IPI in the doldrums

THE future of the Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI) gas pipeline project has been in the doldrums ever since the crisis over Iran’s nuclear programme has intensified. As the US and Europe are striving to get the IAEA to take Iran before the UN Security Council for imposition of sanctions, the Bush administration has been trying hard to encircle Iran and isolate it. While Russia and China have been asked to lend their support to the campaign against Iran, Washington is exerting pressure on India and Pakistan to drop the IPI gas pipeline. As happens in such backdoor diplomacy of the murky kind, the fate of the project hangs in the balance as conflicting statements emanate from Islamabad and New Delhi.

It is India which has had to bear the brunt of the American pressure since it enjoys the privileged position of being America’s strategic partner. Besides New Delhi has also been promised nuclear technology which it is keen to obtain. In October, India, which is a member of the IAEA’s board of governors, had voted against Tehran causing strains in its ties with Iran. Matters were sorted out and the IPI was back on the rails. Now the warnings from Washington have assumed an ominous tone. India is now getting a taste of the medicine which Pakistan has had to swallow since the 1970s when America used its clout to pressure Pakistan in a bid to stop it from pursuing its nuclear programme. The present situation is not a happy one for any of the three partners of the gas pipeline project. India’s dilemma is that it does not want to relinquish the nuclear technology being offered by Washington. Pakistan has so far been able to offer some resistance although various leaders are wavering between calling off the project and holding on to it in spite of pressure. The outcome of this tussle will determine the geostrategic future of this region.

It is plain that the nuclear powers are bent on retaining their monopoly over nuclear technology and will leave no stone unturned to prevent Iran from becoming self-sufficient in uranium enrichment. They will prevent Iran’s neighbours that possess nuclear expertise - Russia, China, Pakistan and India — from maintaining normal relations with Tehran. At present, the two sides are locked in a game of brinkmanship with each side threatening to take drastic measures. The US has the upper hand because Iran’s neighbours have so far failed to rally round it and the relationship between India and Pakistan has been of a tenuous nature. Once these two countries let it be known that they will not abandon the IPI project even if sanctions are imposed and China’s anti-sanctions stance is made clear, the US will not be able to go very far. So far Iran has not violated any provisions of the NPT and its nuclear projects are under the IAEA’s safeguards. Now that Iran has indicated that Moscow’s proposal to enrich uranium for Tehran on Russian soil could form the basis of an agreement, it is important that the deadlock is broken by reaching a compromise agreement. Precision strikes against Iran’s nuclear projects and armtwisting of its neighbours will only exacerbate the crisis. The need of the hour is for countries which do not agree with the American line to re-create a countervailing force to American dominance as the non-aligned movement was in the days of the Cold War.

Wali Khan

WITH the passing away of Khan Abdul Wali Khan, truly an era has come to an end, or almost the end. This was an era peopled by leaders of flesh and blood who were steeped in politics and who, despite occasional compromises, cherished a certain respect for principles and ideology. Both because of his Khudai Khidmatgar/ Congress background and his own convictions, Wali Khan was an anti-establishment figure par excellence. He was seen by the right-wing and the ideology-wallahs as a traitor for his pro-peace and secular ideas - ideas that are now generally accepted as essential and valid for the country to progress. His party was a bridge between West and East Pakistan, and the sundering of the link between the two wings was an incalculable loss for democratic politics. Vilified and persecuted by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Wali Khan had allowed his anger at the populist leader to make him look like an ally of the military dictator, Ziaul Haq. This aberration had widened the chasm with some of his Baloch counterparts.

Wali Khan had never held any political office, but his influence on his party and on national politics was considerable. He was a dominating figure on the opposition benches and part of almost every pro-democracy movement. He had chosen to recede into the background in the past decade, and he was also beset with health problems. His party has struggled to preserve its niche in a world becoming increasingly topsy-turvy in ideological terms; its responsibilities have increased in the Frontier areas that are seen as its stronghold. Some may yearn for the anti-imperialist fervour of the old NAP, although that too sounds outdated. One by one, the old guard are fading away. We should seek the help of the elder statesmen who still remain to achieve a more harmonious and less unstable situation both in Balochistan and in the north-western areas.

