AN issue, which is not even listed in the agenda for the composite dialogue, is being subjected to behaviour that raises credible doubts about long-term Indian intentions. The latest round in the dialogue has concluded with concerns about the Baglihar dam project on the Chenab river that President Musharraf may also take up during his forthcoming visit to India. It is worthwhile to recall the background of the dispute, and its relevance to the vital issue of sharing the waters of the Indus River system between India and Pakistan. Following the transfer of power in 1947, India began showing its hostility from the very start. Being the upper riparian of the Indus River system, it started to interfere with the canal water supplies that were vital for agriculture in West Pakistan.

With the two countries in a state of confrontation over Kashmir, a dispute over water could have had explosive consequences. The World Bank, therefore, offered its good offices, with the US encouragement, and after prolonged negotiations, the Indus Basin Treaty was signed in 1960. Contrary to the established principles of international law, the rights of the lower riparian, i.e. Pakistan were not safeguarded. The three eastern rivers, Sutlej, Beas and Ravi, were awarded to India, while the three western rivers, Indus, Jhelum and Chenab, were awarded to Pakistan.

Under the treaty, India is not entitled to draw water from the three western rivers, whose headwaters lie in Indian-held Kashmir. The exceptions provided are domestic, non-consumptive and agricultural use, and for generation of hydroelectric power. However, India is not entitled to carry out any storage that interferes with the supply of water to these rivers.

In practice, India has sought to use its geographical advantage in a manner potentially harmful to Pakistan, by drawing up plans that could threaten the supply of this precious commodity. The Wullar Barrage on the Jhelum is specifically mentioned in the agenda, but plans for the Chenab have also compelled delicate negotiations.

The Sallal Dam dispute arose in the 1970s, and the height of the dam to be built by India was such that the storage of water for the generation of electricity could have interrupted the supply of water to the Chenab for three to four weeks. This would have starved the Chenab canal system during a critical period of the Kharif season. The Indian side was maintaining an intransigent position, though technically, power generation did not require that level of storage that was not permissible under the treaty.

A deadlock on the Sallal dam persisted, till the formation of a non-Congress government led by Mr Morarji Desai in 1978 brought a more friendly government to power in India. Mr Agha Shahi, who was advisor, foreign affairs, with the status of a minister, recalls negotiating with Mr Atal Behari Vajpayee, then foreign minister. The latter agreed to lower the height of the dam so that the matter was resolved amicably.

The Baglihar hydroelectric project is similar to the Sallal dam project and again the dispute concerns the height of the dam that India has started to build. The matter first came up in 1992, but surprisingly, did not receive the priority it deserved from the political governments for seven years. Under the Indus Waters Treaty, both sides exchange information regularly, and India intimated its plans to build a concrete gravity dam on the Chenab, that would be 130 metres high, and 317 metres long, with a storage capacity of 321,000 acre feet.

In the early stage of negotiations, Pakistan called for more detailed information, pointing out that even from the incomplete data made available, the proposed design was in violation of the Indus Waters Treaty. The quantity of the water sought to be stored was excessive, and even the design and location of the turbines was such that India would have the capability to interfere with the supply of water to the river for 26 to 28 days during the period from November to January, affecting agricultural production to the disadvantage of Pakistan. India did not accept this argument, but no formal discussions were held.

A period of inaction ensued, with the two sides maintaining their respective stance. However in 2000, after the assumption of office by President Musharraf, the matter received renewed attention, and the Pakistan commissioner for Indus Waters insisted on discussions being resumed regarding the design of the plant. The Indian side intimated in May 2002 that the design of the dam had been revised, to which no objections had been received.

The Indian side was informed that the revised design had not been received by Pakistan, and asked for its details. These had not been received by the time of the next meeting in February 2003, and Pakistan intimated that in case of failure to resolve the matter bilaterally, Pakistan would be forced to invoke the provision of the treaty for the appointment of a neutral expert.

