Nato’s changing role

THE earthquake that hit Pakistan’s northern areas and Azad Kashmir on October 8 has left in its trail death and destruction on an unprecedented scale. The physical landscape of the affected area has undergone a dramatic change that will have major consequences for the people living there. But the aftershocks that this event has unleashed is likely to have an even more powerful and longer-lasting impact on the region.

And, here I am not referring to the death of possibly 100,000 people and the uprooting of millions, but to the political fallout that this catastrophe is having all around. Only a short while ago, Pakistan was considered an epicentre of global terrorism, from where American troops were eager to flush out the foreign fighters entrenched in the border areas. Now, we have thousands of American soldiers and airmen involved in extensive relief and rehabilitation work, and that too, in some of the country’s most sensitive areas. As if this was not enough of a dramatic change, we now see the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (Nato) move in with over 1,000 troops, carrying advanced, sophisticated equipment, ostensibly to render meaningful assistance in the affected areas.

Admittedly, Pakistan’s requirement for aid and assistance for the relief and rehabilitation work is on a colossal scale. It is certainly far beyond the capabilities of most states and certainly not possible for a developing country, such as Pakistan, with its poorly trained manpower, outdated equipment and inadequate infrastructure, to cope with the gigantic challenges that we face. Nevertheless, the question arises as to why we have sought Nato’s assistance and even more importantly, why Nato should have acceded to our request, with the speed and on the scale that it did.

In this context, it is important to recall the origin and background of this American-led western military alliance. It was established in 1949 by the US, in close consultation with its West European allies, to counter what was perceived to be a growing Soviet threat to western Europe in general, and to Greece, Spain, Italy and Turkey, in particular. The decision to establish this alliance was taken after the US offer in 1947 of massive economic assistance, (under the Marshall Plan), and the unveiling of the Truman Doctrine that same year, had failed to diminish the threat of Soviet expansion.

Over the years, Nato came to represent the most powerful and visible expression of American determination to prevent the former Soviet Union from extending its influence west of the Berlin wall. However, when the captive nations of eastern Europe began to disengage themselves from Soviet domination in the late eighties, and the Soviet Union itself collapsed soon thereafter, it was the expectation in Europe that Nato would be given a quiet and quick burial, as there was no longer the military need or the moral justification for maintaining this Cold War relic.

The American policymakers had, however, already formulated fresh plans and had come up with new frightening doctrines to meet real and imagined challenges, not only to justify retaining this alliance, but to ensure its further expansion, by the inclusion of the newly freed states of eastern and central Europe and by widening its agenda. It was also made clear that Nato’s area of activity and interest would be enlarged to cover threats to western interests, emerging from any part of the globe.

Soon, thereafter, we witnessed Nato’s transformation from a powerful military alliance to an organization that involved itself in peace-keeping operations when it was deployed in former Yugoslavia. At that time, Nato led a 20,000 strong peace-keeping mission, known as the Stabilization Force (SFOR) in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Thus, it was no surprise that within six hours of the horrible 9/11 tragedy, the Nato Council of Ministers, meeting in an emergency session, had not only expressed their strong solidarity with the US, but actually invoked Article 6 of the treaty that declared the 9/11 tragedy as a collective act of aggression against the entire membership, which made it incumbent on Nato to offer its assistance to the US. It is, of course, another matter that the Bush administration was then riding the high horse of arrogant unilateralism and, therefore, chose to ignore, with its usual disdain, Nato’s offer of assistance.

However, soon after the invasion of a poor and backward country (Afghanistan), the political and military significance of Nato’s presence and contribution was recognized by the US and its coalition partners. The US had expected a similar involvement of Nato in the Iraq operation, but the controversial nature of the American-British invasion of that country and the strong emotions that it had aroused in broad sections of the European public opinion, prevented this from taking place.

With the deployment of its troops in Pakistan’s quake-hit areas, Nato has undergone another transformation, now that of a relief and humanitarian organization. If Nato’s statements are to be taken at face value, it is now a more efficient and effective version of the UNHCR. However, none of the tsunami-hit countries asked for Nato’s assistance. Nor for that matter, did Nato even show its new found humanitarian concern for the Katrina-devastated population of New Orleans. The question, therefore, arises whether Nato has the training or the capability, or even the orientation, to render humanitarian relief and assistance, or is this assistance a pretext for Nato to expand its reach and influence to a country where it knew it would not be welcome otherwise.

It needs no genius to appreciate why Nato should have jumped at this opportunity to move into Pakistan. Its presence and operations in Pakistan has both political and symbolic connotations. Symbolically, it is sending a powerful and visible message of concern for suffering humanity in a part of the world which looks upon the West with deep suspicion and mistrust. On the practical plain, Nato will gain an invaluable knowledge and understanding of local ground conditions in areas of great strategic importance not only to the alliance, but to its friends as well.

