|
| November 21, 2005 | Monday | Shawwal 18, 1426 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
Iran’s nuclear crisis
Safety of blood
Which option to choose: Saarc or ECO?
THE evolution of the European Union into a dynamic association of European states cooperating for common economic, political and security goals is enviable.
THOSE seeking a solution of the Kashmir issue need to take note of Mirwaiz Umar Farooq’s speech in New Delhi on Wednesday. Some of his observations may not be very palatable to Islamabad and New Delhi, but they must be taken seriously because they come from the chief of the All Parties’ Hurriyat Conference, which is an umbrella organization of all Kashmiri organizations fighting for Kashmir’s liberation. Among the views he expressed at a seminar organized by an Indian newspaper were those he had articulated during his visit to Pakistan earlier this year. Besides his call for a ‘United States of Kashmir’ in Karachi on June 10, he came up with some new ideas on Wednesday. A summation of these should be rewarding, since it would help us know the thinking of a broad section of Kashmiri public opinion. Briefly, he called for a demilitarization of Jammu and Kashmir; taking “the sting out of the dispute” by detaching the demilitarization move from “rights, claims or recognized positions” of the parties to the dispute, because raising “quasi-legal or pseudo-legal questions” serves only to “befog” the issue; and holding a “triangular dialogue”, which means talks between Kashmiris and Pakistan, between them and India and between Islamabad and New Delhi. Then the APHC leader turned to the Indian occupation of Kashmir and pleaded for a better human rights situation, a repeal of repressive laws, withdrawing the military presence from cities and towns, and facilitating easier movement of Kashmiris across the Line of Control.
Without going into details, one can see that the broad thrust of the APHC chief’s arguments does not run counter to the position Islamabad has adopted during the current phase of the peace process and the various moves undertaken to turn the LoC into a “soft” line. Pakistan has consistently pointed out that Kashmir was not a real estate problem and that it would like to work out a solution that would be acceptable to all the three parties to the dispute. The Mirwaiz seems to hammer this point clearly, and at Wednesday’s seminar referred to the abortive attempts by India in the past to strike a unilateral deal with Kashmiri leaders. The examples he referred to were those of Pandit Nehru’s agreement with Sheikh Abdullah in 1952, Mrs Indira Gandhi’s deal with the sheikh in 1975, and Mr Rajiv Gandhi’s understanding with Mr Farooq Abdullah in the eighties. The lesson to be drawn is clear — neither Pakistan nor India should attempt a solution that would bypass each other or the Kashmiris. The APHC leader also deplored the attempt to link the Kashmiri freedom struggle to Islamic fundamentalism and said the insurgency preceded the arrival on the scene of what he called the “Afghan Arabs”.
Let us hope that both Islamabad and New Delhi will try to find a commonality of ground in the ideas spelled out by the Mirwaiz. India’s reluctance to talk to the Kashmiri leaders is a major hindrance to a solution. Pakistan has made a dent into the concept of recognized positions by making it clear that it will listen to any proposals and not insist on the UN resolutions on Kashmir. Let us hope India, too, takes steps to break the logjam. New Delhi must also take concrete steps to stop rights’ violations in the occupied territory so as to create a proper climate for talks to begin between New Delhi and Kashmiri leaders’ representatives.
ON the eve of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s board of governors’ meeting on Thursday, the Iranian nuclear crisis has hotted up again. Iran has informed the IAEA that it has started enriching a new batch of uranium. Meanwhile, Iranian negotiator Ali Larijani has sent out letters to the EU-3 calling for resumption of dialogue. This amounts to blowing hot and cold on the issue that can take any turn in the coming weeks. At the heart of the crisis is Iran’s demand that its right to uranium enrichment be conceded and the IAEA’s demand that Iran should be transparent in its dealings with the agency’s inspectors. So far the EU-3 has failed to find a compromise solution to the problem and the talks have been deadlocked mainly because of lack of confidence. If the two sides fail to find a via media, the IAEA’s board of governors might refer the case to the UN Security Council for sanctions. Of course, this will not resolve the crisis because the Council may be hamstrung by a Russian/Chinese veto. Hence the efforts of the EU-3 and the IAEA must focus on working out a formula acceptable to both sides.