Despite the provisions of the Indus Basin Treaty, the course of negotiations over the past year or so has been marked by a reluctance on the part of India to provide information sought by Pakistan, and to halt the work going on at the site, in the meantime. It may be recalled that when a Pakistani delegation of experts finally got a chance to visit the site in October 2003, they found the design to be in violation of the treaty.

While insisting that the matter be settled bilaterally, the Indian side is going ahead with the work. The Pakistan prime minister, during his visit to New Delhi, raised the matter with the Indian prime minister on November 24, 2004, and asked that work on the project be halted, while details are discussed at the technical level.

In January 2005, India asked Pakistan for an alternative design, which was prepared and conveyed soon thereafter, but India’s contention is that it is examining its technical details. Taking note of India’s reluctance to move forward expeditiously to take up Pakistan’s objections, and to halt construction work in the meantime, Pakistan decided to approach the World Bank to appoint a neutral expert on January 15, 2005.

India continues to maintain that it favours a bilateral solution in terms of the treaty, but has been dragging its feet on Pakistan’s objections and proposals. During the recent visit of the delegation of the ruling party, the Pakistan Muslim League, to India, its leader, Chaudhry Shujaat Husain, drew the attention of both the president and prime minister of India to the need to settle the Baglihar dam issue to maintain the momentum of amity and peace between the two countries.

India’s attitude on the Baglihar Dam has become a source of anxiety, since New Delhi has shown little inclination to accommodate Pakistan’s legitimate concerns. It could have at least halted the construction on the basis of a design to which Pakistan has objected. Other CBMs can lose credibility if India acts unreasonably on the vital issue of sharing of Indus waters.

Indeed, with Wullar barrage on the Jhelum already on the agenda of the dialogue, and the Kishenganga project being mooted on the Indus, India appears to be preparing to put pressure on Pakistan on the very sensitive issue of sharing of waters. There is already a problem over the availability of adequate water for irrigation in Pakistan, and if India begins to tamper with supplies from the rivers awarded to it, the atmosphere of relations would deteriorate rapidly.

The historical precedent of the Sallal dam is there, when India displayed its goodwill by lowering the height of the barrage. Similar action is needed on the Baglihar dam, and one hopes that India will maintain the process of normalization.

Thus far, however, India has failed to respond to Pakistan’s questions and requests in terms of the Indus Basin Treaty. Recalling earlier threats by India to abrogate the treaty, Pakistan has to plan its strategy, and future relations in a manner that protects our legal rights with regard to the waters of the Indus system, which were not fully safeguarded even by the Indus Basin Treaty.

THE Bush administration’s announcement that it was now prepared to recommend to Congress the sale of F-16 aircraft to Pakistan and a similar, in fact, even more sophisticated weapons system to India represents a major reversal of the US arms sales policy in this region. As regards Pakistan, there can be no denying that the acquisition of the F-16s, an extremely sophisticated and lethal weapon system, that continues to be the primary attack aircraft in the inventory of the United States and Nato, is a major success for the country’s political leadership in its effort to convince the Bush administration of the urgency and genuineness of our need. The government’s presentation of this development as evidence of the success of its policy of close, cooperative ties with Washington is therefore understandable. We should not grudge the government its “moment in the sun”.

It should be recalled that the F-16s have always held a special place in the eyes of the people of Pakistan, ever since General Ziaul Haq made the acquisition of these aircraft the litmus test of American sincerity and commitment to the alliance established between the two countries, in the wake of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

Initially, the Reagan administration was reluctant to provide these aircraft, convinced as it was that it could satisfy the Pakistanis by offering other, less advanced, but immediately available planes. Many reasons were advanced to dissuade the late president from insisting on the F-16s. But the general had set his heart on them and refused to hear any argument to the contrary, some of which were not without merit, to weaken his resolve.

It was, therefore, no surprise that by the time these aircraft finally arrived they had acquired a near-mythical status. The government spokesmen were not averse to claiming that the power and majesty of these aircraft was symbolic of the heights to which Pakistan’s relation with the United States was soaring.