Whereas in the past, we would have been reluctant to even permit a foreign aircraft to fly over these areas, today we have Nato’s troops, as well as American marines, leaving their footprints on every single inch of ground in northern Pakistan, as well as Azad Kashmir. What does it do to our military installations and intelligence gathering organizations and institutions in this region? And finally, what signal are we sending to our neighbours, especially China and Iran, both of which are increasingly concerned with the expanding American presence on their doorsteps. Thus, while the advantages to Nato are obvious, what does Pakistan get from this major policy shift?

Seemingly assuring statements have been made by our national leaders, but nothing definite has been said so far, with clarity and precision, about the exact role and function of Nato forces in Pakistan. How sad, that the first official statement on this issue should have come from the Polish ambassador, on behalf of Nato, who revealed that the alliance’s troops were here as a result of an agreement signed with Pakistan. When was this agreement signed and what are its provisions?

If Nato has sophisticated equipment that others could not or would not provide, surely we could have asked it for these to be loaned to us. If it was the need for manpower, it would make no sense, as we are not short of this valuable commodity. We have after all one of the largest armed forces in the world, and they have the discipline, the training and the desire to render meaningful help and assistance to fellow citizens. So what exactly will be the contribution of the 1,000 soldiers brought in by Nato? The government may want to obfuscate the issue, but there can be no doubt that this decision will have a long-term impact on the conduct of our foreign policy and on our stand on issues of critical importance to us such as relations with our neighbour India, or ties with China, Iran and Russia. The ruling party’s leader appears to be more aware of the growing concern this move has had on the thinking public in Pakistan. He has, therefore, chosen the easy way out to explain Nato’s presence in Pakistan, by simply denying that they are here! But these attempts to confuse the issue cannot but add to growing disquiet in the country. At the very minimum, the issue should have been placed before parliament and the elected leaders afforded an opportunity of expressing their points of view. If public debate on this sensitive issue was considered too explosive, the leaders of the opposition parties should have been taken into confidence.

The growing tendency to bypass the elected representatives and to take decision on issues of great national importance, even those that impinge on our national security, is most alarming. It can neither serve the interest of strengthening the democratic institutions, which the president claims is his primary national objective, nor does it enhance the credibility of the government.

The writer is a former ambassador.

Reviving the Iraqi army

THE Iraqi government this month belatedly got around to reversing one of the worst errors of the US-led Coalition Provisional Authority, which ran the country after the invasion: the disbanding of the Iraqi army. Some officers had been called back into service earlier, but the transitional government issued a near-blanket invitation to officers up to the rank of major to apply for reinstatement.

The abolition of the army meant widespread unemployment for tens of thousands of men. Some became criminals to get money to feed their families; some supported or became insurgents. Iraqi officials promise to thoroughly screen former officers to ensure that insurgents don’t infiltrate the ranks, and the invitation should eventually increase the number of battalions ready to fight.

The Bush administration says US troops will not be withdrawn in substantial numbers until Iraqi soldiers can replace them, a process that is moving slowly and has resulted in contradictory claims over how many fighters are trained. Getting experienced troops back in uniform and retrained should allow a big drawdown of American forces.

More than 2,000 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq, and the lack of security is taking a toll on rebuilding the country. The most recent report of the US special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction claims there has been progress here and there — nice to know, considering that Congress has appropriated nearly $30 billion for rebuilding — but notes that more than 25 per cent of the reconstruction money has instead been spent on security, well above what Washington planned in its rosy prewar scenarios.

The diversion of funds to protecting contractors has caused a “reconstruction gap” between projects once planned and those now financially viable.

Revenues from oil exports, which the administration once promoted as the economic engine to pay for Iraq’s reconstruction, increased as oil prices did, but there’s no guarantee that will last. The Iraqi Oil Ministry set a production target of 2.5 million barrels per day, but production is around 2.1 million barrels, and oil exports dropped between July and October.

— Los Angeles Times

The earthquake and its lessons

ON the morning of October 8, a 7.6 intensity earthquake, with epicentre located 95 kms, north-east of Islamabad, struck some of the parts of the NWFP and Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK). The earthquake, one of the most devastating in living history, wreaked havoc across an area of about 30,000 kms causing heavy human causalities that may well soar to over 100,000 and destroyed more than 80 per cent of houses and other buildings in the affected areas.

The seismologists have been warning, for years, that powerful earthquakes were likely in this part of the world. Regrettably, the successive governments in Pakistan ignored these warnings and did not develop crisis management plans to reduce or limit the negative effects of the forecast earthquakes. As a result, when the earthquake struck the country and the AJK, the government was completely taken aback. Lack of preparedness on its part to deal with the resultant catastrophe was and still is clearly evident.

