IN the article last week I discussed the importance of access to the sources of energy and how important a role this now plays in the relations among countries around the globe. Diplomacy with the availability of oil and gas as central concerns has already begun to influence the way large powers with large economies are looking at the potential sources of energy supply.

Many observers believe that America’s Iraq adventure was motivated in part by oil. Iraq, after all, has the largest known reserves of oil after Saudi Arabia. Bringing the oil fields of that country under Washington’s influence would have given America a sense of security which it currently lacks. The failure to stabilize Iraq is one reason why the oil market is in such turmoil these days with the price of a barrel of crude touching new heights in nominal terms practically every day.

But America is not alone in seeking security in the field of energy. China, already the world’s third largest economy, is busy looking around new sources of supply. It made an attempt to purchase an American company to gain a foothold in the United States. This way the Chinese would have been able to gain access to some of the cutting-edge exploration technologies they need. It was prevented from buying Unocal, the targeted company, by the US Congress. It is now in the process of buying a company that has large assets in Kazakhstan where it is competing with a government-owned company from India. The Chinese are also looking at various countries in Africa that have energy surpluses while the Indians are interested in exploring Afghanistan for oil and gas deposits.

In this search for energy security, Pakistan, because of its geographical situation, could play an important role. If the policymakers in Islamabad play their cards well they should be able to gain secure supply of energy for the long-term development of their own economy. They should also be able to earn a fair amount of foreign exchange by allowing the country to become a hub for energy supply from the vast oil and gas fields in Central Asia and the Middle East to such energy deficit countries as China and India.

But oil and gas is not the only source of energy supply that could bring enormous benefits to Pakistan given its geography. Water is another precious resource that could be turned into a winner for Pakistan. It is only recently that policymakers around the world have begun to worry about the depleting resources of fresh water while the demand for it continues to increase. Only three per cent of water on earth is fresh water and one-third of this is frozen in glaciers and polar ice caps and is not accessible for consumption. While the supply of fresh water is fixed its demand continues to increase exponentially.

This is happening because of the increase in population, increased use of water for both industry and agriculture and increased use of water as the rate of urbanization continues to increase. Over the next one decade the majority of the world’s population will live in towns and cities. City dwellers typically use more water compared to the people living in the countryside. For these reasons water supply in many parts of the world is expected to experience serious shortages in the near future.

“We have had oil wars. That’s happened in our life times. Water wars are possible,” said Professor William Mitsch at a 2004 conference on water held in Stockholm, Sweden. These conflicts are likely to occur in the Middle East, Africa and South Asia — regions that have a number of water-deficit states strung along the paths of major rivers. “I don’t know what will shake the regions out of complacency other than the fact that there will be draughts, pestilence and wars that will break out over water rights,” continued Misch.

The International Water Management Institute endorses Misch’s concerns. “Continuing on our present path will bring more conflict,” the Institute said in a recent report. The Institute called for the world leaders not only to pay more attention to the growing water scarcity but to think of some imaginative solutions for handling the coming crisis. This is where Pakistan working with India and incorporating the two parts of Kashmir into an agreed framework could offer a model of cooperation for other parts of the world.

Pakistan and India have to work together and they need to bring in Kashmir into the equation since geography demands such cooperation. It is only rarely that the world’s major rivers start their journey and end it within the territory of one political jurisdiction. In that respect the United States is unique. Most of its major rivers — the Mississippi, the Missouri, the Ohio and the Colorado among them — are entirely within its jurisdiction.

That notwithstanding, water disputes among the US states were an important feature of government relations at the sub-national level for a long time. They were resolved after a great deal of litigation among the states and after the US developed a complicated system of apportioning water among various political jurisdictions.

In the case of most other large river systems apportionment of water is complicated by the fact that several countries are involved. This is certainly the case with the Amazon, the Nile, the Indus, the Euphrates, and the Brahamaputra. In all these cases there are unresolved issues among the countries through which these rivers pass. For instance, the countries upstream of the Nile are still not prepared to accept for eternity Egypt’s claim to the waters of the Nile since it has already built a large dam — the Aswan — to store and distribute water.