Thus, it came as a rude shock to the people and leadership when the Bush administration informed us that as of October 1, 1990, all forms of American assistance and sales of weapons systems to Pakistan would cease. The reason advanced for this decision was our alleged violation of the provisions of the Pressler Amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act of 1962, which barred assistance and sales to any state that was in possession of a nuclear explosive device.

Not surprisingly, the political leadership of the country couldn’t figure out what qualitative change had taken place in our nuclear programme in 1990, for us to be so penalized. After all, we knew that the Americans knew what we had been doing in our nuclear research centres all these years. We had, therefore, reasoned that if we continued on this track, without creating too many waves, the Americans would not go beyond their proforma expressions of concern. What we failed to appreciate was that US policy considerations had undergone a dramatic change, with the departure of the Soviet troops from Afghanistan.

Even more important was the fact that the only power that had presented a military threat and an ideological challenge to the United States, for nearly half a century, was in the throes of a convulsion from which it was never to recover.

Thus the objective consideration for maintaining a strategic relationship with Pakistan was no longer valid. In the eyes of the policymakers in Washington, Pakistan did not fit into its new scheme of things. History had come to an end, argued one of its favourite policy analysts Francis Fukuyama. Thus, the clinical precision and finality with which Pakistan was abandoned.

Now, the clock has turned full circle. Yesterday’s reviled are today’s chosen. Our motives praised, our actions lauded and our policies held up as worthy of emulation by fellow Muslim leaders. A very intoxicating brew, indeed. But like any strong stimulant, it has to be examined closely before being taken lest the good that it does in one place causes harm in another.

Thus, the American decision on the sale of the F-16s, while a welcome development with regard to providing a valuable addition to our depleted national defensc, needs to be examined for what it means in terms of the likely US policy in the region. More importantly, what does the US expect from us, in return for overturning a policy that it has adhered to for nearly 15 years? In other words, what has been the quid pro quo, for we know, from bitter experience, that there is no such thing as a “free lunch” in inter-state relations, and that the concept is certainly alien to American culture.

There have been all kinds of speculations, most of which too far-fetched to be given serious consideration. For example, I refuse to believe that we could ever agree to any restrictive measures on our nuclear capabilities. No government in Pakistan would ever think of agreeing to any compromise, on what has been achieved with great effort and sacrifice. It is also the only real guarantor of our sovereignty and independence.

Nor, is it my hope that there is any veracity to claims being made in certain quarters, that we have signalled our willingness to being “ helpful” in any adventure that the US may be planning against Iran. Such a policy would constitute a mistake of monumental proportions, and one that could cause us incalculable harm.

Most observers in Washington appear to agree that the war on terror is likely to be a long- term engagement that will keep the Americans involved in actual combat in the region for decades, and therefore, the need to retain the logistical ground and air facilities, presently available to it in Pakistan.

While the F-16s are not likely to figure in the war on terror operations, they should give the Pakistani leadership the confidence to maintain its current level of engagement with the US. After all, Secretary Condoleezza Rice did refer to Pakistan as “a friend and ally”. The US will also want Pakistan to maintain its current policy of sustained engagement with India, so that cooperation becomes deep and the Kashmir issue is no longer an impediment to the growth of Pakistan-India bilateral ties. But the more ominous fear arises from the role that the US is likely to assign to India in the furtherance of US interests, and which are likely to simultaneously promote Indian objectives as well.

It is in this context that we need to carefully analyse the accompanying half of the story which appears to have been ignored in the current hype on the acquisition of the F-16s by us. This is the administration’s plans to sell not only the F-16s to India, but even the more advanced F-18s (while allowing their local manufacture), as well as the Patriot anti missile system, and offer cooperation in nuclear energy and space technology.

This is a frighteningly ambitious agenda that would not only enhance dramatically India’s superiority over Pakistan, but also become a major unsettling factor in India’s relations with the entire region, more importantly, with China.

There can be no doubt that this represents a decision that could truly concretize what both sides have been claiming — namely that the US now perceives India in terms of a strategic partnership, with all that such a relationship entails.

