| 07 October 2004 | Thursday | 21 Shaban 1425 |
Afghanistan's drug boom
Four years of Intifada
Expanding the Security Council
The World Development Report - 2005, just released in Washington by the World Bank - does not deal directly with the measures to increase investment, including foreign investment, unlike its similar annual publications.
Instead, it identifies the factors that block or minimize investment in the developing countries, and wants the latter to remove those impediments to speed up their development.
The deterrents are many and usually similar, only the extent of deterrence differs from country to country. The report which looks for new areas of development, drawbacks in the existing practices, and why the benefits of development and aid are not reaching the masses is prepared with a great deal of effort.
The use of considerable expertise is not often faulted by the critics of the World Bank even when its performance as an institution is eventually benefiting the rich in the poor countries. The scope of the report is much vaster.
The subtitle of the report is: "Easing policy risks, costs and barriers to competition keys to faster growth, less poverty." It says eliminating the varied deterrents to investment can be exceedingly rewarding and that the returns from investment climate improvements can dwarf the impact of the current international aid flows.
The British chancellor of exchequer Gordon Brown says current external aid in the world is running at 50 billion dollars and he wants to raise that figure to 100 billion dollars a year which is an uphill take with many donors like the US dragging their feet. But the benefits of the improvement in the investment climate in the developing countries can far exceed 100 billion dollars along with other immense benefits.
These deterrents can be as old as the immense corruption, the utterly slow moving judiciary and insecure property rights of the investors to increasing smuggling accentuated by the use of air services, and over-regulation.
There are also regulations, rules and practices which bar or discourage competition and so the consumer is not able to get the best out of the free market and imports. A free market economy without real competition is a sham and helps the monopolists and cartel builders.
New laws alone are not the answer. Warrick Smith, lead-author of the report, says of the thousands of companies interviewed in developing countries 90 per cent complained of gaps between policy and practice and so the informal economy accounted for more than half the output in many developing countries. Governments need to close these gaps and confront the deeper sources of policy failure than can undermine the investment climate."
The report says that as a result of the economic reforms adopted by India its economic growth increased from 2.9 per cent in the 1970s to 6.7 per cent by the end of the 1990s. and the share of its population living on below one dollar per day fell from 54 per cent in the 1980s to 35 per cent in 2000.
It also says that if the climate for investment in Dhaka matches that of Shanghai it could reduce its productivity gap by 40 per cent, and wages can rise by 18 per cent.
And for Kalkota the effect could be even larger. The 80 per cent productivity gap could be eliminated and wages go up by 38 per cent. What about Karachi? The summary of the report is silent on this problem city with its varied interruptions and periodic explosions of violence. But Pakistan stands out in one area - registration of new companies can be done in 26 days, while it takes 36 days in Bangladesh, 50 days in Sri Lanka and 89 days in India. Is this difference so distinct due to the fast registration of one-person companies which is on the rise in Pakistan?
But while it is easy to register new companies in Pakistan it takes an average of 4.8 years in South Asia to complete bankruptcy proceedings, and 10 years in India. The world average for resolving bankruptcy is 3.2 years.
While the Indians are quick to burn their dead it takes ages to completely wind up a bankrupt company. In Pakistan the corporate sector has been wanting quicker bankruptcy proceedings as too many companies have become dead or non-existent. But the government machinery has been moving much too slowly.
Corruption has been identified as the number one problem of companies in South Asia. Too many officials are asking for money from companies in this region. But the average loss in sales income in South Asia is said to be 3 per cent which is undoubtedly a very low figure. In Latin America the loss is estimated at over 5 per cent, which again is low.
The second constraint for investment identified by the 39.000 companies interviewed is electricity shortage and breakdowns. The average loss from electricity outage in India is over 10 per cent of sales, and over 6.5 per cent in Pakistan. The companies can produce their own electricity but that enhances the cost of investment cost and production.
The third problem identified by South Asian companies is insecure property rights. It is a major concern. In Bangladesh 85 per cent of the firms interviewed were unsure if the courts will uphold their property rights.
In Pakistan, 63 per cent of the firms who have such fears. In India, states with poor investment climate have 40 per cent lower productivity than those with good investment climate.
While the report calls for removal of trade barriers and other restrictions on free flow of trade in developing countries, it has a message of cheer for the people of such countries.
It says removing trade restrictions, subsidies and other market distortions in developed countries that harm the investment climate in the developing countries can deliver to them benefits more than four times the value of the aid they receive to improve their investment climate.
But the developing countries have to improve the investment climate not only through the familiar means but also by improving the law and order situation on a lasting basis and make the judiciary efficient, honest and function along modern lines.
