|
| February 13, 2006 | Monday | Muharram 14, 1427 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
An award for telecom
Mechanized cleaning
Emerging Middle East realities
THE Hamas victory in Palestine, which follows a more defiant stance by Syria and Iran, mounting unrest in Afghanistan, and increased insurgency in Iraq, brings forward new realities that demand a well-considered response from Pakistan. During his visit to Davos for the world economic forum, President Musharraf had expressed the view that the world could not ignore the outcome of a democratic election in Palestine.
THE fate of the IPI gas pipeline project hangs in the balance. A number of recent events point to the uncertainty that marks this first exercise in tripartite cooperation between Iran, Pakistan and India. After India entered into an agreement with Washington for the supply of nuclear technology in July 2005, Mr Manmohan Singh cast doubts on the fate of the IPI project. Then his government proceeded to vote against Iran at the IAEA in October evoking an angry reaction from Tehran. But the IPI was back on track soon thereafter. During his visit to the US in January, Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz reassured his host that his government would not rush into a deal on the gas pipeline, followed by a statement by President Pervez Musharraf at the World Economic Forum in Davos that Pakistan had no plans to ditch the pipeline but if the US insisted on it, Washington would have to pay compensation. The recent reshuffle in the Indian cabinet in January saw the unceremonious exit from the petroleum ministry of Mani Shankar Aiyer, who has strongly supported the IPI project. Then India proceeded to vote in favour of the resolution adopted by the IAEA’s board of governors at the behest of the US to have Iran referred to the UN Security Council for possible imposition of sanctions against it because of its nuclear programme. Now we have the new Indian petroleum minister declaring his government’s commitment to the IPI.
What is to be deduced from all this? It is plain that the United States, which has still to reconcile itself to Iran under an Islamist leadership, is vehemently opposed to Iran’s neighbours entering into any economic cooperation with Tehran, least of all on energy. How will India and Pakistan respond? The two countries appear to be wavering, with contradictory statements coming from Islamabad and New Delhi. Unsurprisingly, both the South Asians face a dilemma. After years of wrangling over economic cooperation, they have at last managed to reach a stage where they can consider entering into a tripartite project like the IPI, thanks to the composite dialogue that has improved the political climate in the region. US opposition to this move comes at a time when both countries depend on America’s goodwill for their economic progress and geopolitical stability. For Pakistan, there is no getting away from the US after Islamabad took a foreign policy U-turn in the aftermath of 9/11 and President Bush’s famous ‘you are either with us or against us’ speech. Having joined hands with Washington in its war on terror, Islamabad finds itself severely constrained in its foreign policy options. As for India, its new found status of being America’s strategic ally with an offer of nuclear technology on the cards has restricted its freedom to choose its options in external affairs.
It remains to be seen how the two countries will respond to the American pressure that they are faced with. Given the state of world politics, especially America’s unilateralism and President George Bush’s propensity to take recourse to force to impose American diktat on any region of the world, India and Pakistan would do well to resist these pressures. The IPI must go through since it meets the economic needs of the two countries. By forging ahead with the détente that is beginning to shape India-Pakistan relations, they can find their hands strengthened to jointly stand up to any American threat or pressure.
WITH all the conspiracy theorists predicting gloom and doom for the country, the news that Pakistan has received an international award for progress and development made in its telecommunication sector proves that all is not that bad after all. It has been awarded the Government Leadership Award 2006 beating heavyweight India, a serious contender for the award. This is no small achievement in a highly competitive field. Recognized for its “remarkable work in the field” by the competitive board of Global System of Mobile Association, Pakistan was lauded for creating a booming mobile communication sector by reducing tariffs and expanding the mobile subscribers’ base to 20 million in just three years. Pakistan hopes to increase this base to 50 million in the next three to four years. This can be achieved provided that the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority’s planned investment of Rs 20 billion in the telecom sector during 2004-5 materializes and it receives two billion dollars over the next few years. There are many indicators to prove that the time is ripe for investment in this sector. In the last year or so, two major international mobile phone operators opened shop here and have performed well. Then there are wireless loop operators entering the market with various high-tech options once unimaginable.