In fact, Secretary Rice has long been a strong proponent of according a special place to India in the US scheme of things. As far back as the Spring of 2000, Ms Rice, in her capacity as candidate George W. Bush’s foreign policy advisor, had suggested in an article in the quarterly Foreign Affairs, that the US should “ pay close attention to Indian role in the regional balance”, because while “ India is not a great power yet, it has the potential to emerge as one”. Not surprisingly, she has once again affirmed that the US plans to have “ a decisively broader strategic relationship” with India, to help it become a major world power this century.

It is in this context that the US offer to sell India the most advanced weapon systems and cooperate in space and nuclear technology should be seen. There is no doubt that the latest announcements represent a new strategic initiative for South Asia, for they certainly signal a fundamental shift in US policy as regards nuclear South Asia. This administration has finally abandoned what has been a cardinal principle of US policy in this region, namely a policy of inherent linkage in what the US does with Pakistan with what it does with India.

It would be a folly on our part to ignore the ramifications of growing Indo-US strategic ties on our national security. What does this portend for the region, especially in the context of our relations with our tested friend, China, as well as in that of our ties with Iran, the Gulf states and Saudi Arabia? And how will Russia react to the emergence of the Delhi-Washington axis? These are issues that should engage our leadership as well as policy planners, for we are entering what the Chinese call “interesting times”, in other words, an era of great uncertainty and turmoil.

The writer is a former ambassador.

UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan introduced a report in the General Assembly on March 21 which is based on two surveys. One of them has been conducted by the high-level panel that was set up by him last year to study global threats and make proposals to strengthen the UN’s security system, and the other by the experts working on the Millennium Project which required them to produce a plan to achieve the millennium development goals.

The secretary-general’s report includes the proposed expansion of the Security Council as its present composition does not correspond to the increased membership of the organization from the original 21 to 191 states.

The report submitted six months ahead of the General Assembly’s summit in coming September, would allow sufficient time to the member states to examine the recommendations contained in it on the expansion of the Council that may enable the upcoming summit to act decisively on this vital issue which has remained unresolved for a considerable length of time seriously impinging on the effectiveness of the Security Council as a peace-making body.

The Security Council, which is arguably the most important organ of the United Nations, has unfortunately been disappointingly ineffective, failing to perform its duties assigned to it by the UN Charter, is seriously in need of reform so that it may adapt to the needs and changes of the twenty-first century world. From 1992, different working groups, within the UN system, were established by the General Assembly to address different aspects of the UN reform. However, these groups failed to hammer out an acceptable formula for changes.

The Security Council is expected to play a more proactive role in the future and, therefore, to make it more vibrant and result-oriented, it needs to be enlarged to make it more representative and to reflect the realities of the international community in the twenty-first century. The bulk of the states constituting the membership of the United Nations come from Africa, Asia, Latin America and Caribbean and want to have more say in the decision making process of the Council.

Two factors are important to reform the Security Council. A change in its composition and the voting procedure may largely contribute to making it an effective body to respond to new global challenges to peace and security. The lack of balanced and equitable representation in its existing composition has already eroded the Security Council’s effectiveness as the executive wing of the UN. All members of the United Nations, regardless of their size, political and economic clout, must feel represented in the Council.However, any attempt to establish new centres of privilege will be counter — productive.

The secretary-general’s plea to increase the involvement in the Council’s decision making of those who contribute the most to the United Nations financially, specifically in terms of their contributions to the UN’s budget, is based on gross misinterpretation of Article 23 which lays down criteria for election to the Security Council. This Article only puts emphasis on the importance of the contribution by the member states to the maintenance of international peace and security and other purposes of the United Nations and also to geographical distribution.

The UN Charter does not require the members of the Security Council, including its veto-wielding members, to bear any additional financial responsibilities by virtue of holding this position. As a matter of fact, the financial contributions to the UN by some of the permanent members are modest compared to their privileged position in the Council. The secretary-general’s advocacy for the election of rich states to the Security Council, based on a criteria that were not expressly provided in Article 23, was uncalled for and is likely to provoke an angry reaction from the less developed and developing countries.

