| 25 April 2004 | Sunday | 04 Rabi-ul-Awwal 1425 |
Arafat's turn now?
Pensioners' case
The recent rally in Karachi organized by the Pakistan Oppressed Nations Movement (PONM) protesting against the manner in which Gwadar port was being developed underlines the problems and grievances surrounding this vital project. There is a rising chorus from political parties in Balochistan against the manner of development of Gwadar port and town on grounds that the local people are not being sufficiently and meaningfully involved in this project.
This is an issue that needs to be looked into by the government at the earliest in order to avoid a situation where this vital national project becomes needlessly and excessively politicized affecting its progress and the development of its infrastructure. With a population of over 50,000, Gwadar is destined to become future hub of economic and commercial activity, offering considerable business and employment opportunities to the people of Balochistan and to those from other areas.
The importance the government is giving to the development of both the Gwadar deep sea port and the Makran Coastal Highway, which will run from Karachi to Gwadar, affirms this prospect. Both these projects are expected to bring prosperity to a backward and economically retarded region of the country. However, if there is a feeling among the local people that they are not getting their legitimate share in the employment and other opportunities, the matter must be looked into and steps taken to remove grievances where they are genuine.
The $248 million Gwadar port project, which is being built with Chinese help, will be complete by 2005. Its first phase will be operational in September this year. For the project to realize its full potential, the right infrastructure should be in place to ensure that shipments transit through the port with the minimum of hassles.
For this Gwadar must not only be serviced by a modern highway network but the city developing around the port should be planned in a manner that allows it to function efficiently. So far, the planning has been hasty and haphazard. While real estate prices have shot up, there has been little effort on the part of the authorities to plan a futuristic city that would bloom in the next couple of decades.
The government needs to engage internationally renowned architects to plan a city befitting the vision that it has for Gwadar. The commercial and industrial sections of the city must be situated away from the residential and recreational areas. Provision must be made for parks, gardens and playgrounds.
For Gwadar to be a success, more needs to be done by the government on several fronts. For one, the people of the area must be given the opportunity to share in its development as well as benefit from its prosperity. More attention needs to be paid to developing indigenous skills and resources so that there is a feeling of involvement among the local people.
Finally, political parties should not exploit local misgivings about development to get even with the government. Gwadar is a project of national and regional importance and its development a priority that should not be obstructed by shortsightedness on the part of any quarter.
Arafat's turn now?
True to form, Mr Ariel Sharon said on Friday he was no longer bound by his pledge not to assassinate President Yasser Arafat. Three years ago, the Israeli prime minister said that he had agreed to a "request" from President George Bush not to harm the Palestinian leader.
This is the same president who snubs such allies as France and Germany; bypasses the UN in waging a war on Iraq; torpedoes the Kyoto protocol on environment; and denounces the anti-ballistic missile treaty with Russia by building a national missile shield. Yet he does not consider it beneath his dignity to "request" Mr Sharon to spare Mr Arafat's life. In all probability, Mr Sharon may this time carry out his threat.
A killer without a conscience, Mr Sharon has scores of targeted assassinations to his credit. Last month, he killed Hamas founder Sheikh Yassin, and President Bush rewarded him by abandoning decades of US policy on the Middle East peace - he agreed that Israel could retain "some" West Bank land. Encouraged by Mr Bush's generosity at the Palestinian expense, the "hero" of Sabra-Chatilla killed new Hamas leader Abdel Aziz Rantissi three days later.
For Mr Sharon, the situation is ideal. Mr Bush is in the midst of one of America's most hard-fought presidential elections since World War II. For him to annoy the powerful Zionist lobby in the US at this stage is out of the question. Mr Sharon knows this and realizes this is the time for him to act, for he can get away with any crime against the Palestinians. However, war does not always go the way one wants.
In Iraq, America and, by implications, Israel are at war with the Iraqi people. If any harm comes to Mr Arafat, it is unlikely that things will remain confined to Iraq. In fact, the situation could get out of hands for "moderate" Arab leaders and the battle area enlarged. The result will not only be damage to America's long-term interests in the Middle East but also more body-bags - the last thing Mr Bush wants.
Pensioners' case
The government's plan to convert the National Savings Scheme (NSS) into a mutual fund and provide market-based returns to its certificate holders may well be the best way to tackle the issue of dwindling returns. NSS investors have seen the return on their investment decline steadily over the past years as interest rates fell in the market. The worst hit are widows and pensioners, many of whom had invested their life's savings in NSS.
The drop in the rate of return bites deep into their pockets as, on the one hand, they have to deal with inflation and, on the other, their profits from money invested in the saving certificates continues to decline. This is a most unsatisfactory situation in which the proposed conversion to a mutual fund may be a step in the right direction.
However, while returns from the mutual funds may be higher than what investors are receiving from the NSS, there is an element of risk involved which a certain section of our society, like those whose sole source of income is these investments, can ill-afford.
For such people, the government needs to introduce a special investment scheme that offers both higher rate of return and security. In the absence of a social security system in the country, special arrangements need to be made to accommodate widows, pensioners and people in similar situations who need both security and a reasonable return on their savings.
For such a scheme to be successful, it must have a limit to the amount to be invested along with some safeguards against misuse. Amidst talk of poverty reduction and raising the standard of living, such a scheme will serve as a unique form of government assistance to an indigent and deserving section of society.