The mobile phone is no longer a rich man’s luxury as it was at one time but a necessity for everyone. Those in the service sector — like plumbers and electricians — are now always available on the phone and it has opened new vistas for lower-income entrepreneurs, who, through various micro-finance schemes, can use their mobile phones to attract business. This conducive environment will allow more players into the market and give consumers a wider choice of networks to choose from. Once the option of mobile number portability comes into play — allowing consumers to switch networks without changing their existing mobile numbers — service providers will have no option but to ensure their network’s reliability and coverage as on that front many companies have been deficient. For this the PTA will have to play a more effective role as a regulatory body, checking telecom companies’ poor services and ensuring that consumers’ complaints are taken seriously.
A PROGRAMME of mechanized sweeping has begun in Karachi, for which 30 brand new road-cleaning machines have been imported. But, whether the cleaning is mechanized or human, what matters is that the job of cleaning the city is done regularly and efficiently. Clearly, Karachi is too vast for 30 machines to do the job of cleaning and sweeping all its roads. However, the idea of having mechanized cleaning is not bad provided it does not divert attention away from making more efficient the job of cleaning and sweeping for which a large number of people are employed by the city government and the various cantonment boards.
A major obstacle in the way of better cleaning is the fact that there is no system in place to check absentee or ‘ghost’ cleaners — those who draw a salary but hardly ever report for duty. Instead, many work in private homes or at the residences of government employees. Either way, the city’s residents suffer because uncollected trash lying on the streets not only presents a very unpleasant look but is also a public health hazard. There is also the tendency among sanitary workers to burn the garbage they collect which has often led to many complaints of air pollution from residents. They do this usually out of laziness and the city government’s inability to provide transport for the waste to be collected and taken to a suitable landfill site for disposal. Further, it is often the case that only a few select roads — usually those on which VIPs frequently travel — are regularly cleaned. These issues need to be looked into while launching mechanized sweeping. Also, the city government should have a proper maintenance schedule for these machines so that they do not become inoperational any time soon.
Indeed, the wave of democracy that is sweeping across the Middle East is producing a reaction against the type of controlled democracy that the US and many of its European allies are trying to impose.
That a militant organization in Palestine claiming responsibility for the most suicide attacks won such an overwhelming majority shows two things. The Palestinian rank and file had not been cowed by escalating Israeli state terror and was ready to pay any price to safeguard their dignity and rights. Going deeper into the likely consequences of a power based ascendancy, it is time for the leaders and architects of a unilateralist approach to realize that what is being called terrorism, is usually a struggle for liberation. The UN, during several debates on the definition of terrorism, always made an exception for liberation struggles. Hamas is being told that it must abandon armed struggle if it wants to head a Palestinian government that will be considered legitimate.
The Palestinians cannot fail to note that they have lost ground as a result of the way the US and western backers of Israel have handled the peace process. Even during the Bush presidency, Ariel Sharon talked of peace but displayed a trigger-happy approach to weaken and demoralize Palestinians, barely noticing their ceasefires, to consolidate Israel’s military supremacy. Repression accompanied by moral arrogance perpetuates resistance.
Europe has experienced the Irish freedom struggle, which was waged through the Irish Republican Army. The latter did not lay down their arms till key demands were met. Unless the rights and legitimate aspirations of the Palestinians are met, they will feel the need to continue their struggle, and would have the support not only of the Arab and Islamic countries, but of all people and countries that genuinely believe in democracy.
Though Hamas has been threatened that unless it recognizes Israel and gives up its militancy it will not be allowed to enjoy the fruits of its electoral triumph, it knows that the West’s economic support to the Palestinian Authority is a form of blackmail, which it rejects. Its stance is that the majority of the Jews were foisted through force and deception on the Palestinians who had inhabited the land for over 2,000 years.
In the peaceful dialogue, which they are ready to hold with the Israelis and the regional and world powers, the world should acknowledge the fact that the territory belonged to the Palestinians, who have the right to decide what status the Jews brought from abroad should have. To demand that the Palestinians must recognize Israel before the peace process can resume would be to legitimize US and European resort to force and deception to create the state of Israel.
The recent trends in the Middle East region reflect a return to self-respect, and the defiance of force. Wherever elections have been held, nationalist, even Islamic forces, have prevailed. Thanks to the massive US use of the carrot and the stick, and the ethnic divides that pit the Shias in the south and the Kurds in the north against the Sunnis in the middle, a seemingly desirable outcome has been achieved in Iraq. However, no government based on these results has yet been formed, while the insurgency continues, with rising coalition casualties.