The question of the voting procedure in the Security Council is also of critical importance. Article 27 of the Charter provides that each member of the Security Council shall have one vote. The requirement of concurring votes of the permanent members for decision on important and substantive matters is ostensibly based on the principle of unanimity. When some of the smaller countries at the San Francisco Conference, in 1945 objected to this voting procedure on the grounds that it violated the “principle of sovereign equality” of all members, the permanent members defended it and refused to abandon their position on this point.

The prevailing system for voting in the Security Council gives greater weight to its permanent members and, therefore, despite the inclusion of ten elected members in it, the balance of power remains in their favour, which also creates a structural obstacle to action. It was, therefore, expected that the secretary-general would address the question of veto to remove these anomalies. Regrettably, however, the secretary-general’s report to the General Assembly is silent on this issue which was intrinsically linked to UN’s restructuring.

However, the high-level panel’s report, which has been wholeheartedly endorsed by the secretary-general, describes the veto as an important instrument to reassure the most powerful members of the United Nations that their interests would be safeguarded. It seems that Mr. Kofi Anan has no inclination to pursue, at least in the foreseeable future, the question of veto for reasons of expediency. Perhaps the shadow of the US absence from the League of Nations which is attributed to its unwillingness to use this forum for collective security, still looms large. This approach would, however complicate the prospects of any meaningful reform of the Council and there is little hope for any worthwhile reform of the Security Council, which is absolutely necessary to enable it to keep pace with the fast changing world.

Despite its numerous shortcomings and failures, the Security Council has not lost its relevance as an institution that was established for the maintenance of international peace and security and to pursue other purposes of the United Nations. It remains the last hope for peace and security for the world. However, there is an urgent need for a comprehensive reform to enable it to vigorously pursue the purposes it was created for and to meet the daunting challenges the world is facing.

The writer is a former ambassador.

THE last four weeks have provided considerable fodder for the propagandists abroad who continue to paint Pakistan as a country still living in stone-age culture, while the ‘enlightened moderators’ in Islamabad and indeed elsewhere in the country continue to display a sublime indifference. The central spire of the swamp of indecision, distortion and injustice has been the case of that unfortunate victim of tribal intransigence — Mukhraran Mai. This has led to a humbling awareness that no matter how hard one tries, there are forces that ensure that the system will not expose the evanescence of truth.

Something does not quite gel about the Meerwalla rape. It would have ended up in the dustbin of forgotten cases, had the Supreme Court not taken up the matter, setting aside the verdict of the Lahore High Court and sidelining the Shariat Court.

When the story first broke, thanks to a brave journalist, and every major television news channel in Pakistan and abroad presented the saga of the assault in painful and unprecedented detail, the nation was horrified. Six men, allegedly on the orders of a panchayat, allegedly criminally assaulted for four hours a woman of 35, a Hafiz-e-Quran who taught the Holy Book to young girls.

Interestingly, enough, the only member of the graduate National Assembly who roundly condemned the alleged rape and spoke up strongly against the hideous crime, was Qazi Hussain Ahmed, the amir of the Jamaat-e-Islami. But the issue was not important enough for the MMA to orchestrate a demonstration, confirming the view that women’s issues will always remain on the back burner. The women in the house, both of the veiled and unveiled variety, maintained a stony silence. Even the loquacious Sheikh Rashid ahmed, the quintessential Pakistani, who has been known to give an opinion on every subject from Kant’s categorical imperative to how to improve the quality of mangoes in Multan, was tight-lipped.

The president took serious note and ordered an immediate investigation. An anti-terrorist court found the accused guilty and awarded them the death penalty. It was the verdict that all thinking and caring people were expecting and hoping for. The NGO that fought for the woman’s rights was ecstatic, if one can be ecstatic over the news that six men were being sent to the gallows. A leftist student leader said that the hanging should be shown on national television, as a warning to other would-be rapists. Even dandruffy old men at the bridge table in their clubs, who normally do not display any emotion stronger than weary resignation at going down in a cold contract, shook a first and suggested a number of punishments to be meted out to the culprits before they were strung up, which involved certain surgical skills.

