|
| December 24, 2005 | Saturday | Ziqa’ad 21, 1426 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
PEMRA’s absurd ban
Doctors for rural areas
US opposition to the gas pipeline
DESPITE considerable progress at the recent New Delhi meeting between the petroleum secretaries of Pakistan and India, the Iranian gas project continues to be plagued by uncertainty. The reason for scepticism is that Washington continues to strongly oppose any collaboration by Islamabad and New Delhi with Tehran on the energy front.
NEW developments on the Kalabagh dam issue seem to offer new opportunities for seeking a consensus on what has now become the nation’s biggest political controversy. The first is President Pervez Musharraf’s assurance that the dam will only be a reservoir, and no canals will be taken out of it. In addition, a barrage will be built downstream at Sehwan in Sindh. The biggest surprise is the Abbasi report. A study of the 4,000-page report, whose extracts Dawn published in its Friday issue, shows that the experts would rather have given preference to some other options. In view of the fact that the report has been with the authorities for quite some time, one wonders why the federal government has been pursuing the case for the KBD when the committee headed by A.N.G. Abbasi has serious reservations about it. In its 18-page “Conclusions and Recommendations”, the report pleads for honouring the 1991 water accord among the provinces and says Bhasha dam is a much better option than the KBD. But, the report also says that the real answer to Pakistan’s future needs is the Skardu-Katzarah dam.
The report makes the shocking revelation that the availability of water in the country is negative “to the extent of 0.25 million acre feet” (MAF), and that surplus water is available only during floods. With the help of statistics, the report says that the Kalabagh and Bhasha dams will be able between them to store only 41 per cent of water in surplus years, and the remaining 59 per cent would go downstream. On the other hand, the Katzarah-Skardu dam, with a storage capacity of 35 MAF, will be able to accommodate 84 per cent of water in surplus years. The report says that the feasibility study of the KBD was done between 1984 and 1988, and since then it has not been updated, nor the cost reviewed. On the contrary, the pre-feasibility report of the Katzarah-Skardu dam has been completed, while a feasibility report will take another three to four years. It concludes by saying: “This (Katzarah-Skardu) is the best dam for the country”. Another aspect of the report concerns Wapda: the report accuses it of causing confusion by coming up with different statistics at different times. It also accuses Wapda of inaction in respect of the report in the year 2000 of the World Commission on Dams.
The government will find it difficult to sell Kalabagh to the people, especially those of Sindh, now that the Abbasi report seems to be against the dam. Ignoring the motives attributed to the president by a former army chief, it should be asked why the government has been waging what looks like an election campaign, with the KBD becoming the Pakistani equivalent of “it’s the economy, stupid!” remark that haunted George W. Bush’s father when he sought re-election. Controversial projects are undertaken by strong governments. Tarbela dam and the link canals were built during the Ayub regime when political consciousness and turmoil of the kind seen today did not exist. This government is not as weak as the regimes between 1988 and 1999, but it is far from a position where it can have the final say in all matters. At any rate, it will be downright unwise to press ahead with a highly contentious issue like the Kalabagh dam without the back-up of a consensus. Now that the Abbasi report is public property, the government should encourage debate before making up its mind.
CABLE operators in the country again seem to be suffering because of PEMRA’s strange policies. The industry has been served a notice by the electronic media regulator to stop showing several channels, including many Indian ones, which it says are not on the approved list. Included in the ban are three sports channels based in South Africa and the popular Discovery channel which could hardly be expected to be airing any salacious or anti-Pakistan programmes. Industry insiders believe that the most likely reason for the ban on Indian channels is that PEMRA has done it under pressure from local TV channels which have complained that the Indian channels were getting a lot of domestic advertising. If this is true, then this means that local TV channels are indirectly admitting that the contents of programmes shown by Indian channels are better than theirs.