Last month the European parliament had adopted a resolution recognizing the right of Iran to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes under Article 4 of the NPT. For lack of confidence, the general concern is that Iran might use its uranium enrichment programme to manufacture a nuclear bomb as well. The need of the hour is to create trust between the two sides. The Iranian Supreme Leader has categorically declared that his country does not want an atomic bomb because it is considered to be unIslamic. Iran just wants to be self-reliant in its nuclear fuel cycle by having its own process for enriching uranium. To reassure the sceptics, Russia which already has an agreement with Iran for supplying enriched uranium could be formally entrusted with this task and Iran reassured of an uninterrupted supply. A proposal of this nature is on the table and one hopes that the two sides will accept it as the most feasible.
THE crackdown on errant blood banks in Sindh seems to have yielded some results as a number of units have applied to the Sindh Blood Transfusion Authority for registration. But the fact that the SBTA registered only a handful of them and that more than half were served with closure notices is indicative of the poor blood banking practices prevalent in the province. Many blood banks have still not applied for registration, despite regular prodding from the authorities, and continue to store expired and substandard blood — a practice that can prove lethal for transfusion patients. Unfortunately, most units see blood banking as a commercial proposition and are ready to cut corners in order to avoid the costs that proper screening and storage facilities entail. It is feared that with the closure of many units not conforming to SBTA guidelines, those blood banks that have so far managed to elude detection will continue to provide blood of doubtful quality to unsuspecting patients.
If the SBTA manages to keep a watchful eye, launches an awareness campaign and ensures that units once sealed do not operate clandestinely, transfusion patients themselves will, in time, wake up to the dangers of contaminated blood. They will then prefer to go to officially authorized blood banks that store safe products, even if it means a longer waiting period for some transfusion patients. Instead of operating covertly and risking closure and the arrest of medical personnel, blood bank owners would do well to abide by the law and register their units. Perhaps, in conjunction with other blood outlets, they can then evolve some scheme of pooling their resources and sharing screening and other facilities so that the maximum number of patients can be served without having to compromise on the quality of blood.
From its modest start as the European Coal and Steel Community in 1952, the phenomenal economic prosperity that Europe has achieved since then has encouraged the growth of regional organizations in other parts of the world. In Asia, Asean, Economic Cooperation Organization (ECO), GCC and Saarc readily come to mind as examples of regional organizations striving to promote cooperation among the member states in economic and other fields.
While regional cooperation per se is desirable, it is a mistake to assume that any association of regional states can evolve on the lines of the EU or can achieve similar results. In fact, the challenges and the potential of regional organizations vary according to their economic circumstances, cultural and historical backgrounds, geographical location, intra-regional political relations, their world outlook and their vision of the future.
It is not surprising, therefore, that the 13th Saarc Summit concluded in Dhaka again with pious declarations of strengthening regional cooperation but without any real headway on the major issues facing it. The organization remains mired in political disputes among the member states and bogged down by fears of India’s hegemonic designs in the region in both economic and political fields. The resultant lack of trust does not create a propitious climate for the promotion of regional cooperation. Cultural divergences among the member states, particularly between India and Pakistan, add to the list of negative factors militating against regional cooperation in Saarc. In fact, it would be correct to say that Saarc was born with genetic defects which simple declarations cannot eliminate.
It is astonishing that in the debate in Pakistan on regional cooperation, we tend to gloss over the necessary conditions for its success. The main reason for this tendency is an inadequate comprehension of the rationale and the prerequisites for a successful programme of regional cooperation leading to regional integration on the lines of the European Union.
The ability of a regional organization to reap fully the economic and political benefits of inter-state cooperation is determined by the following pre-requisites of a successful scheme of regional cooperation: * Community of interests: There must be a feeling of common identity and common destiny (common goals and aspirations) among the member states.
* Economic complementarities: The economic benefits of regional cooperation will largely be determined by complementarities among the economies of the member states.
* Geographical proximity: Obviously the ability of member states to trade and cooperate with one another will be facilitated if they are located in close proximity to one another geographically.
* Cultural affinities: This factor again facilitates regional cooperation by promoting a feeling of common identity among the member states. It is a major positive factor for regional cooperation within the EU as all of its current members trace their cultural roots to Greco-Roman-Christian civilization. It also explains the EU’s reluctance to admit Turkey, a major Muslim country, in its fold.
* Absence of serious disputes: The presence of serious conflicts among the member states like the Kashmir dispute between Pakistan and India can act as a major obstacle in the progress of regional cooperation.
* Non-existence of hegemonic designs: As shown by Saarc’s experience, the fear of hegemonic designs of a member state also blocks progress in regional cooperation.
