| 08 February 2005 | Tuesday | 28 Zilhaj 1425 |
Farce of elections in Iraq
High cost of terrorism
Making the same mistakes in Iran
A costly & harmful project
How do policy makers, columnists, and editorial writers in the West - in particular the United States - view Pakistan's political system in light of the inaugural address by President George W. Bush?
A quick consensus emerged among most analysts that General Musharraf's political system, notwithstanding his own description of it, was not strictly seen as a democracy. In fact Pakistan was being lumped together with some of the more authoritarian regimes in the world.
"When opposition to tyranny has been at odds with security or economic policy - in Pakistan, in Egypt, in Saudi Arabia, in Russia, in China - the Bush administration of the past four years consistently chose to ignore and excuse oppression," wrote The Washington Post in an editorial that appeared a day after the speech. Even President Musharraf's domestic opponents would not call his system or his style of governance "tyrannical" or "oppressive" but that was the description used by several analysts in America.
If the Pakistani system did not qualify as a democracy, should Washington, following President Bush's pledge to bring freedom and liberty to the world, work to change it? If Pakistan is to be nudged towards a system that is different from the one it has in place today, in which direction should it be pushed? Or should Pakistan be left alone to find its own way as long as it continues to help the United States in its fight against Islamic radicalism and international terrorism?
The Washington Post had an answer to these questions which was echoed by a number of other commentators. "Anyone judging by Mr Bush's speech yesterday would have to conclude that US policy towards those countries, and many others, is on the verge of a historic change. If not, his promise of the 'greatest achievements in the history of freedom' will be remembered as grandiose and hollow."
This was a severe indictment for Pakistan and an invitation to Washington to begin to adopt policies that would bring about change in Islamabad. It matters for Pakistan how it is viewed by opinion makers and policymakers in the United States.
There is a great deal at stake in Islamabad's relations with Washington. What is at issue is not simply how much economic and military assistance America will be prepared to provide Pakistan as the latter struggles to revive its economy and place it on a path of sustainable growth and development for years to come. How America looks at Pakistan will also determine Islamabad's relations with a number of counties, and most definitely with India.
A good working relationship with the United States will give Pakistan the confidence to work out its differences with its large neighbour. The United States has much greater leverage in both India and Pakistan when it is seen to be even handed; a tilt in one direction or the other can have a significant impact on how Delhi and Islamabad shape their relations with each other and with the rest of the world.
It was the United States' mild hostility towards Pakistan in the 1990s that was a factor in Islamabad's decision to support the Taliban in Afghanistan. Insecurity can always lead to irrational behaviour although to the architects of that particular policy it seemed like an appropriate response.
In analysing how America's stance towards the world would change if President Bush and his team were serious in pursuing their "freedom and liberty" agenda in their foreign policy dealings, questions were most often asked about Washington's relations with China, Russia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, and North Korea. It was recognized that there was a great deal of difference in the political systems that operated in these countries.
Under Russian president Vladimir Putin, the country seemed to be veering towards authoritarianism. He placed curbs on the media, harassed large businessmen, abandoned the system of elections for choosing provincial governors, and became more aggressive in projecting the Russian influence over what Moscow called the "near abroad". President Putin was resentful of the way the West had influenced the electoral process in Ukraine. He ultimately - but very reluctantly - accepted Victor Yushchenko as the duly elected president of Ukraine and allowed him to take office on January 23, 2005.
Notwithstanding this change of heart, the Russian president was not pleased with what happened as a result of the "silent revolution" in which a very large number of citizens had simply refused to accept the results of the previous election that was widely regarded to have been rigged. It was well known that the Americans in particular but also the Europeans had provided money, help and training to the grassroots organizations that had used "peoples power" to persuade the outgoing president Leonid Kuchma to agree to another poll.
There was much rejoicing in liberal circles that a quite revolution rather than military confrontation had brought about change in Ukraine and moved that country towards democracy. Even President Bush paid an oblique tribute to this development when he said in his inaugural address that "it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world".
China also presented a problem in pursuing what some analysts had begun to call the Bush doctrine. The Communist Party continued to control the state with an iron hand. It was not prepared to allow a great deal of freedom to the media and had no hesitation in suppressing the news that was regarded as inimical to its security concerns. Chinese have long memories. They were mindful of the fact that it was the outpouring of affection for Hu Yaobang, once the party secretary-general, at his funeral that led to the Tiananmen Square incident in June 1989.