The Amazon basin also has to deal with a number of complicated issues pertaining not just to the use of the river’s water. The river passes through by far the richest zone of biodiversity and how the region’s vast but untapped resources are used will affect not only the countries touched by the river. The Amazon’s future is also linked closely with the issue of global warming.

This brings me to a discussion of the Indus, some of its distinguishing features, how water it brings to the heavily populated parts of Pakistan gets used and how this use has evolved over time, and, finally, why it is critical that Pakistan enters into a new arrangement that goes beyond the Indus Water Treaty of 1960. One of the main conclusions I will reach in this article is that Pakistan should approach the problem of water it faces in a holistic manner, working with India not only to ensure that its entitlement under the 1960 treaty is ensured but that the two countries can also benefit from the enormous amount of energy that is locked into the Indus River system.

The Indus River system includes not only the main river but several of its tributaries. The system has some attributes not shared by other large river systems. It is among the few large systems in the world that does not depend on rain for the supply water. Unlike the Amazon it does not draw water from a rain forest or simply from regular rains in the catchment areas as do the Mississippi and the Nile. Like the Brahamaputra that flows into India and then into Bangladesh from the Himalayas, the Indus gets its supply of water from snow melts from the high mountains in the area from which it and several of its important tributaries begin their long journeys.

From its source in the mountains, the Indus travels through several valleys before entering the plains of Punjab and Sindh. In descending from the mountains to the plains, the river falls through tens of thousands of feet providing scores of “heads” that can be exploited for generating electric power. The same is true of the river’s many tributaries that also originate in the mountains.

For many decades water that Indus brings to the plains of Punjab and Sindh has been used for irrigation. Centuries ago, Indus was an important artery for communication; some of the cities established on its banks were essentially ports and markets to which goods were transported in boats and barges that plied the river. The way the British tapped the river and its tributaries for bringing water for irrigating the parched but potentially fertile lands of Punjab and Sindh, destroyed navigation and commerce on the rivers. Barrages constructed on the rivers to divert water fragmented them into small parts. Long distance travel on the rivers consequently became impossible.

Since tapping water for agriculture was the main economic use to which the Indus’s resource was deployed, this also became the underpinning of the Indus Water Treaty. A formula was devised by international arbitrators and accepted by India and Pakistan for the sharing of water. Some massive works were sanctioned by the treaty that allowed Pakistan to move water from the three rivers over which it had exclusive domain to the three rivers it surrendered for use by India.

The treaty stood the test of times for as long as energy did not become a major issue for India. About a decade ago, India began to look at the tributaries of the Indus for generating electricity as they cascaded down the mountains and into the valleys of the part of Kashmir that was under its control.

Pakistan maintains that India’s many projects in the Indus system such as the Baglihar dam, the Kishenganga dam, and the lake at Wullar do not comply with the Indus Water Treaty. It has rushed in with a project of its own on the Neelum/Kishenganga River. These are all knee-jerk reactions to a set of problems that need carefully thought out solutions.

There are various estimates of the amount of energy that could be produced from the Indus’s fall through the mountains. Whichever estimate we use — the UNDP’s or the World Bank’s or of the consortium of engineering firms that worked with the two development institutions to plan the development of the Indus River basin — one thing is clear.

The full development of this source of energy will produce a supply far in excess of Pakistan’s needs for several decades and also much beyond what the two parts of Kashmir require for their own use and development. This surplus could be transferred through an international grid to northern India and western China. To exploit this resource will need some imaginative strategic thinking by policymakers in Islamabad and Delhi which could result in turning Kashmir into an economic resource rather than the source of so much anguish. I have already covered this aspect of the Kashmir problem in my series of articles dealing with the state.