As the process of regional cooperation evolves from programmes of cooperation in various economic fields to the establishment of a free trade area and then to the creation of a customs union leading to an economic union, the economies of the member states are gradually integrated resulting ultimately in the establishment of a single market where goods, capital and people can move freely and in the harmonization of economic and monetary policies. Further, since economic issues cannot be totally separated from political and security issues, there is an inevitable pressure to coordinate foreign and security policies in keeping with the process of integration taking place in the economic field.
These developments lead to several important consequences. Firstly, the decision-making powers on issues of common interest are gradually transferred from national capitals to the headquarters of the regional organization as the process of regional economic integration takes place. Secondly, the bigger state or states tend(s) to dominate the decision-making process of the regional organization. Even if there are checks and balances to counter this tendency, it is likely that the bigger state or states because of their political and economic strength bigger state or states will ultimately dominate the region and the regional policies.
Thirdly, there is an inevitable contradiction between the process of regional integration whose contours will ultimately be defined by the dominant member state(s) and the maintenance of the national identities of the smaller member states. These likely consequences explain the opposition of several Latin American countries to the creation of a Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) advocated by the US.
It is in the backdrop of the foregoing, that we must examine the current euphoria about Saarc among the policy-making circles in Pakistan some of which have gone to the extent of calling for an economic and monetary union within the Saarc region. Apparently, they are neither aware of the pre-requisites of regional integration nor are they conscious of the long-term consequences of this process for Pakistan in the context of Saarc.
Regional integration within the framework of Saarc would negate the very rationale for the creation of Pakistan because, as explained above, the process of regional integration would submerge Pakistan’s national identity in the bigger and dominant Indian identity. Further, India, because of its preponderant weight within the organization, would in due course dominate the decision-making process in Saarc affecting Pakistan’s economy and even foreign policy as the two cannot be totally segregated. This would be undesirable because, as the history of Pakistan-India relations indicates, there is neither a community of interests nor cultural affinity between India and Pakistan.
After all, it wasn’t that long that the forces of the two countries were facing each other along the common border. India’s goal is to establish its hegemony in South Asia and the Indian ocean region. We are opposed to this Indian ambition. We want a peaceful settlement of the Kashmir dispute in accordance with the wishes of the Kashmiri people while New Delhi considers Kashmir as its integral part. The world-views of India and Pakistan are also widely different if not contradictory.
In fact, Pakistan’s cultural roots lie in the member states of the Economic Cooperation Organization (ECO) and the GCC. The following quotation from the Quaid-i-Azam’s reply to Gandhi’s denial of Muslim nationality should suffice to bring out the cultural divergence between Pakistan and India:
“We maintain and hold that Muslims and Hindus are two major nations by any definition or test of a nation. We are a nation of a hundred million and, what is more, we are a nation with our own distinctive culture and civilization, language and literature, art and architecture, names and nomenclature, sense of values and proportion, legal laws and moral codes, customs and calendar, history and traditions, aptitudes and ambitions. In short, we have our own distinctive outlook on life and of life. By all canons of international law we are a nation.”
This is not an argument for creating tensions in our relations with India or for writing off Saarc. In fact, we do need to develop tension-free and good-neighbourly relations with India. We also need to resolve peacefully the outstanding disputes with India.
Similarly, as far as Pakistan is concerned, Saarc does have a role to play for the promotion of regional cooperation in a limited framework, including trade on a level playing field basis but not for the purpose of regional integration through the establishment of economic and monetary union. The establishment of such a union would mean that India would achieve its long-cherished aim of negating the very existence of an independent and sovereign Pakistan without having fired a shot.
For Pakistan, it is the ECO which meets all the prerequisites of regional cooperation leading to regional integration. The organization has a vast potential for the expansion of regional economic cooperation as it is based on the solid foundation of economic complementarities, common cultural heritage, geographical proximity and the absence of serious disputes and hegemonic designs among its members.
It is a sad commentary on Pakistan’s foreign policy that it is precisely this organization with promising prospects for regional cooperation for our country, which has received little attention from our policy-makers during the past several years, partly because of the fiasco of our Afghanistan policy of the 1990s lasting till 9/11. The changed environment in Afghanistan provides Pakistan with an opportunity for creative diplomacy for exploiting the full potential of the ECO for regional cooperation in collaboration with other member states, including Iran, Turkey, Afghanistan, Azerbaijan and the Central Asian Republics and for safeguarding our long-term national interests.
The writer is a former ambassador and permanent representative to ECO.