When Zhao Ziyang died in January 2005, after remaining in house arrest for 16 years, the Chinese feared that his death could once again galvanize the Chinese youth and get them to demand an opening up of the political system. Should Washington encourage such a movement as it had done in Ukraine when it had become so dependent on the Chinese economy for its own economic health and when the Chinese had been fully cooperative in Washington's war against international terrorism?
Egypt also posed a serious dilemma. It was the second largest recipient of American aid; under the long-serving President Hosni Mubarak, it had walked a fine line in the dispute over territory between the Palestinians and the Israelis. Washington regarded Egypt's voice to be the more moderate one in the Arab world. But there was a problem. Muhammad Ata, the mastermind of the September 11 attacks on the United States, was an Egyptian who was deeply resentful of the authoritarian ways of the Mubarak regime.
President Bush seemed to be speaking for people such as Ata when he said that "America will not pretend.. .that any human being aspires to live at the mercy of bullies. We will encourage reform in other governments by making clear that success in our relations will require the decent treatment of their own people".
Will Washington follow through these words with actions that resulted in persuading the Egyptian president to think again before presenting himself at the head of another ticket in the next presidential elections? Would the United States be ready to aid civil society in Egypt as it did in Ukraine to open up the system? Or, conversely, would Egypt's usefulness to the United States in its approach towards the Middle East override this ringing cry for freedom?
The Bush doctrine about promoting freedom and liberty was put to an early test within a couple of weeks of the inaugural address. On January 31, the Egyptian authorities apprehended Ayman Nour, the leader of a new opposition party - the Tomorrow Party - that had called for the establishment of liberal democracy in that country.
Nour was roughed up by the security forces and sentenced to 45 days in prison on a charge of forgery. "In standing for Mr Nour, Mr Bush would be supporting homegrown constitutional reform aimed at the creation of a parliamentary system of government, to be chosen in a fully democratic election," declared The Washington Post in yet another editorial.
Saudi Arabia, another country that practised politics very different from the one President Bush was advancing as a cause for the entire world, was closely allied to the United States. It was one of the main suppliers of oil to America, and was in some ways the major presence in the Muslim world. It had also joined the American war on terrorism. But then there was considerable restiveness in the Kingdom as people - in particular women - wished for greater participation in political processes and in the country's economic life.
Saudi Arabia also had a poor human rights record and its legal system with public beheadings of those convicted sometimes of petty crimes did not suggest a rapid march towards modernity. At the same time, the Saudi government had used its enormous resources to promote the orthodox version of Islam that it practised, not only to such other Muslim countries as Pakistan, but also to Muslim communities in America and Europe. Did the Bush doctrine apply to the kingdom?
How should President Musharraf respond to this challenge? His style of governance is widely misunderstood among the liberals in the United States. It is a stretch to include Pakistan with Egypt, Saudi Arabia, China and Russia as a country that has gone completely off the democratic track. It is necessary for Islamabad to do a better job of explaining what it is doing in the field of political development.
Democracy cannot be imposed from the outside; it cannot suddenly take root. Even the outpouring of enthusiasm by the Iraqis for the polls conducted on January 30 is not going to usher in democracy in that unfortunate land. It will take patience and perseverance. Institutions that must be in place before democracy can flourish take time to develop.
This is also the lesson of Pakistan's experience. Elections did not produce democratic governments in the country. Pakistanis went to the polls four times between 1988 and 1997 and each time they chose a government that, in terms of quality of governance it provided, was worse than the one before. The assemblies, political parties and the judicial system were not able to constrain the wayward behaviour of self-absorbed politicians.
This brings me back to the example of Ukraine. If America and its president are really interested in promoting democracy in the world they should work with the institutions and civil society to cultivate behaviour that would promote democracy. That is precisely what was done in Ukraine. Islamabad should welcome assistance in developing a democratic culture in the country. That would be a real contribution.
Farce of elections in Iraq
The United States, unlike the empires of old Europe, has always preferred to exercise its hegemony indirectly. It has relied on local relays - uniformed despots, corrupt oligarchs, pliant politicians, obedient monarchs - rather than lengthy occupations.
It was only when rebellions from below threatened to disrupt this order that the marines were dispatched and wars fought. During the Cold War, money was supplied indiscriminately to all anti-communist forces (including the current leadership of Al Qaeda); the 21st-century recipients are more carefully targeted.