Then the legal system came into play. The alleged rapists applied for and received bail. Rumours circulated that attempts were being made for a grand patch-up, and one was told that eight million rupees had been offered to the victim to drop the case. One heard nothing more about the case until the Lahore High Court took it up, and the nation received first hand knowledge of police complicity and inefficiency.

On March 8 the triumphant counsel for the accused, Malik Saleem, speaking at a press conference, said that both the government and the NGOs should not exert pressure on the court that had acquitted five of the six accused. According to him, the court always remained impartial and free in giving its verdict. Initially 14 people had been tried by the anti-terrorism court and six had been awarded the death sentence.

The nub of the issue, after ploughing through the judgment spread over sixteen full-page columns of this newspaper, appeared to be whether it was a gang rape that had actually taken place, or just a simple rape. According to the learned judges, from the evidence presented to them, a gang was not involved. What is more, the counsel for the victim could not prove that a panchayat was even remotely implicated in the dreadful deed. Therefore the judges commuted the death sentence of the main accused to life imprisonment and acquitted the other five accused.

Malik Saleem should have left it at that. Then he had to go and have a dig at the NGO that appears to be the only one that cares for and is fighting for the poor woman. He said this case had been unnecessarily given undue importance. After all, last year in the southern Punjab, according to police reports, as many as 540 women were raped or molested, 24 hurt by acid, 634 abducted and 115 killed on one pretext or another.

He completely missed the point. Though it has always been open season for rape in the southern Punjab, the other crimes against women did not come to the attention of the foreign media. They were alerted by the Mukhraran Mai episode because of its uniqueness. All one can say is that those involved are jolly lucky Mukhraran Mai was not born in Naples where, in a similar incident in the 1920s involving a religious teacher, the Camorra systematically eliminated the rapists, the defence lawyers and the police protecting the criminals.

However, the really appalling news which was tucked away between a salacious story of a CBR official’s case being sent to NAB and an advertisement for air conditioners, centred on the decision of the speaker of the National Assembly, Chaudhry Amir Hussain, ordering for his personal use a luxurious Mercedes Benz costing eleven million rupees. Defending his decision, he stated that the speaker of the Iranian Majlis had his own aircraft. He quite obviously did not bother to find out how his counterpart in India made his rounds.

Senator Raza Rabbani of the PPP let him have it chapter and verse. The decision was most insensitive, imprudent, and thoughtless and totally out of sync with the abysmal poverty that exists in the country. No truer words were ever spoken. What was galling was the way the speaker manipulated the purchase, by presiding over the National Assembly finance committee that took the decision. The president and the prime minister must put their foot down and stop this wanton waste of public money. It’s never too late to set an example.

Amir Hussain is not exactly anybody’s idea of a perfect speaker having twice narrowly survived being impeached for his alleged biased, retrogressive stand on issues. If he wants a Mercedes Benz, let him buy it by all means — but from his own resources and not the taxpayer’s money. He is jolly lucky Mohammed Khan Junejo is not the prime minister. Otherwise he might have found himself in an eight horse power car.

The F-16s are once again in the news; and one wishes the president would take the nation into confidence about thee highly advanced aircraft that the country is supposed to get from the United States. Either there is something arcane about the terms of the agreement, or this writer has missed something.

The thinking man has, for the last 20 years or so, been under the impression that the F-16s were ordered and paid for a long time ago, but were not supplied to Pakistan for a variety of reasons. He was also given to understand that the money was not returned to the purchaser. If this is a fresh purchase, the nation has a right to know what happened to the previous advance that was made.

However, in the context of global wastage the question is irrelevant. What a lot of people are, however, asking is if F-16s are being delivered to Pakistan, and F-18s are being delivered to India, and a peace process is in progress between the two South Asian neighbours, against whom are these lethal aircraft to be deployed? It is time the president held another press conference.