The losers are the country’s cable subscribers, whose interests are seldom taken into account by PEMRA. Questions need to be asked of PEMRA, the most obvious one being what is the logic of its action and how does shutting out a source of information and entertainment serves any of Pakistan’s national interests? Further, the governments of Pakistan and India have been making serious efforts to resolve their differences in search of a lasting peace. Much of this, despite its slow pace, is focused on increasing people-to-people contact through the opening up of borders, introducing new bus, rail and ferry services and setting up new visa offices. In that context, what rationale is there to place a ban on Indian channels? Besides, PEMRA’s action seems to suggest that a concept as basic as consumer choice or letting the viewers decide what they want to watch is something alien to it. As for local TV channels, they should not seek protection behind a PEMRA ban on Indian channels to draw more local advertising. The best way for them to improve is by being creative and innovative. A channel that offers good viewing will automatically attract advertising. The ban needs to be revoked and viewers given the choice to decide what channel they want to watch.
SOME sense finally seems to have prevailed in the corridors of power. Punjab Chief Minister Pervaiz Elahi has said that his government is considering a plan to make it mandatory for new medical graduates to serve in the rural areas for a period of one year. He stated that while the government had spent large amounts to improve health conditions in the countryside, the absence of qualified doctors had hampered the process. What is also welcome is that the government is ready to provide attractive packages to doctors serving in the rural areas, including proper housing and the provision of vehicles for them. All this sounds almost too good to be true, considering that similar announcements in the past have yielded no positive results. It can only be hoped that this time round the government is serious about implementing its plan as soon as possible so that rural people can get effective medical care and are not forced to rely on the services of quacks.
As the situation stands now, the rural health centres and the basic health units in the hinterland are lying in a state of dilapidation, and many, deprived of medical staff and equipment, are not even being used for the intended purpose. The result is that people living in far-flung areas and in need of urgent medical care have to trek to government hospitals in cities. At the same time, one cannot blame doctors for evading responsibilities in these areas where they subsist on a low salary with virtually no amenities for themselves or their families. If Punjab acts on its promises, it will be setting an example for the rest of the country to follow.
The joint statement, issued in New Delhi, after two days of talks on December 16 and 17, says that Pakistan and India have agreed to give final shape to the project structure and framework of the Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI) gas pipeline by April 2006. A tripartite meeting of three joint working groups “may be held” early next year in Tehran to discuss issues such as an integrated feasibility study, project structure and a tripartite framework agreement.
At a joint press conference, the petroleum secretaries of Pakistan and India, Ahmad Waqar and S.C. Tripathi respectively, stated that the initial estimate was 90 million cubic metres of gas from Iran — 30 million for Pakistan and 60 million for India. The forecast is that India will increase its share to 90 mscmd in the next two to three years, while Pakistan will double its off-take of 30 mscmd by 2013. It was also revealed that the oil ministers from Pakistan and India planned to meet in New Delhi in February to review progress on the project.
Another encouraging development is that Pakistan, India and Iran will, for the first time, hold a trilateral meeting in February in Tehran to address the issues relating to the project, including an integrated feasibility study, project structure and a tripartite framework agreement. According to the Indian petroleum secretary, the project structure (how the project will be built and operated) and the framework agreement (the agreement between India, Pakistan and Iran on the pipeline) will be finalized by April 2006.
Pakistan’s petroleum secretary Ahmad Waqar has revealed that a technical sub-working group will be set up to sort out issues like transportation tariff, transit fee payable to Pakistan, system configuration, pipeline route and the pricing mechanism. The sub-group will meet on a monthly basis to resolve the issues before the next meeting expected to be held in early March 2006.
In the past few months, an intriguing development has taken place with regard to the estimated cost of the Iranian gas project. Until June or July this year, the 2,100 km long Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline was estimated to cost $4.7 billion. Then suddenly, without any explanation, reports started pouring in that officials were now putting the estimated cost of the pipeline at $7 billion which could even go up to $8 billion by the time the project was completed in 2010.