A short-lived campaign

WHAT began as a commendable exercise by the Karachi police to rein in the violators of traffic rules has ended with a whimper. On Wednesday the campaign against tinted glass, fancy number plates, flashing lights, etc, was abruptly suspended, apparently following a controversial incident involving State Minister for Religious Affairs Dr Aamir Liaquat. A day earlier the minister’s car was intercepted by the police near the Defence Stadium because it had tinted glass. However, Dr Liaquat made a call to the home minister who immediately intervened. No case was registered against him and the police officials were reprimanded for intercepting his vehicle. The next day, the police chief sent out a wireless message to all officials on duty ordering them to halt the drive. While this may come as a relief to many who were subjected to crude police behaviour during the drive, even if they had not committed any traffic offence, it is extremely disappointing that the law enforcement force ostensibly buckled under pressure from above.

Some reports say that the campaign has not been halted all together and that it will continue after some time. But these indications do nothing to assuage the general feeling that political interference in police duties has often obstructed fair enforcement of the law. The recent drive had been well received especially since many of those booked for road offences were related to politicians and high-ranking officials. To call it off immediately after an incident involving a minister of state shows that the campaign was not as even-handed as claimed by police officials. One can also imagine how demoralized the police officials must be feeling — and how confused. One the one hand, they were praised for carrying on the drive in an impartial manner. On the other, they were reprimanded for checking the car of a minister for violating the rules. Traffic campaigns can only be effective if ministers and others of their ilk stop interfering with police work.

Looking into the global crystal ball

THE outlook for the future cannot be considered bright given the geopolitical global trends since the start of the century and millennium. The way global affairs have been managed over the past five years justifies fears of continuing crises in nearly all spheres of human life.

The end of the Cold War in 1989 had raised hopes that with the US now the only superpower, some of the idealism that lay behind the establishment of the UN might be revived. Though the elder George Bush had spoken about the quest of a New World Order in 1990, as he prepared a global coalition to respond to the aggression by Saddam Hussein against Kuwait, the follow-up to the Gulf War of 1991 took the form of stationing US forces in the Gulf region, both to establish US hegemony over the main source of energy and ensure the regional domination of Israel. The initiative to resolve the Palestinian problem was not pursued. Instead, neo-conservatives advocated a new order based on military power.

The election of Bill Clinton resulted in a shift from foreign policy to tackling the domestic agenda, as the economy had been neglected during Republican party’s rule. A recession had set in. Clinton’s victory enabled effective reforms to revitalize the economy. Clinton revived the US tradition of strengthening global institutions and countering aggressive tendencies such as those that emerged in Yugoslavia where Serbian chauvinism sparked conflicts in Croatia and Bosnia.

Europe failed to restore peace and order and Clinton used the influence and military reach of the US to mobilize the international machinery to curb Serbian violence. He revived efforts to bring peace to Palestine, and brought the US into the mainstream on such global issues as the environment and punishment of war crimes by states. By the time Clinton completed his two terms, the US economy had been revived and the outlook for the new century looked promising.

However, a disputed election brought a leadership to the White House that has made a significant difference to the direction in which the world was moving. Leading intellectual Noam Chomsky stated in an interview that the stamp of US leadership under George W. Bush has largely shaped the outlook both in key issues of war and peace in the 21st century. The concept of a New American Century based on US military and technical supremacy resulted in the ideals of equity and social justice being pushed into the background, especially after the terrorist attacks of 9/11. The latter reflected the despair of significant elements among the deprived and neglected people of the developing world.

The outlook for 2006 has to be determined by how matters stood at the close of the previous year and the changes hovering on the horizon. If 2005 could not be described as a happy year, it is necessary to identify the causes of this disappointment and to look for signs of remedial measures.

President George W. Bush has pursued a goal of imprinting the stamp of the US on the world in a manner that has resulted in the spread of death, destruction and misery. Besides resort to war through his doctrine of pre-emption, he has also undermined the role of the United Nations and failed to provide leadership to address the real global challenges such as threats to the environment, poverty and disease. Peaceful goals, such as UN reform, trade liberalization and environmental initiatives were not achieved during his first term — although the rest of the world community showed awareness of the real challenges.

The gap between the rich and the poor and among nations grew. The 60th anniversary of the UN was preceded by a special summit that reviewed progress on millennium development goals, notably that of reducing global poverty. The special summit identified target shortfalls in fighting disease and poverty and reminded leaders of the developed world to devote greater efforts and resources to achieving progress. However, any meaningful reform in the setup of the UN could not be achieved, and it emerged that the real emphasis should have been placed on making the organization more effective rather than on accommodating the ambitions of the powers.