Here I need only emphasize that rather than rebuild consensus on the use of the Indus water based on the need for agriculture, India and Pakistan should adopt a more holistic approach that factors in the system’s energy potential, its contribution to tourism and transport, and its importance for preserving the ecology of the region.

IT had always been presumed that Pakistan’s commitment to the Palestinian cause was well-nigh sacred and therefore irrevocable. I recall many a Pakistani leader assure the PLO leadership that our support for the freedom and independence of Palestine predated the establishment of Pakistan.

And, the resolve was, that unlike some Arab states, which for either momentary gain or false expectation, had decided to extend recognition to the Zionist entity, the Pakistanis were made of ‘sterner stuff’ and therefore would not give in to pressures or blandishments.

Even General Ziaul Haq, who was initially viewed with deep misgivings, because of the role he had played in King Hussein’s crackdown on the Palestinians in Jordan, was able to redeem himself, thanks to the vigour with which he later espoused the Palestinian cause.

Benazir Bhutto, though sensitive to American wishes, was no less cognizant of the fact that she was the inheritor of her father’s proud legacy of unstinted support for all Third World causes (including Palestine), and was therefore careful to stay away from any initiative on this issue. And, Mian Nawaz Sharif, a staunch nationalist and a committed supporter of Islamic causes, had no hesitation in reaffirming Pakistan’s undying fealty to the Palestinian cause.

And yet the news of the Kasuri-Shalon meeting in Istanbul has hardly caused a major stir in Pakistan. This only goes to prove the eternal validity of the adage that states have no permanent friends nor permanent enemies, but only permanent interests. Therefore, much as one would want to lament the abandonment of a policy to which we have remained wedded for over half a century, the Istanbul meeting is not a surprise, given the radical transformation that the world has witnessed since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Not only has the United States emerged as the sole superpower, the Bush Administration has, in the wake of 9/11, espoused a philosophy of disdain and contempt for multilateral approaches, that has shattered international consensus, on many critical issues of global concern.

It was therefore inevitable that many of the old beliefs and shibboleths that held a place of honour in this country, should be sacrificed on the altar of “realism”, or Realpolitik, as Dr Kissinger, that old practitioner of power politics, would have observed. To say that we have taken this first important step on the road to what will surely be the establishment of diplomatic relations between the two countries at American behest, would be only partially true.

To say that we have been giving serious thought to this option for the past few years would be closer to the truth. America’s invasion of Iraq, the raging Intifada in the occupied territories and the refusal of Yasser Arafat to acknowledge the crumbs occasionally thrown in his direction, made it impossible for Pakistan to take the initiative.

Arafat’s death was truly an “opportunity”, for once truthfully, though inelegantly described by Bush. Immediately thereafter, Palestine’s “traditional” friends worked to bring Mahmoud Abbas, long the preferred choice of the Americans, into power. And, Sharon could undertake his brilliantly cunning move to vacate Gaza, while expanding settlements in the West Bank. This huge racist ghetto, if there ever was one, is meant to satisfy the Palestinian demand for a homeland, and induce international amnesia as regards the “roadmap”.

Therefore, while all foreign policy options should always be subject to regular, indepth reviews, the timing and manner of our move has raised a number of questions. While it has delighted Israel and pleased the US, it has surprised friends abroad and intrigued and upset many Pakistanis. Most people would be right to ask the question, why now, when Israel is embarking on new settlements? Why the praise for withdrawal from Gaza, when we all know what its intent was.

Could we not have waited for opinion to gel in OIC, or even in the Arab League? And finally, why could the government not take the opposition leaders into confidence, when it could do so with foreign countries. Why this contempt for the elected representatives?

Nonetheless, it was known for some time that we were desperately waiting for a fig leaf to facilitate our opening to Tel Aviv. This alone explains the enthusiastic welcome given by our leaders to Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza and the speed with which we agreed to the Kasuri-Shalom meeting.

Earlier, we were told of the president’s acceptance of an invitation to speak before the American Jewish Congress, during his forthcoming visit to New York.