Before Pakistan commits itself irrevocably to the IPI, the cost factor should be thoroughly examined by experts and a satisfactory explanation offered for any increase in the original estimate of $4.7 billion, a figure which also needs to be carefully looked into.
It is, however, reassuring that Pakistani and Indian officials, after two days of talks, have affirmed that the IPI is being pursued despite objections from the United States. According to India’s petroleum secretary, S.C. Tripathi, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had clarified the issue in parliament and his ministry was going by what the prime minister had said.
The Indian prime minister informed the Rajya Sabha on December 1 that the government would take decisions on the IPI “based on India’s national interest”. It may be recalled that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, after the nuclear deal with the US in July, stated that the construction of the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline project involved many risks because of uncertainties in the Iran situation.
However, according to the Indian petroleum minister, Mani Shankar Aiyar, the IPI gas pipeline is “indispensable for India’s energy security and its economic growth”. He also claims that “we have made extraordinary progress towards realizing a world-class safe and secure project”. It is no use glossing over the unpalatable truth. While the Indian petroleum minister, the man entrusted by New Delhi to negotiate the IPI, feels that “extraordinary progress” has been made in realizing the project, the Americans have been told otherwise.
The US under-secretary of state for political affairs, Nicholas Burns, believes India has no plans to sign energy deals with Iran. Addressing the John Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies on December 1, Mr Burns was quoted by the Reuters news agency as saying: “The Indians have assured us that there is no plan on the table that is ready for decision by the Iranian and Indian governments, that any plans, any discussions, have been hypothetical and are years away”.
The above statement has not been made by some unidentified American official but by a high and responsible official who has emerged as America’s point-man and principal interlocutor for negotiations with India. Mr Burns is, therefore, expected to know what he is talking about. He has already held important discussions with Indian Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran in New Delhi.
The important question concerning the future of Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI) gas project is: where does the truth lie? Is the IPI on the chopping block or is India really serious about the implementation of the Iran gas project, as its petroleum minister says? Or is this a case of double think which means the inclination of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously and accepting both of them?
In the past US officials, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, have warned both Pakistan and India against entering into a gas pipeline deal with Iran. The recent statement of Nicholas Burns makes it clear that Washington continues to firmly oppose any collaboration by Islamabad and New Delhi with Tehran on the gas pipeline project.
It is hard to believe that India will do anything that jeopardizes its nuclear deal with Washington which, besides providing sophisticated nuclear technology, also grants New Delhi the de facto status of ‘nuclear power state’. Already, there have been loud calls from some influential US lawmakers that New Delhi must keep out of the Iranian gas project. If New Delhi ignores the American pressure and goes ahead with the implementation of the IPI gas pipeline, it would mean that New Delhi believes that Washington will ultimately accept the fait accompli in the interest of the emerging strategic relationship between the two countries.
By opposing the IPI gas project, Washington is working against its own stated objective in South Asia: better relations between Pakistan and India. The opposition to the gas project has created a major foreign policy challenge for the Americans as they are trying to balance their interests in South Asia with their objective to contain Tehran. The Bush administration is now faced with a classic foreign policy squeeze: while it strongly supports friendly relations between Pakistan and India (which the IPI gas pipeline would certainly promote and strengthen) it continues to oppose the gas pipeline project because it undoes its efforts to isolate Iran.
If the IPI gas project gets implemented, its benefits and symbolism will by far exceed those of any CBM undertaken so far by Islamabad and New Delhi. It will create strong economic bonds and business linkages among the three countries in general and between the two South Asian neighbours in particular. As Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz recently told visiting Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, the IPI gas pipeline was an excellent example of regional cooperation which would create a win-win situation for all.
The economic and developmental gain from the IPI gas project will help Islamabad and New Delhi get rid of the distrust syndrome and move away from their old mindsets which have so far prevented them from giving peace, amity and cooperation a fair chance of succeeding.
The writer is a former ambassador.