And corruption has to be reduced, if not eliminated altogether. Regulations governing trade and industry should be fair and uniform and be truly helpful, not a hindrance. And the officials who hinder the growth of business have to be punished.
The World Bank and the Asian Development Bank are helping Pakistan monetarily to reform the courts and the police establishment. The issue is how well that financial assistance can be used, and how bad characters in the police are weeded out and good men encouraged and rewarded.
The situation today is such that the people fear the police more than they fear the criminals, and they fear there is small hope of protection against the police, more so in the rural areas where the reigning feudal lords and the ruthless police tend to act in concert.
And many of the police officers are political appointees who cannot be removed or punished for their follies. In the face of all the talk about the reform of the police and the large sums spent on the process, the people don't believe the police will be reformed in the foreseeable future.
The World Bank does not want all the deterrents to investment to be removed in one go. It wants governments in developing countries to eliminate one problem after another in succession but without any exception.
Quite often, one evil supports another, and if one is removed the others become weak. For example improvements in the functioning of the police and the judiciary can alter the social system a great deal and reduce fear and uncertainty from society a good deal.
And that can change the political and economic atmosphere of the country. What matters is making a good beginning and staying by that for long despite the possible setbacks.
In the very first speech after he was sworn in as Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz spoke of improving the judicial system for rendering effective justice. But how far he will go in the face of possible resistance from vested interests remains to be seen. His hands are full with too many reform proposals. Where he begins from and how long he persists remain to be seen.
The report also cautions against clumsy official interventions which have made the situation worse in many developing countries. The report is against such ham handed interventions in a exceedingly complex situation like ours. The report calls for an increase in skilled workers. It says market intervention by the government should help all workers and not some alone.
Can the government really eliminate the gap between policies and practice, against which 90 per cent of the companies interviewed complained? It is difficult to do that in a country with a feudal background where the feudal lords pack the national and provincial assemblies, now with their sons and daughters as well.
Feudal dominance opposes the principles of free and open competition. It is based on privilege and protection of their domains by the state machinery, if not under the law but by common practice.
For all the talk about private investment, that averaged in South Asia only 16.5 per cent of the GDP in the five years between 1998 and 2002 and foreign direct investment in the same period averaged 6.5 per cent of the GDP - the lowest of the developing regions. And inclusive of employment in agriculture, the informal sector in South Asia 93 per cent of the employment in India.
Evidently far more has to be done by South Asia, including Pakistan, to increase investment to raise to the level of 20 per cent and then 25 per cent instead of opting for a high consumption or an imported consumption culture. And surely an overwhelming number of the workers cannot be exploited in the informal sector, beginning with agriculture which employs over 50 per cent of the workers.
Afghanistan's drug boom
Afghanistan's presidential election this Saturday will be a key moment in that country's history. For three years the international community has been doing an outstanding job of stabilizing Afghanistan and building a future for its people.
During my recent trip there, I had an opportunity to appreciate the essential role played by NATO's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), currently under the command of French Lt. Gen. Jean-Louis Py.
Yet despite the efforts of other nations and the reinforcement of deployed forces as the election approaches, one issue is particularly worthy of attention: the noticeable increase of narcotics production since 2002 and its geographical expansion in Afghanistan.
Altogether, 28 of the country's 32 provinces are apparently producing opium, and employing more than 1.7 million people at this work. According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, opium production in Afghanistan in 2003 amounted to about 3,600 tons - that is to say, three-quarters of world production - over 200,000 acres of cultivated land.
More then 90 percent of the heroin arriving in France comes from Afghanistan. An even larger harvest is expected for this year as traffickers stock up to protect themselves against a reaction from the international community.
Not only do these narcotics flood the global drug market, with serious consequences for public health, particularly in Europe, but their production is impeding Afghanistan's stabilization.
Warlords are taking advantage of trafficking, and they are protecting it. The narcotics-related financial networks are fed by particularly powerful underworld groups that undermine authority and the rule of law.
"No-go" areas that foster crime are developing. At the same time, the money generated by trafficking makes it possible to fund attacks by the Taliban fighters still in the area.
In fact, there is little doubt that drug money is funding terrorist activities. And 10 percent of the heroin produced in Central Asia is consumed locally, creating a public health problem for Afghanistan that must be confronted rapidly.
The farming of poppies and drug trafficking in general are damaging the area's economic development. And economic progress is a prerequisite for re-establishing stability in the country.
Confronted with this situation, Afghan President Hamid Karzai has made drug production and trafficking illegal. Last January his government created a special force for counter narcotics efforts. Nonetheless, the scale of the problem demands a sizable response that goes beyond local resources and capabilities.