Then came the announcement that it had been decided to send a high level delegation to Gaza and Jerusalem, a trip that cannot be undertaken without official Israeli approval. These are all elements of the same game plan. The technicalities of diplomatic recognition may take some time, but the fundamental decision to enter into business with the Zionist entity has been taken. What is left is mere formality, so that we can maintain the fiction that there has been no change.

But the meeting in Istanbul is in itself a major move, for it would be recalled that we had always claimed that Pakistan would not recognize Israel till such time as it had not vacated the occupied territories and Palestine not been allowed to establish its capital in Al-Quds Al-Sharif. That has surely not happened and is not likely to happen in the near future either. Incidentally, Pakistani leaders have claimed that this move has the blessings of the PLO leader, Mahmoud Abbas, but one of his key ministers, Nabil Shaath, has publicly expressed his disappointment with our decision. So much for consultations with friends.

Government spokesmen are likely to claim that this is a brilliant move, as all government initiatives are. In support, it will claim that it is likely to bring us a major dividend in the form of support and understanding from the powerful Jewish lobbies in the US; that we will be able to use our new linkages with Tel Aviv to slow down the rapidly growing strategic ties between India and Israel; that this opens up new markets for our products; and even that this understanding will make our nuclear facilities safer. As usual, a lot of this is a lot of hot air. But the decision does fit in neatly with the agenda and philosophy of the current Pakistani leadership.

For one, this is what our “friend” (the US), has been telling us for years to do. We can therefore expect some small compensation for this “good deed”. True, it gives us an opening to the Zionist lobbies in the US, something that could be marginally useful to Pakistan. It also opens up the possibility of Pakistan playing a more active role in the Middle East, something that the US has been desirous of.

But do we really want to play a more “useful role” in the region? Firstly, will this not involve us in the tensions and rivalries of the region? Secondly, do we want to be promoting the US agenda in the region? Thirdly, do we want to be joining hands with Israel and the US in their so-called war on terror, which is really the promotion and consolidation of American influence in the region?

If one is talking of terror, can we ignore the history of state terror conducted by Israel, from the day it was created? This is not mere propaganda. The

UN, other international and regional organizations and even Israeli historians, have documented evidence of the terror that Israel has conducted not only against the Palestinians, but also against many of its neighbours.

The desire to play the Ummah’s leadership role is not new. We have frequently suffered from such delusions. In the past, such attempts have either been snubbed by some or spurned by others. The same is likely to happen this time. In fact, a closer alignment with the US and support for the “moderates”, is going to raise more questions about our credentials than provide answers.

For a poor, developing country with few resources and difficult neighbours, it is always a folly to seek glories abroad, to compensate for failings at home. Let us lower our sights, reduce our ambitions, acknowledge our failings and strive for success on the domestic front. That alone will bring us respect and influence of the kind that matters. All others are mere mirages that can lead us astray.

The writer is a former ambassador

BEING a signatory to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT), Iran has the inalienable right to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes in accordance with the Statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and its safeguard system.

However, the United States and its close allies are opposed to Iran’s nuclear programme despite its unequivocal commitment that it is exclusively for peaceful purposes and is in conformity with the safety regulations of the IAEA.

The US and its allies argue that by gaining the knowledge to develop the energy power reactor, Iran will get closer to the technology that could be used by it to develop nuclear weapons. This argument seems to be valid on purely technical grounds. However, the IAEA’s safeguards are aimed at preventing the diversion of nuclear energy from peaceful uses to produce nuclear weapons or other explosive devices.

It is interesting to recall that during the reign of Reza Shah Pahlavi, Iran had launched a number of nuclear projects with active support and assistance from the US and its European allies. It follows from this that the opposition to Iran’s nuclear programme by these countries is based on political expediency rather than on principles.