The aim is slowly to replace the traditional elites in the old satrapies with a new breed of neo-liberal politicians who have been trained and educated in the US. This is the primary function of the US money allocated to "democracy promotion". Loyalty can be purchased from politicians, parties and trade unions. And the result, it is hoped, is to create a new layer of janissary politicians who serve Washington.
This most recent variant of "democracy promotion" has now been applied in Afghanistan and Iraq, and it will hit Haiti (another occupied country) in November. Create a new elite, give it funds and weaponry to build a new army and let them make the country safe for the corporations.
The 2004 Afghan elections, even according to some pro-US commentators, were a farce, and the much vaunted 73 per cent turnout was a fraud. In Iraq, the western media were celebrating a 60 per cent turnout within minutes of the polls closing, despite the fact that Iraq lacks a complete register of voters, let alone a network of computerized polling stations. The official figure, when it comes, is likely to be revised downwards (according to Debka, a pro-US Israeli website, turnout was closer to 40 per cent).
The "high" turnout was widely interpreted as a rejection of the Iraqi resistance. But was it? Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani's many followers voted to please him, but if he is unable to deliver peace and an end to the occupation, they too might defect.
The only force in Iraq the occupiers can rely on are the Kurdish tribes. The Kurdish 36th command battalion fought alongside the US in Fallujah, but the tribal chiefs want some form of independence, and some oil. If Turkey, loyal Nato ally and EU aspirant, vetoes any such possibility, then the Kurds too might accept money from elsewhere. The battle for Iraq is far from over. It has merely entered a new stage.
Despite strong disagreements on boycotting the elections, the majority of Iraqis will not willingly hand over their oil or their country to the West. Politicians who try to force this through will lose all support and become totally dependent on the foreign armies in their country.
The popular resistance will continue. Many in the West find it increasingly difficult to support this resistance. The arguments for and against it are old ones. In 1885, the English socialist William Morris celebrated the defeat of General Gordon by the Mahdi: "Khartoum fallen - into the hands of the people it belongs to". Morris argued that the duty of English internationalists was to support all those being oppressed by the British empire despite disagreements with nationalism or fanaticism.
The triumphalist chorus of the western media reflects a single fact: the Iraqi elections were designed not so much to preserve the unity of Iraq but to re-establish the unity of the West. After Bush's re-election the French and Germans were looking for a bridge back to Washington. Will their citizens accept the propaganda that sees the illegitimate election (the Carter Centre, which monitors elections worldwide, refused to send observers) as justifying the occupation?
The occupation involved a military and economic invasion as envisaged by Hayek, the father of neo-liberalism, who pioneered the notion of lightning air strikes against Iran in 1979 and Argentina in 1982. The re-colonization of Iraq would have greatly pleased him. Politicians masking their true aims with weasel words about "humanity" would have irritated him.
What of the media, the propaganda pillar of the new order? In Control Room, a Canadian documentary on al-Jazeera, one of the more disgusting images is that of embedded western journalists whooping with joy at the capture of Baghdad. The coverage of "elections" in Afghanistan and Iraq has been little more than empty spin. This symbiosis of neo-liberal politics and a neo-liberal media helps reinforce the collective memory loss from which the West suffers today.
Carl Schmitt, a theorist of the Third Reich, developed the view that politics is encompassed by the essential categories of "friend" and "enemy". After the Second World War, Schmitt's writings were adapted to the needs of the US and are now the bedrock of neocon thinking. The message is straightforward: if your country does not serve our needs it is an enemy state. It will be occupied, its leaders removed and pliant satraps placed on the throne.
But when troops withdraw, satrapies often crumble. Occupation, rebellion, withdrawal, occupation, self-emancipation is a pattern in world history. At the Nuremberg trials, Ribbentrop, the German foreign minister, was charged for providing the justification for Hitler's pre-emptive strike against Norway. Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Jack Straw in a dock of the future? Unlikely, but desirable. - Dawn/Guardian Service
High cost of terrorism
Terrorism and militancy did exist in one form or the other in some parts of the world even in the distant past, but it became commonplace in the aftermath of 9/11. The danger that it has been posing to global peace and harmony is enormous.
