has been little compliance with the law and that in the absence of an obligatory safe blood authority, blood banks have become increasingly careless about checking their products. This has contributed to the rising graph of blood-borne diseases, many of which - like AIDS and Hepatitis C - can prove fatal.
The expense involved in screening blood for dangerous pathogens has often been cited as a primary reason for the sale of infected blood. This should make it all the more incumbent on the health authorities to ensure that blood donations are thoroughly screened.
One way to do this would be for public sector hospitals to pool their resources for setting up proper screening facilities and for training laboratory staff so that the dangers of infected transfusions are reduced to the minimum.
This, in turn, should force private blood banks, many of which depend on international and philanthropic aid, to raise their safety standards. In the absence of a culture of voluntary donations, many blood banks are forced to "buy" blood from professional donors, many of whom are drug addicts and whose use of infected needles makes them potential carriers of deadly germs that can easily be transmitted via transfusion.
A greater emphasis on taking blood from the patient's relatives and a thorough check of a donor's background will certainly help discourage professional donors.