It is hardly necessary to mention that significant loss of life could have been avoided had a crisis management system been in place in the country. No one can, of course, prevent an earthquake. However, there is considerable scope for the reduction of risk through disaster mitigation measures provided these are applied in earnest.

The people of Pakistan are rightly angered at government’s slow and rather clumsy response to the disaster that caused loss of life and destruction of property on a colossal scale. It is intriguing that, with the exception of Pakistan, all the earthquake-prone countries in the region have institutionalized arrangements for disaster management. The people of Pakistan have, therefore, every right to ask questions about the government’s failure to live up to its responsibilities and would be fully justified in demanding the formation of a commission, headed by a Supreme Court judge, to conduct a thorough investigation of the matter with a view to bringing those responsible for this lapse to justice.

Fortunately, thousands of volunteers, from Karachi to Khyber, rushed to the quake-ravaged areas in the NWFP and AJK, carrying shovels, pickaxes and iron rods to take part in the largest ever and most difficult rescue and relief operations there. They even reached the remote and inaccessible mountain villages to dig for survivors. The people across the country, as well as the overseas Pakistanis, generously donated money, tents, blankets, food and even cloth for burial shrouds. The philanthropists and some of the political parties also set up hospitals in the earthquake-hit areas.

These lifesaving activities and rescue operations at the community level indeed played a very significant role, which needs to be sustained. Similarly, after some delay in its arrival on the scenes of the disaster, attributed by its bosses to some logistic problems, Pakistan Army’s rescue and relief operations have been spectacular and will long be remembered as a great service.

After the stage of emergency relief in the NWFP and AJK, the reconstruction phase would soon begin involving an exorbitant cost that would be beyond Pakistan’s capacity and, therefore, the support of the international community is vital to rebuilding the damaged public and community infrastructures. According to a “Preliminary Damage and Assessment Report”, jointly prepared by more than 12 international organizations and governments, Pakistan would require more than 5.2 billion dollars for its relief and reconstruction efforts in the quake affected areas. This report will now be presented to the donor conference that is held in Islamabad today (Nov 19).

According to a press report, the international donor community wants transparency in utilization of earthquake related assistance. This is a legitimate expectation and, therefore, the donor community’s fears in this regard must be allayed at the highest level. According to a recent UN report, almost 80 per cent of the money donated by the international community in such circumstances is either embezzled or frittered away on ill-conceived projects. This may be a reason for the lukewarm response from the rich countries of the world to the need for funds for Pakistan’s construction and rehabilitation efforts.

The UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, however, believes that the international community is overstretched after last year’s tsunami and many other major disasters of massive proportions, particularly in the United States and Africa, and its capacity to contribute to similar other causes has been stretched.

In a recent interview the former US President, Bill Clinton, who is the UN envoy for the tsunami relief, has also said that “there was literally financial and emotional donor exhaustion after the tsunami and Katrina both of which elicited unprecedented generosity from ordinary people all over the world as well as governments”. He, however, expressed the hope that “the donor fatigue will wear down” and the international community will respond generously to Pakistan’s post-quake financial needs.

President Pervez Musharraf is to unveil the reconstruction plan at the donor conference today, which is being attended by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan and other world leaders as well as the representatives of the international financial institutions. In order to maximize the utilization of the financial aid from the world community, it would be more realistic if the government only undertakes the responsibility in the quake-ravaged areas for the restoration and reconstruction of the infrastructures, including roads, bridges, schools, hospitals, water supply, sanitation, drainage system, telecommunications and other basic services as well as reforestation of slopes ravaged by the landslides.

The private citizens in these areas may, however, be encouraged to rely on their own resources to restore or reconstruct their houses. The government may, however, assist them in obtaining preferential loans on easy instalments from the House Building Finance Corporation or the banks, if they so desire. It should, however, extend financial assistance to those who are truly in need of such assistance for the restoration and reconstruction of their damaged or destroyed houses.

It may also be mentioned that the people in the affected areas have suffered a much bigger loss in terms of human lives, owing to sub-standard dwellings and public buildings and their poor maintenance. The government must, therefore, not only revise laws for the construction of houses and buildings throughout the country and also in AJK, but should also ensure their strict enforcement.

The application of the preventive measures, such as land-use restrictions and improved planning for building construction, which are aimed at lessening the devastating effects of an earthquake, would be far more cost-effective than short and long-term measures that may have to be taken in the aftermath of an earthquake to alleviate the sufferings of the affectees. Construction of earthquake-resistant houses, particularly in the high-risk seismic zones in the country, should also be made compulsory.

The government should also draw a lesson from the bitter experience of October 8 and build an integrated disaster management system on a permanent basis to meet natural calamities, like earthquakes. While doing so, the government should, however, focus more on the development of national capabilities to protect people and their property as well as the national assets. It would also be necessary to make community’s cooperation and its practical involvement during the traumatic and unstable times as part of the crisis management.