We hear more often than not the phrases, such as "global war against terrorism". It proves that the menace is multi-faceted, multi-dimensional and not restricted to a particular country or nation. The scourge, its magnitude and severity is being witnessed in many parts of the world, especially in the Muslim countries such as Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Turkey. These countries are direct victims of most sophisticated acts of terrorism sponsored by extremist groups.
The brutal acts of terrorists have aroused serious concerns not only in these states but also all over the civilized world. Even the United States and the western countries, despite their superiority in technology, are not much safe from this menace.
Extremist outfits and networks of these savage acts are unfortunately found in the Muslim states. It is also a reality that in their so-called 'holy war against infidels' the majority of the terrorists as well as victims are no other than Muslims. So, it can be safely assumed that the militancy and terrorism unleashed by the extremist groups in the name of religion is more of self-hurting character than doing any harm to the perceived infidels.
The 'infidels' are more secure. They have fortified themselves against these threats with plenty of resources, skill, and military strength at their disposal. The truth is they are not only capable of defending themselves, but are also well entrenched to defeat and frustrate the acts of terrorism in an offensive way. Afghanistan is a case in point.
But what about frail and defenceless Muslim societies? They can neither defend themselves nor make any offensive, their loud rhetoric and persistent claims notwithstanding. So, the threat is directed more to the Muslim societies and states than the perceived foes of Islam and the Muslims.
The 'infidels' are comparatively safer. But are the Muslims too safe and secure? It is a soul-searching question, especially for the intelligentsia of the Muslim world. If we look at its magnitude and complexity besides the underlying factors and cobweb of hidden causes and reason of the threat posed by terrorism and militancy, we come to the conclusion that only gun power and hardware cannot serve as an ultimate means in the hands of man to rid mankind of the underlying dangers posed by the terrorists and militants.
There is no ideology involved in what the merchants of death and destruction are expounding and executing with so much vanity and pride. In fact, there is no clash between various groups of human beings wherever they live. If there is any such thing, it is the handiwork of those having false belief, or in other words, an impaired understanding of what they are doing. There are also hidden and in many cases material considerations involved in this fictional crusade.
No sane Muslim can buy the argument the masterminds or ideologues of terror and barbarity are advancing to justify wholesale carnage of innocent people in the name of a confused and utopian thought. Bleeding and pitting a man against another man is a severely punishable crime as prescribed in and strictly prohibited in all the faiths and creeds.
Unfortunately, today's Muslim world where a huge majority of people are followers of divine belief in peaceful co-existence, practise finest human values and believe in dignity of existence in this God's beautifully tailored and magically resplendent world, a few groups and individuals are bent upon making it a hell. They preach ideology of hatred and revenge. They are bringing ignominy and a bad name to the divine religion of Islam, its universal appeal of love and amity and more so to their own polity and societies.
The damage they are incurring on the good name of Islam is too high and no amount of protest or rational logic emanating even from within the Muslim societies can retrieve the loss. It will be too late if the serious thinking sections, intelligentsia and opinion making circles did not realize their responsibility of salvaging their society from vicious onslaughts of terrorists.
However, it is heartening that, of late, such a thinking is visible among the intellectuals and they are making efforts to portray a correct and true picture of their faith and its followers in the eyes of the non-Muslims at the intellectual level. It is imperative for them not to let society become a permanent hostage to deranged philosophy and self-destructive deeds of a handful of fanatics.
The glimpses of such thinking and aspirations were evident at a seminar jointly recently organized at Peshawar by the media cell of Fata secretariat and the international relations department of University of Peshawar. There were informative presentations, highly educative and constructive papers by prominent scholars and academics like Prof Qibla Aya, Dr Mohammad Farooq, Ross Masud Hussain, Dr Adnan Sarwar Khan and Col (retired) Yahya Effendi on "Phenomenon of terrorism: its implications for Pakistan and the Muslim World".
Almost all scholars were unanimous in their views that terrorism and its perpetrators were hurting more their fellow Muslims, their own compatriots than anybody else and that concerted endeavours should be made for a proper interaction with the scholars, media, academics and opinion makers in the West to dispel the wrong but deep rooted misconceptions about the religion of Islam and the Muslims.
There was special emphasis on inter-faith contacts between Muslim and Christian societies of the West for a better understanding of each other which, in the view of the scholars, would go a long way in making this universe a peaceful and prosperous place free from terror, religious feud, communal or caste and creed prejudices. They thought that all such efforts would benefit Muslims more than non-Muslims in today's world in which no nation or state could live in isolation or self-imposed seclusion.