The world was afflicted by some of the worst natural disasters in recent history, the vast destruction and death toll of over 250,000 people caused by the December 26, 2004, tsunami becoming apparent in 2005. Ten months later, a devastating earthquake in which over 80,000 died and nearly four million were rendered homeless, struck northern Pakistan and Azad Kashmir. While both disasters drew global sympathy and assistance, it became evident that the world community was poorly organized to deal with natural calamities on this scale, an observation confirmed by the inadequate response to destruction wreaked by successive hurricanes in the US.

Interestingly, exposure to death and destruction at home made the American people more intensely aware of the havoc and suffering wrought by war, and rapidly strengthened the anti-war sentiment among the American people. For the first time, the percentage of those Americans who disapproved of the war against Iraq rose higher than those who had opposed the war in Vietnam.

Without doubt, many valuable lessons were learnt during 2005 and initiatives were reinforced to achieve solutions of major political disputes, such as those in Palestine and Kashmir. The sentiments of the majority of poorer nations regarding reforms in the world economic order became stronger as was evident from the proceedings of the WTO conference in Hong Kong at the close of 2005.

The outlook turned bleak as 2006 approached. India’s stance hardened, both on Kashmir, and in bilateral terms. As the Pakistan government cracked down on those blowing up gas installations, roads and bridges in Balochistan, India issued a statement that clearly constituted interference in Pakistan’s internal affairs. When the Pakistan government protested, the Indian foreign ministry reiterated its stance. This and the hardened Indian stance on Kashmir appeared to darken the prospects for the composite dialogue in South Asia.

Other year-end developments also pointed towards a more difficult year ahead. Despite the completion of the electoral process in Iraq, with a fairly high turnout in the Kurdish and Shia areas and with Sunnis also participating in large numbers to register their reservations, the insurgency became more intense as US casualties escalated. With his popularity going down over the war in Iraq, President Bush is clearly hoping to entrust more of the responsibility of law and order to the Iraqi police and troops who have been under training for more than two years. However, prospects for achieving this goal have receded. Several elements have contributed to this trend.

The year 2005, which saw the start of Bush’s second term, began with some signs of initiatives to improve his image, especially in seeking conciliation with Europe and addressing some concerns of the developing countries. However, as the year proceeded, his goals of cornering, even changing, regimes considered hostile were revived as evident from policies towards Syria and Iran. The manner in which military and economic linkages were developed with new strategic ally India made New Delhi adopt the same arrogant stance in South Asia. Moves to encircle China continued.

The commencement of 2006 has not been accompanied by trends or developments that might raise expectations for a more peaceful world in which long-festering disputes might be resolved, and the focus of the global community shift to the real problems of mankind. A high proportion of state resources will continue to be spent on arms. The multilateral organizations set up in the mid-20th century to promote economic and social development will remain marginalized and civilizational conflict, justified on the basis of terrorism, will be pursued.

Coming to our own region, it is likely to remain in the arc of crisis. The US, despite setbacks in Iraq and Afghanistan, will continue to be guided by the Bush doctrine. It appears likely that internal tensions, such as those over water management, and political and economic dissatisfaction in the smaller provinces of Pakistan, will add to our national challenges to make 2006 an even tougher year for the country. The geopolitical outlook cannot be considered promising as conflict and confrontation could spread to new areas while progress towards resolving older conflicts, such as those in Palestine and Kashmir, is unlikely.

South Asia will have to deal with an India that has been boosted by its alliance with the US. In addition, other states of this impoverished region face the grim prospect of internal tensions and discontent. Sri Lanka may witness a rekindling of the Tamil insurgency, Bangladesh has been experiencing terrorism as well as polarization between the major parties. Maoist opposition is again resurgent in Nepal, and poverty within the disadvantaged half of the Indian population may also revitalize leftist forces in India.

It will take wisdom and foresight on a global scale as well as good fortune to turn away mankind from strife and conflicts to resolving issues peacefully. Our region appears to be especially vulnerable.

The Pakistani leadership will face multiple challenges of unprecedented complexity. Our leadership claims to be dedicated to making Pakistan an

Asian tiger, but needs stronger nerves, deeper faith, and better luck than most for converting the dream of greatest happiness of the greatest number into a reality.