Arab-Israeli ceasefire

The ceasefire announced by President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Ariel Sharon on Tuesday should serve to arouse hope for peace in the holy land. This they did at the Sharm al-Sheikh summit hosted by Egyptian President Hosni Mobarak. The meeting could turn out to be seminal if the ceasefire decision is faithfully implemented and progress made on the real issue - the need for Israel to withdraw from the occupied territory.

Hamas has rejected the ceasefire, calling it a decision that concerns the Palestinian Authority and not the Palestinian movement. Given Israel's track record with regard to agreements, one can understand why Hamas has decided to ignore the announcement at Sharm el-Sheikh. The fate of the ceasefire agreement depends essentially on the stronger party, Israel. The days and weeks following this announcement should be able to show us whether Mr Sharon has had a change of heart.

Back in October 2000, at a summit arranged by President Clinton in this very Egyptian resort, Yasser Arafat and Ehud Barak, then Israel's prime minister, had agreed to a three-point accord that included a public renunciation of violence. However, nothing came of it, and the second intifada that had begun with Mr Sharon's ill-advised visit to the Islamic holy places had gained momentum. As luck would have it, the man whose visit to Al Aqsa touched off the second intifada became Israel's prime minister the next year. Since then, the peace process has been in doldrums.

The Oslo accords were shredded to pieces when Mr Sharon re-occupied the West Bank and Gaza areas which Israel had vacated under the declaration of principles signed in Washington in September 1993. The reoccupation was followed by some gruesome events, including the massacre at Jenin, the targeted killing of a number of Palestinian leaders, the blowing up of houses, the destruction of Arafat's Ramalllah headquarters and his confinement there as a prisoner till almost his last moments. Aware of Israel's power and of the position of the Zionist lobby in the corridors of power in Washington, Mr Sharon had a field day. Is this going to be the fate of this accord, too?

At Camp David in July 2000, Mr Barak, too, was keen on an accord provided Arafat signed on the dotted lines. His aim was to go home as peacemaker and get a second term as prime minister. One hopes Mr Sharon does not use Tuesday's accord for reasons of domestic expediency and forgets all about it once he has clinched a third term. The ceasefire declaration will have value only if it is followed by a revival of the peace process.

The Oslo process is dead, while the roadmap crafted by the Quartet was treated with contempt by America itself. The ceasefire will never last unless peace moves are seen to be made in good faith. The Palestinians are the aggrieved party, and naturally it is they who would expect things to move. Here America alone matters. If the US lets Mr Sharon treat Tuesday's accord the way he did the Oslo treaties and the 2003 roadmap, there is little possibility of this latest bilateral announcement becoming a landmark in the Arab-Israel conflict.

Already in his second term, President George Bush could perhaps feel himself less dependent on America's Zionist lobby and put his foot down on Mr Sharon. Ultimately, it is the US which will decide the fate of the latest announcement at Sharm el-Sheikh.

FTA with Sri Lanka

The signing yesterday of a free trade agreement between Pakistan and Sri Lanka will lend further substance to the long-standing good neighbourly relations between the two countries. This is the first FTA that Pakistan has signed with any country, and it underscores the existing unanimity of views between Islamabad and Colombo on a host of political, economic, regional and global issues. Besides, during President Chandrika Kumaratunga's three-day official visit to Islamabad, three other major agreements and two memorandums of understanding have been signed to bolster bilateral relations.

These include the agreement on the exemption of visa fee for students studying in either country, providing mutual legal assistance in criminal matters and on extending a $10 million trade credit facility to Sri Lanka. The MoUs signed are in the fields of technical assistance in gemology and jewellry and in facilitating research in agriculture. All this will give the two countries a headstart in strengthening bilateral trade and socio-economic relations when the South Asian Free Trade Agreement comes into force in January next year.

Both Pakistan and Sri Lanka stand to gain considerably from the signing of the FTA. The opening up of each other's markets will mean free trade in agricultural products, textiles, medicines, tea, rubber and several other commodities, which has so far been held back mainly because of a stricter trade regime and higher tariffs on the part of Sri Lanka.

However, for the last ten years or so the balance of bilateral trade has remained in favour of Pakistan. Tea is one of Pakistan's major imports but the bulk of it is being outsourced at a very high price from Kenya. Now with the signing of the FTA, Pakistani importers can consider buying tea at far cheaper rates from Sri Lanka. A lot of effort and years of hard work on both sides have gone into making the bilateral FTA a reality.

Pakistan should seriously work towards reaching similar agreements with other regional countries too. This will enable both public and private sectors to benefit more fully from the opportunities being opened up by the coming into force of the WTO regime earlier this year.

Shifting of US consulate

One hopes that reports of the possible relocation of the US consulate in Karachi to the Boating Basin area are not correct and that the authorities will desist from making a move that would not only prove a nuisance in terms of traffic and security arrangements but could also endanger people's lives. The new venue reportedly under consideration for the consulate is situated close to schools and private homes, and is also a stone's throw from a row of popular eateries.

Already, the management of one of the schools in the vicinity has expressed concern over the reports and is said to be contacting the city high-ups to stall any such step. Perhaps there should be a more coordinated action, involving a greater number of people in the area - shopkeepers, restaurant owners, and residents - who can make their case against the proposed venue of the consulate stronger through a collective position.

Meanwhile, the consulate's present location on Abdullah Haroon Road has been a source of trouble for city commuters most of whom have often to make inconvenient detours to get to their destination because of strict security arrangements. Together with the US consul-general's residence - situated on a parallel road closed to regular traffic - the location of the consulate has also been the reason for the frequent closures of the weekly Frere Hall book bazaar in view of attacks on the American mission.

To prevent similar disruptions in Boating Basin, the US consulate should ideally be located some distance away from well traversed routes, thus keeping public inconvenience to a minimum. There were reports that the establishment of a diplomatic enclave in Karachi was being considered. What has happened to this idea?