The NWFP Governor, Lt Gen (Retd) Syed Iftikhar Hussain Shah, who spoke in a broader way on various aspects of the military action against the terrorists and foreign militants in the tribal areas, enlightened the audience with useful information during the question-answer session.
One hopes that the media and educational institutions would take a leaf from the success of this seminar and make all out efforts to hold seminars and academic discussions on the scourge of terrorism in order to enlighten the common people on this important issue which has almost affected the whole world today. With little, but sincere efforts of our religious scholars, university teachers, academia and the media many of those who have gone astray because of lack of understanding can be reformed and converted into positive thinking and constructive human beings.
The writer is director-general, FATA.
Making the same mistakes in Iran
One year ago I told the US Senate Armed Services Committee that I had concluded "we were almost all wrong" at the time of the Iraq war about that country's activities with regard to weapons of mass destruction - and never more wrong than in the assessment that Iraq had a resurgent programme on the verge of producing nuclear weapons.
I testified about what I saw as the major reasons we got it so wrong, and I urged the establishment of an independent commission to examine this failure and begin the long-overdue process of adjusting our intelligence capabilities to the new national security environment we face. It is an environment dominated by too-easy access to weapons of mass destruction capabilities and to the means of concealing such capabilities from international inspection and national intelligence agencies.
A year later we are still awaiting the independent commission's report. The discussion of intelligence reform has focused on reordering and adding structure on top of an eroded intelligence foundation.
There is an eerie similarity to the events preceding the Iraq war. The International Atomic Energy Agency has announced that while Iran now admits having concealed for 18 years nuclear activities that should have been reported to the IAEA, it has found no evidence of a nuclear weapons programme. Iran says it is now cooperating fully with international inspections, and it denies having anything but a peaceful nuclear energy programme.
Vice-President Cheney is giving interviews and speeches that paint a stark picture of a soon-to-be-nuclear-armed Iran and declaring that this is something the Bush administration will not tolerate. Iranian exiles are providing the press and governments with a steady stream of new "evidence" concerning Iran's nuclear weapons activities.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has warned that Iran will not be allowed to use the cover of civilian nuclear power to acquire nuclear weapons, but says an attack on Iran is "not on the agenda at this point." US allies, while saying they share the concern over Iran's nuclear ambitions, remain determined to pursue diplomacy and say they cannot conceive of any circumstance that would lead them to use military force.
And the press is beginning to uncover U.S. moves that seem designed to lay the basis for military action against Iran.Now is the time to pause and recall what went wrong with the assessment of Iraq's WMD programme and try to avoid repeating those mistakes in Iran. Following steps are essential.
First, accept the fact that the past cannot be undone. Iran has, by its own admission, engaged for at least 18 years in clandestine nuclear activities that now give it the basis, if it chooses, to pursue nuclear weapons. That knowledge cannot be eliminated, so it is nonsense to talk about eliminating Iran's nuclear capabilities short of war and occupation.
The goal, and one that is reachable, is to craft a set of tools and transparency measures that so tie Iran's nuclear activities to the larger world of peaceful nuclear activities that any attempt to push ahead on the weapons front would be detectable and very disruptive for Iran.
Second, acknowledge that dissidents and exiles have their own agenda and that before being accepted as truth any "evidence" they might supply concerning Iran's nuclear programme must be tested and confirmed by other sources.-Dawn/Washington Post Service
The writer was the first leader of the Iraq Survey Group searching for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. He resigned a year ago.
A costly & harmful project
The Margallah Hill, a gift of nature and an irreplaceable asset, is threatened by a new danger - a road tunnel through the hills to link Haripur to Islamabad. This strange project, floated by some powerful real estate agents, apart from being a menace to the ecology and environment of the region, raises many other questions which need answers. But let me first provide some background information for the benefit of readers.
Unfortunately, although the entire area was declared a National Park by the federal government in 1980, it has been disfigured, decimated and defiled as a result of activities which are prejudicial to its preservation, environmentally hazardous and incompatible with the objectives of a national park. A cement factory was established in 1984 in the green area. Its requirement of raw materials - lime stone - is quarried in the National Park. Consequently, the park's features, its rock, soil, fauna and flora are being destroyed. Besides, the factory is creating serious pollution.