Like the international community, France is concerned about narcotics and is willing to help. We will need to take advantage of the post-election dynamics to act quickly and help Afghanistan combat this problem.
A first step will be to reinforce the training programmes of the Afghan police, to improve the judiciary system and to strengthen the disarming, demobilizing and reintegrating process. A second will be to encourage measures aimed at closing down and prohibiting poppy-processing laboratories.
But this will not be enough. It will be necessary to establish an international force, other than the ISAF, specifically tasked with counter narcotics operations. And a third axis is necessary, one which would support the development of substitute crops on a local basis.
There are many signs that production can be controlled if there is efficient action on the main issue: the poverty of small farmers. Traditional food crops (wheat, corn, etc.) can offer a viable alternative. The U.N. World Food Programme has offered to help Afghanistan investigate new markets, such as nuts and grapes.
Along with new irrigation systems, several tree nurseries should be renovated to meet the increasing demand for plants. All these initiatives must be encouraged. Moreover, the international community must promise that its members will purchase the crops.
At the same time, we must involve neighbouring countries, taking into account the cross-border aspect of the drug scourge. The international community needs to operate cohesively and to display a fierce determination to succeed.
France is committed to help Afghanistan in this political transition phase, beyond the election. The involvement of our forces not only in the ISAF but also in counter terrorism through Operation Enduring Freedom and in the training of Afghan troops remains highly beneficial.
But I also believe that, in Afghanistan as elsewhere, counter terrorism must be global, and this encompasses the links between narcotics, money and terrorism. This is a war that must be fought on all fronts, a war in which France will be involved without reservation. -Dawn/Washington Post
The writer is France's minister of defence.
Four years of Intifada
September 2004 saw the second anniversary of the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon. No one needed to be reminded about the date - 9/11 is so deeply etched in the global psyche and terminology. But September also saw another - lesser known and lesser remembered - anniversary: four years of the Palestinian Intifada.
The second Palestinian intifada started on September 29, 2000, after notorious Likud leader Ariel Sharon visited the Temple Mount (Haram Sharif to Muslims) with hundreds of armed men.
The mass Palestinian protests triggered by that violation became four years of protests, violence, death and suffering: they became the intifada. As it enters its fifth year, the question arises: What has all the death and suffering actually achieved?
Before answering, it is important to have some idea of the scale of bloodshed in the second Intifada. The figures are horrific: 3,500 Palestinians killed, almost 1,000 Israelis, tens of thousands of Palestinians injured, several thousand Israelis, tens of thousands of Palestinians displaced from their homes - or whose homes were destroyed.
Bear in mind the relatively small geographical space in which all this has happened - for the Palestinians the West Bank and the aptly named Gaza Strip - and the numbers are magnified. The Intifada has indeed been a bloody event.
Put faces on the dead and the tragedy grows infinitely. Twelve-year old Muhammed Al-Durrah, one of the earliest victims, shot as he cowered in his father's arms. Twenty-one young Israeli party goers killed in a Tel Aviv disco in June 2001.
The 20-year old Palestinian girl and the mother who chose a "martyr's death" over her children. Twenty-three-year old peace activist Rachel Corrie crushed by an Israeli bulldozer.
The dozens killed in Jenin, in Rafah and the 70-plus killed just in the past few days by Israel's Operation Days of Penitence in Jabaliyeh. The two settler children shot last week in Sderot.
Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, Abdel Aziz el-Rantissi and the latest Hamas victim of Israel's targeted assassinations, Izzedine Al-Sheikh Khalil. The Intifada is a collation of many sad stories - on both sides.
Victims on both sides, yes, but it is still a conflict between "good" and "evil". Individual Israelis - those killed by a suicide bomber as they went to work for example - are victims, but Israel as a collective is the oppressor in the Middle East.
It is Israel which occupied Palestinian land and displaced so many from their homes; it is Israel which is denying the basic human rights of the Palestinian people; it is Israel which has maintained a UN-acknowledged illegal occupation for decades; it is Israel which unashamedly uses military force against unarmed civilians.
Let there be no confusion on this score: individual Israeli victims do not erase the overriding culpability of the Israeli state. Much death, then, much more on the Palestinian side than the Israeli. But what has it achieved? Is it death that is leading somewhere, or is it death in a futile cycle of violence?
The Palestinians can claim some "victories". Ariel Sharon's decision this year to withdraw from all Jewish settlements in Gaza was a radical reversal of his stance that all the occupied territories should be settled by Jews. His acceptance - in theory if not in practice - of a Palestinian homeland was something that could not have been imagined only a few years ago.