The US also argues that Iran, which has vast oil and gas reserves, does not need nuclear energy, as it would be much costlier to produce electricity from uranium than from petroleum. This is, however, a flawed argument. Many countries that are also rich in oil and gas resources, like Britain and Russia, have developed nuclear power as an alternative energy source to meet their domestic demand for energy. It must also be appreciated that oil and gas are non-renewable natural resources and may deplete rapidly if alternative sources of energy are not developed.

Time and again. Iran has declared that, as stipulated in the NPT, it is committed to non-proliferation and elimination of nuclear weapons and will continue to abide by its obligations under the NPT and also work actively for the establishment of a nuclear-free-zone in the Middle East. Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenai, has also recently reiterated that his country has no intention of producing nuclear weapons. After this categorical statement by a leader of such a high stature there could be no room for doubting Iran’s motives behind its nuclear programme.

In early 2001, it was assumed that Iran was seeking to acquire nuclear weapons. However, there have been no categorical reports proving the veracity of this allegation. The director-general of the IAEA has recently reported to the board of governors that there is no evidence that the previously undeclared nuclear material held by Iran and its activities were related to a nuclear weapons programme. In November last year the director-general also confirmed that all the declared nuclear material in Iran has been accounted for proving that this material has not been diverted to prohibited activities.

In 2003, when traces were found on the centrifuges at the Iranian uranium enrichment plant at Natanz and Kalays Electric site, Washington claimed that Iran had been experimenting with the production of highly enriched uranium and jumped to the conclusion that it was using its civilian nuclear programme as a cover to develop atomic weapons, in violation of its commitment under the NPT. However, on August 20, 2005, the IAEA, much to the chagrin of the United States, declared that accurate scientific investigations carried out by its experts had proved that the particles of enriched uranium on the centrifuges were from imported equipment and not as a result of any enrichment activity by Iran.

Given the fact that Iran has been cleared of the US accusation that it has a covert weapons programme, there is no justification now for casting doubt on the motives behind its nuclear programme. Regrettably, however, President Bush keeps harping on it only to mislead the public opinion. Some political observers believe that he is not interested in getting the Iranian nuclear imbroglio resolved by diplomatic means and may be laying the groundwork for taking some punitive action against Iran on the pretext of its alleged violation of non-proliferation rules.

The US president has himself recently hinted at the possibility of using force against Iran if it did not abandon its nuclear programme. Israel has also been prodding Washington to adopt a tough line on Iran on the nuclear issue. In this connection, it may be mentioned that a panel of Israeli foreign policy and military experts submitted a report to the Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon last year that recommended preventing Iran from attaining the nuclear state status, if necessary, by using force against it. Thus, it is clear that there is a convergence of interest between Israel and the United States in preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear energy even for peaceful purposes.

However, keeping in view the fact that the United States and its allies are already bogged down in Iraq, the possibility of a military strike against Iran, even for the limited purpose of destroying its nuclear installations, seems unlikely. Similarly, it would be untenable and legally as well as morally unjustified to impose sanctions against Iran after it has been cleared by the IAEA of committing a material breach of the NPT. In any case, such a move by Washington is not likely to succeed owing to opposition from China and Russia, the two veto-wielding members of the UN Security Council.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has declared hat Iran wants to continue the dialogue with Europe, snapped by the latter unilaterally, on its nuclear programme and would soon offer new proposals for negotiations. This is an encouraging development that needs to be pursued by the parties concerned. Iran’s complaint that its sincere efforts and flexibility, which are evident from the agreement it had signed with France, Germany and the United Kingdom last year on its nuclear programme, have not been reciprocated by these countries, should also be redressed.

It is rather intriguing that while the United States is prepared to negotiate with North Korea that has threatened to quit the NPT it is not willing to do so with Iran despite its willingness to abide by that Treaty. Washington needs to change this attitude and instead of adopting an aggressive posture towards Iran’s nuclear programme, it should seek a peaceful settlement with that country. It should create a confluence of interests between the two countries would be in the larger interest of both of them.