Hundreds of stone-crushers were installed in some of the most beautiful valleys in the National Park and rock-mining allowed. This has totally destroyed the landscape, the natural geographical formations, archaeological features and native plants. An industrial atmosphere has been created in an otherwise pristine environment by the noise of motors and machinery, dynamite-blasting, heavy truck traffic, workers' camps and polluted streams.
Even Rawal Lake, a part of the National Park and the main source of drinking water for Rawalpindi, has not been spared and is threatened by pollution caused by human habitations in the catchment area and all around the lake.
The Margallah Hill Society has been campaigning, in the teeth of opposition from powerful political elements and vested interests against this deliberate degradation and decimation of the environment of the National Park. At this writer's request, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif issued a comprehensive Directive on preservation of the Margallah Hill National Park. "I have received", the directive reads, "disturbing reports that the Margallah Hill National Park has been exposed to activities prejudicial to its preservation and are environmentally hazardous for Islamabad".
The directive remains unimplemented. In desperation, I filed a writ petition in the High Court in the hope that activities incompatible with the objectives of the Park would be declared illegal. Nothing happened. The writ petition was dismissed. Who wants to antagonize the rich and the powerful in this country? The wonder is how we achieved some success, however limited, in the teeth of opposition from a powerful mafia. We succeeded in stopping quarrying in Shahdarra, Kalinjar, Sinyari and Shah Allah Ditta valleys.
The Capital Development Authority was set up to develop the city of Islamabad and the rural environs. Its responsibilities and authority are strictly limited to the area demarcated for the federal territory and to specified functions. It never had the resources or the authority to develop transport links between the capital and other parts of the country. The Lahore-Islamabad motorway is part of the National Highway network, built and managed by the Highway Authority of the federal government.
The Islamabad-Murree road was widened and improved by the Punjab government. How can suddenly and inexplicably the CDA decide that development of road links with adjoining areas in the NWFP is its responsibility? The tunnel project is clearly beyond its charter and a deviation from its proper tasks.
Press reports say that, on the directive of President Musharraf, technical details are being worked out and that construction will begin shortly. The country has a long established system under which procedures are laid down for appraisal of projects and which specify bodies empowered to sanction major projects. The system is intended to ensure that optimum use is made of public funds.
The tunnel project does not appear to have been cleared with the Planning Commission or sanctioned by ECNEC or approved by any higher authority, including the environment division and the environment protection agency. What emergency or dire necessity justifies CDA appropriating to itself powers that vest in higher inter-governmental bodies?
Even for a small project, and much more so for a project likely to cost billions of rupees, it is essential to work out and compare the cost and benefits. Clearly, this has not been done in this case. The cost will certainly be in billions of rupees.
What will be the benefits? It is obvious that the benefits to the ordinary residents of Islamabad will be infinitesimal. Of course, real estate agents and landowners along the route and at the Haripur end of the tunnel will reap huge windfall gains if open season is declared for construction in the Margallah Wildlife Reserve and other adjoining areas. It may be noted that the proposed tunnel will not be opening a new area since Haripur is already connected by good roads to Islamabad via the Nicholson Monument.
There will be some savings in time and money for some residents of Haripur who find the new route shorter. As traffic flows have not been worked out, it is not possible to specify exactly the size of benefits. However, even a superficial scrutiny shows that the disparity between the high cost and meagre benefits will be enormous.
Who will finance the project and meet the capital and recurring costs. At present, the recurring cost of managing Islamabad city is being largely met from a tax on property holders. The tax rates are the highest in the country but this is acceptable as the municipal services provided in Islamabad are better than elsewhere. There will be a substantial increase in tax rates if CDA throws even part of the burden of managing the tunnel on the local taxpayers. If the net cost of the tunnel is met by the federal budget or, in other words, by the taxpayer, should not the exact burden be disclosed out for public information.
Even if the project is justified as contributing to the welfare of a backward area, the question is whether this is the best use of public funds. Haripur has a population of about 6,92,000. This is 3.9 per cent of the population of the NWFP. While development indicators show that Haripur is better off than most districts of the NWFP, it is still a poor area with vast unmet needs. Surely, the people of Haripur will benefit more from expansion of social services and development of agriculture, industry and power availability, benefiting the public at large more than an additional road link with Islamabad.
Given the dangerous implications for the ecology and environment of the region and the enormous disparity between costs and benefits, the undertaking of the project borders on lunacy. Who will keep this insanity at bay?