Why has Sharon changed? Not because of a soul-searching introspective (remember this is the 'Butcher of Sabra and Chatila'), but because of the Intifada: because four years of Palestinian struggle and dying have demonstrated even to Ariel Sharon that the occupied territories cannot be held by force.
There has been an even bigger change in Israeli public opinion: far more oppose Jewish settlements in the occupied territories than did so four years ago.
The Intifada has forced Israelis to consider the cost of Jewish settlements: alien transplants in the heart of Arab land, motivated by ideology (ultra-Zionism) rather than practicality, that have to be secured by mainstream Israeli funds and Israeli soldiers.
Thanks to the Intifada, moderate Jews who wish to live in peace are finally questioning (in fact, challenging) the Zionist agenda that drives settlement construction.
Four years is a long time to keep dying and burying. The spirit of determination that sustains the intifada is something else Palestinians can be proud of.
They have kept up their struggle despite incurring such heavy losses, despite facing a much stronger foe, despite the world's sole superpower being biased against them, despite often hostile international opinion, and despite finding themselves in an ever more hopeless situation. Even if the Palestinians achieved nothing, they would deserve credit simply for keeping up the fight.
Of course, if one were judging the Intifada as part of a conventional war, then it could also claim the almost one thousand Israeli dead as an achievement. The human damage inflicted on the Jewish state over the past four years by the Palestinians certainly far exceeds that suffered by it in its wars with its Arab neighbours.
Significant achievements, perhaps. But when weighed against the costs - and particularly against the setbacks suffered by the Palestinians over the past four years - they lose much of their gloss.
The costs in terms of lives lost, homes destroyed, mental anguish and so on, have already been described. But there have also been costs for the wider Palestinian struggle for an independent homeland made up of all the occupied territories.
Four years ago, Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat came close to reaching an agreement for division of the holy land. That agreement was scuppered in part by Israel's refusal to include East Jerusalem in the Palestinian package (but largely by its fundamental unfairness).
In 2000 Barak (and Clinton) offered a bad deal, but compared to what the Palestinians would get today it was brilliant. Four years of Intifada have weakened the Palestinian hand at the negotiating table. They have pushed the Palestinians further - not closer - from their goal of independent Palestine with Jerusalem as its capital.
Most of the dying and suffering has been on the Palestinian side. The cycle of violence was started by the Israelis. Israel, as stressed above, is the guilty party in this dispute.
Yet listen to international opinion and - alongside condemnation of Israeli occupation and oppression - and one will find condemnation of Palestinian terrorism.
The suicide bombing that has come to characterize the Intifada (together with stone-throwing and mass demonstrations) has been an effective killing device, but its long-term impact has been negative.
Suicide bombings of buses, discos and restaurants have allowed Israel to denigrate the Palestinian freedom struggle into a terror movement. In four years, the Palestinians have not managed to come up with anything (or rather anyone) to effectively counter Israeli propaganda.
Yes, all are attacking the occupation. But each strikes back against Israel, each vents his frustration, in his own way: some by protests, some by throwing stones, some by suicide bombing.
The lack of overall vision stems from the lack of unified leadership: there is Yasser Arafat, there is Hamas, there is the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade and there are dozens of other Palestinian factions and groups. Shamefully, they can be sometimes be seen fighting each other with the same intensity with which they combat the Israelis.
Palestinian inability to unite has done infinite damage to their cause. A mass movement that could have had its strength and impact magnified by numbers, that could have been kept under control and away from counterproductive extremism by a strong guiding hand, has instead been weakened by infinite small ineffective attacks, and by fractious leadership.
Perhaps if tomorrow the Palestinians were to unite and develop a coherent strategy for the Intifada it would have more of an impact, bringing them closer to an independent Palestine. Perhaps it will not happen. But if the Palestinians cannot move forward, they even more certainly cannot move back.
There are no political settlements on the horizon that would satisfy Palestinian aspirations and make them give up their protests. There is only on-going Israeli occupation and oppression.
Nor are there are any alternatives to the Intifada, other than to sit back and take whatever Israel metes out. No solutions, no way back, no alternatives: the Intifada goes on - costing much, achieving little.
iffatidris2000@yahoo.co.uk.
Expanding the Security Council
Since the establishment of the United Nations in 1945, its membership has increased from the original 52 member-states to 191. The scope of the world body activities has also expanded considerably.
The present composition of the UN Security Council (UNSC), with five permanent members and 10 non-permanent members, therefore, does not correspond with the increased membership of the United Nations and, calling for its expansion and keeping in view the principle of geographical representation.
In recent years, there has been a great deal of pressure on the UN General Assembly to enlarge the UNSC to reflect the changing geo-political realities and redress the existing inequities, especially with regard to Asia, Africa, Eastern Europe, Latin America and the Caribbean.
