| 29 December 2004 | Wednesday | 16 Ziqa'ad 1425 |
Ukraine's orange revolution
What price development?
The Iranian foreign minister's current visit to Pakistan should enable the two sides to review their relationship and come still closer. Mr Kamal Kharrazi's visit is part of the regular contacts between the two countries at the highest possible level.
Former Prime Minister Mir Zafrullah Khan Jamali visited Iran twice - this year and in 2003 - while President Mohammad Khatami was here in 2002. Last August, Foreign Minister Khursheed Kasuri visited Iran and also had a meeting with his Iranian counterpart at the Eco meeting in Dushanbe a month later.
These high-level contacts serve to emphasize the importance Pakistan and Iran attach to their bilateral relations. Territorially large, rich in oil and strategically located, Iran has always had a special place in Pakistan's scheme of things.
Since its very independence Pakistan has worked closely with Iran in economic and security measures. During the cold war, the two shared a common perception of the global situation and became allies in the US-led military pacts.
In addition, together with Turkey, they formed the Regional Cooperation for Development, an economic grouping which, despite their best intentions, failed to produce results.
The Islamic revolution in Iran, the resulting change in Tehran's foreign policy orientation, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and Pakistan's support to the Taliban put a strain on their relations. Nevertheless, it must be said to the credit of the two sides that both continued to maintain friendly relations.
At present, under the changed scenario in South Asia, Pakistan would like the gas pipeline project to go ahead. Both Islamabad and Tehran are keen to see the project through.
As Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz put it, Pakistan is prepared to give India "an energy corridor", because it could also serve as a confidence-building measure between the two countries.
The project has not taken off because of New Delhi's insistence on security guarantees from Pakistan for the pipeline. Let us hope India overcomes whatever inhibitions it has in the matter, and Iranian gas starts flowing to that country through Pakistan.
Another issue that Iran is grappling with is the nuclear question. It has continued to keep itself engaged with Britain, France and Germany which have promised to give Iran nuclear technology for peaceful purposes if it gives up its nuclear weapons plans.
Tehran has agreed to freeze its uranium enrichment programme, though it said it was not permanently abandoning it. However, a final agreement with the European three has not yet been reached.
Yet, while these talks are progressing, Israel and the US continue to threaten Iran with military action. Tehran is also accused by the US of interfering in Iraq's affairs. The situation in the Middle East would take a turn for the worse if Iran was subjected to aggression.
The area of conflict - at present confined to Palestine and Iraq - will then increase manifold and touch Pakistan's borders. This will only create another Iraq for the US and unleash a new anti-American wave in the Arab-Islamic world.
It is time America stopped looking at Iran and the Middle East through the Israeli prism. There are reports, however, that Iran and the US are talking, and this deserves to be welcomed, for this could serve to lessen tension and rule out military action.
As a friend of both, Pakistan could help the US and Iran scale down their rhetoric and find a modus vivendi. Friendly relations between Iran and America are in Pakistan's interest, and Islamabad should do all it can to help normalize relations between the two.
Ukraine's orange revolution
There is every sign that Monday's victory of the opposition candidate, Mr Viktor Yuschenko, in the second round of Ukraine's presidential election will be endorsed as valid by that country's supreme court - if it should come to that.
His rival was none other than Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovich, who was favoured by Moscow. In the earlier round of election held on November 21, Mr Yanukovich had claimed victory amid allegations, supported by international observers, of widespread rigging.
The matter was referred to the supreme court, which annulled the poll results and ordered a second round. But before the judgment was pronounced, Russian President Vladimir Putin had twice congratulated Mr Yanukovich in a bid to throw Russia's weight behind him.
Though Ukraine gained independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, Russia has continued to exercise its influence over Kiev, aided by the fact that 17 per cent of Russian-speaking Ukrainians form a majority in the country's industrialized east.
Mr Yuschenko was rather openly backed by the West. The non-Russian speaking Ukrainians inhabit the largely agrarian west, and look towards the European Union for socio-political integration in the future. The chasm thus poses a serious threat to the integrity of Ukraine if a compromise is not worked out between the majority and minority communities.
For now, Prime Minister Yanukovich has refused to concede defeat in Monday's election even though more than 12,000 international observers have held the poll to have been free and fair.
Western officials, including those from the US and the EU, have rushed to congratulate Mr Yuschenko, while Moscow has kept silent. The streets of Kiev are full of Mr Yuschenko's supporters clad in the party colour orange, and their leader has urged them to continue the 'orange revolution' until his victory is officially announced by the government.
One hopes that the out-going President Leonid Kuchma, who also belongs to the ruling party but who helped with the passage of several constitutional amendments demanded by the opposition earlier this month, will step down to diffuse the situation. Ukraine needs to move forward on the road to democracy, and any stalling now can delay its possibility of joining the EU one day.
What price development?
It is a shame to learn that the city planners of Lahore do not take kindly to trees. A total of over 7,000 trees have been felled in the city over the last several months for widening roads.
The latest to go were a bunch of 1,000 trees along the canal at the Dharampura crossing, ostensibly because they were a hurdle in the way of building an underpass there. Among the trees felled so far have been the age-old banyan, pipal and poplar trees that were part of the charm of the city.
Most of the trees dated back to the colonial period, with the exception of the poplars whose saplings were imported from Italy and planted on the canal embankments in the 1960s.
Cutting these trees for whatever reason is insane, and presents a paradox for city planners. The increasing number of motor vehicles in Lahore, for which roads need to be widened and upgraded, will also add to environmental pollution whose effects the felled trees could have absorbed to some extent.
Thus, the entire approach to urban development as seen in recent years is seriously flawed. There is much more than good traffic engineering that a city needs for the quality of life it offers.
The on-going tree-felling spree is a classic example of several civic agencies working in isolation and without caring for the impact it will have on the greater urban environment.
A lack of holistic approach to planning is what is to blame for this state of affairs. One is also surprised at the absence of public outcry over the lopsided development being pursued. Lahoris should perhaps ask themselves whether they want to drive more smoothly or to breathe more easily in the years to come.