The war in Iraq is proving to be a political albatross around the necks of President Bush and his neo-con backers, and he needs some military and diplomatic successes before the mid-term elections in November this year. These include capture or killing of top Al Qaeda leaders, and the elimination of Iran’s nuclear ambitions or regime-change in Syria. However, nothing has gone right for Bush. Osama bin Laden and Al Zawahiri remain at large. The firing of missiles in Pakistani territory not only ignored the sensitivities of a major-non-Nato ally but also aroused countrywide protests over the heavy civilian casualties that included women and children.
Other incidents, like the publication of cartoons ridiculing Islam, have caused outrage and resentment among Muslims all over the world. Papers in Europe, demonstrating their attachment to the concept of freedom of the press, have only stoked the by fires by reproducing the cartoons and precipitating a virtual conflict of civilizations. This incident has compelled even the US and the UK to criticize the insensitivity of devotees of democracy to the religious feelings of a fifth of the global population.
Requirements of decency and of respect for the sensitivities of followers of other faiths are a constraint on the freedom of expression, including gratuitous insults to followers of other faiths. Muslims are enjoined to respect the beliefs of other faiths, and to refrain from acts that cause offence to them.
Therefore, to reflect the outrage caused to the religious sentiments of the people of Pakistan, the Pakistan foreign minister told the ambassadors of nine European countries to underline the inadmissibility of freedom of the press being cited to defend caricaturing the Prophet (PBUH). Islam is a religion that does not allow its followers to hurt the religious sensitivities of the adherents followers of other faiths, and the cartoons only aggravated inter-faith tensions.
As a responsible state, Pakistan must take positions on various issues that are based on principles, as well as on realities rather than cave in to the dictates of any great power. The present leadership, while responding with pragmatism to the US demand to support the UN-backed war against terrorism, has taken a stand on other US demands. Pakistan did not support the “coalition of the willing” formed by the US to attack Iraq because it was not authorized by the UN for lack of credible justification.
Pakistan did not send troops there when the US called for them, because to do so would have neither the approval of the people of Pakistan, nor of world opinion. Pakistan has been critical of the pro-Israeli bias of the US, and of the inclination of the present US administration to impose its demands or views on the basis of power, rather than on the principles of international law, of the UN charter.
So far as its own region, inclusive of the Middle East, is concerned, Pakistan finds it necessary to follow the principles of international law as well as the norms of international usage and behaviour. The current preoccupation of the international community with the problems of extremism and terrorism must go beyond the use of force and coercion, and address the roots of the problem. The small minority of the population that adopts extremist ways to have their views prevail needs to be weaned away from a violent approach through education, and democracy. Simultaneously, leaders or movements that foment violence or terror should be banned by law.
The roots of terrorism lie in injustice, both political and economic. Where colonial or hegemonic forces do not respect the rights and legitimate demands of ethnic or regional people, which drives them to launch liberation struggles, the major powers can redress those injustices — for instance in Palestine and Kashmir on which the UN has passed resolutions. The major powers also have a duty to prevent economic injustice by running a system that condemns a majority of the world’s population to extreme poverty and want.
The leaders of developing or disadvantaged countries where extremism flourishes for any reason must take corrective or punitive action. At the same time, they must provide peaceful and democratic avenues to the people to air their views. Only such teamwork between the rich and poor countries can produce a stable and peaceful world order. President Musharraf had stressed the compulsion of such a strategy that would address the problem of terrorism at its roots, while addressing the 10th Islamic summit at Putrajaya in Malaysia in 2003.
He also called for the establishment of a group of eminent persons that would focus on two basic challenges of the Organization of Islamic Conference. He identified these as projecting a positive image of Islam as a faith that stood for enlightened moderation and restructuring and revitalizing the OIC to make it more effective in addressing the problems of the Muslims.
Among the matters considered during the recent visit of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, who had presided over the third extraordinary summit of the OIC held in Makkah in December 2005, was urgent joint action, along with other Islamic countries, to implement the decisions taken at the Makkah summit. Pakistan has already taken action to ban extremist and sectarian organizations.
The revitalization of the OIC could make it an effective organ to promote political solidarity and economic development of the 57 members of the Islamic world. The existence of an OIC that can replicate the role of the European Union in Europe could make it an important factor for peace and progress in the Islamic world, the heart of which is the Middle East.
The writer is a former ambassador.