At its 48th session, held in 1993, the UN General Assembly established an open-ended working group to consider the question of increase in the membership of the UNSC and other related matters. This group, which commenced its work in 1994, however, was unable to make any headway owing to differences among the member states which continue to persist.
The UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, has now appointed a high level panel and asked it to submit its recommendations for the expansion of the UNSC at next year's General Assembly session in September. One hopes that instead of rushing through this important question, the panel will carefully examine the issues in their entirety before making its recommendations.
In the meantime, according to a press report, an idea has been floated to create a new category of "semi-permanent members" who may serve on the UNSC for four to five years, without veto power. Needless to say that such strange ideas are bound to hamper and delay the search for a compatible solution to the intricate question of the UNSC's expansion.
During past months, there has been intense lobbying by countries desirous of acquiring permanent seats on the UNSC, for its expansion. As a matter of fact, Brazil, Germany, Japan and India have already launched a unified campaign for this purpose and are lobbying hard to muster support for their candidature.
It appears that these countries have become impatient to fulfil their ambition and are trying to head off any proposal that may fall short of giving them permanent seats on the UNSC.
The main basis for the expansion of the UNSC is the concept of equitable geographical representation. Proponents of expansion argue that to make the UNSC more representative, effective and legitimate in the eyes of the international community, it was necessary to enlarge it.
However, a large majority of the UN members maintains that addition of new "permanent members" to the UNSC would make it more undemocratic and unrepresentative as it would create new centres of power and privilege, to the exclusion of the overwhelming majority of United Nations members. Expansion of the UNSC must, therefore, address the need for increased representation of the developing nations.
A number of the UN members, the bulk of when come from the developing countries, have been questioning the rationale behind the existing "permanent members" of the UNSC which, apart from perpetuating the post-World War II legacy, runs counter to the concept of equal rights of the member states, irrespective of their size and political/ economic/ military potential.
On the basis of the same analogy, the permanent induction of new members in the Council, would be equally anomalous and unacceptable as it would relegate the rest of the UN members to a secondary status forever.
The UNSC is indisputably the most important organ of the UN system and, therefore, the question of its expansion is of vital importance and must be aimed at making this apex body more broad- based to improve its representational character and legitimacy.
This objective can only be achieved by increasing the Council's size in the non-permanent category, with a fixed tenure, to allow each and every member of the United Nations to participate in the decision-making process by this institution, on a rotational basis.
It may also be pertinent to mention that the selection of new "permanent members" to represent various regions is a very complex issue and has the potential of becoming a source of acrimony and dissension within the UN family.
The contenders for permanent membership in the UNSC are seeking to acquire this status on the basis of their political/ economic/ military strength which negates the concept of "sovereign equality" of all the member states, enshrined in the UN Charter.
The right of vote is inextricably linked with the UNSC's expansion. This right, which the drafters of the UN Charter bestowed upon the five permanent members of the Security Council in 1945, has always remained a contentious issue and an overwhelming majority of the UN members have considered it as undemocratic and counter-productive, and have hence demanded its withdrawal.
The permanent members, however, insisted that veto was an irreplaceable tool to ensure balanced decisions by the UNSC. This argument has no rationale or altruistic value and has been used by the permanent members only as a ploy to grab more power and privilege to advance their own national interests.
The concept of veto was not only anarchistic, it also goes against the democratic ethos of the UN and should, therefore, be abolished. Another important aspect, having a direct bearing on the credibility of the UNSC, also needs to be given serious thought.
The UN Charter envisages that non-permanent members of the UNSC should be elected on the basis of their contribution to the maintenance of peace and security. In practice, however, this important consideration is ignored and the principle of geographical distribution is generally adhered to.
It would, therefore, be necessary to ensure that, in future, the new members, to be inducted to the UNSC, meet the prescribed criteria and have an impeccable record of honouring UN resolutions.
Deliberate defiance of these resolutions should be considered as derelict behaviour on the part of a member who should then be disqualified from holding membership in the UNSC.
It is no secret that the UNSC has been ineffective in dealing with matters relating to the maintenance of international peace and security. On a number of occasions its permanent members, instead of harmonizing the collective interest of the UN members, have acted out of self-interest.
This has the UN's eroded credibility as an institution that should promote and safeguard the common interest of world nations, without any discrimination. The US-led invasion of Iraq is the latest example that illustrates this point.
It is, therefore, imperative that an earnest effort should also be made to enhance the UNSC's effectiveness and legitimacy as no useful purpose is likely to be served by merely enhancing its strength numerically.
The writer is a former ambassador.