|
| March 4, 2006 | Saturday | Safar 3, 1427 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
Failure of intelligence
Dangers of used syringes
Grabbing a great opportunity
IN the run-up to President Bush’s South Asian trip, a lot of energy and effort has gone into discussing the key objectives of his visit. In his interviews to the electronic media President Bush has laid great emphasis on strengthening US-Pakistan ties that according to him are “much bigger than just the war on terrorism”. He has billed the forthcoming visit as “a trip that’s of goodwill and importance” and one that he would like to make more “meaningful and productive”.
THE nuclear deal signed by the US and India on Thursday during President George Bush’s visit to New Delhi is being perceived by both sides as having made history. In a way it has. Being billed as the centrepiece of the growing friendship between the two countries, the deal indicates the melting away of Washington’s reservations vis-a-vis Indian nuclear power and a reversal of India’s long standing socialist foreign policy of non-alignment. But it is a different matter that this relationship has had to counter opposition from public opinion in India where hundreds of thousands of demonstrators — from the Left parties and the Muslim community — have protested against President Bush’s visit. The nuclear deal itself has been concluded after a clever compromise was reached between the two sides. India has agreed to separate its military and civilian nuclear programme. Now 14 reactors have been declared to be commercial in nature for energy generation and will be opened for international inspection. That will leave eight fast breeder reactors — that is, 35 per cent of the programme — outside any safeguard arrangements. For its part, Washington has agreed to the deal without insisting on New Delhi signing the NPT.
Given the hype that has accompanied Washington’s recently devised strategic partnership with New Delhi, the signing of this deal as a follow-up to the July 2005 agreement had perhaps become inevitable. But there are many hurdles that have yet to be crossed. First of all, the US Congress has to ratify the deal and many of its members have expressed their scepticism on this score as it is said that enough lobbying has not been done. Moreover, others have raised a strong objection to the US agreeing to supply nuclear technology to India when the latter has still not signed the NPT. In fact, Australia has refused to lift its ban on the supply of nuclear fuel to India imposed in May 1998 when New Delhi tested its nuclear bomb. China has also demanded that India should sign the NPT and dismantle its nuclear weapons. Seen against this backdrop of international reservations, the IAEA director’s statement welcoming the deal as a “milestone in the ongoing efforts to consolidate the non-proliferation regime” is indeed strange.
Pakistan’s response is technically correct. It has pointed out that the deal represents a relaxation of the guidelines followed by the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group and therefore entitles Islamabad to similar rights. But the United States has categorically stated that it would not enter into a similar agreement with Pakistan. This is the de-hyphenation Mr Bush has been talking about — that relations with India and Pakistan will be independent of each other. It will, however, be rational for any outside power that is seeking to forge closer ties with the two largest states of the subcontinent to adopt a triangular perspective of South Asian politics. Whether it is the war against terror, the strategic balance in the region, the quest for markets and economic cooperation, the United States will have to ensure that its policy has a stabilizing impact on the region. This is possible only if Washington makes its approach to South Asia evenhanded. If it fails to analyze the impact of its strategy towards one state on its relations with the other and does not formulate its policies on a regional basis, the United States will be reverting to its old approach of playing off one power against the other and destabilizing the region in the process.
THURSDAY’S bomb blast in Karachi showed just how fragile the security situation in the country really is. This is the second bombing in the city’s high security zone in a period of three or so months, occurring at a stone’s throw from the residence of the Sindh chief minister and three of Karachi’s leading hotels. While suicide attacks are particularly difficult to counter and given that they have hit several other countries as well, there was still a failure of intelligence on Thursday. Those behind the attack — well-organized and well-prepared as they seem to have been — exploited a chink in security, choosing a route for their explosives-laden car that is not as well guarded and secured as the one in front of the consulate building. One understandable public response to the bombing is of surprise especially because stringent security measures were in place in the area and yet it was possible for the attack to be carried out. The US consulate was attacked in 2002 as well when a suicide bomber blew up his vehicle in front of it, killing 12 Pakistanis. Since then the security measures put in place have caused great inconvenience to commuters as well as hindering the operation of business establishments and hotels around the consulate building.
The attack calls for a thorough overhaul of the intelligence agencies deployed for preventing terrorism because it seems no lessons were learnt from the PIDC house bombing. The possibility of the intelligence network having been infiltrated by some sympathizers of the elements involved in terrorist activities must not be ruled out either — the attack on the president’s motorcade in December 2003 being a case in point. In some instances, such as the attack on the Karachi corps commander’s convoy or the murder of American journalist Daniel Pearl, the attackers were arrested and convicted but in a majority of cases the perpetrators (if they weren’t suicide bombers) have yet to be brought to justice. The same is the case for most sectarian murders, the most recent being the carnage in Hangu. The government has to do a serious re-think of the working of the intelligence agencies to improve their efficiency and their follow-up of such acts needs to be made more effective.
HEALTH authorities have noted that the use of recycled syringes is responsible for 90 per cent of hepatitis B and C cases in the country. This is hardly surprising considering the shortage of syringes and the large number of people who are regularly administered injections. Moreover, with the concept of proper disposal of hospital waste not yet in place, most healthcare institutions do not adhere to the guidelines relating to the disposal of used equipment, and syringes often end up in open dumps where they are picked up for recycling. At times, unscrupulous members of the hospital staff sell these syringes and other equipment directly to dealers from the recycling business, thus contributing to the spread of blood-borne diseases.
There have been sporadic attempts to address the problem but in the absence of a sustained campaign against the re-use of syringes and other medical equipment, these have produced poor results. Few hospitals in the country are equipped with incinerators to destroy waste. Even where these exist, the machines are often defective or in a state of disrepair. To minimize the incidence of blood-borne diseases, the government will have to install more incinerators at hospitals, besides developing alternative means of medical waste disposal. Public and private sector medical outlets would also do well to pool their resources in managing hospital waste. This is possible because many incinerators are working below their optimal level. It is equally important to make the people aware of dangers of used needles and the need to put pressure on medical outfits to provide unused syringes and refrain from prescribing unnecessary needling.
According to most observers, his forthcoming visit to Pakistan is also likely to result in bilateral agreements on the whole spectrum of the two countries’ relation ranging from education, to health and trade, including market access for Pakistani products, and investments. The two sides will also take up important energy and security-related issues, and of course, the fight against terrorism.
President Bush’s visit is not expected to be symbolic; it is to be full of substance on several fronts. President Bush will be coming to Pakistan after visiting India where Indian leaders would like to get for themselves as much out of the president’s visit as they can, not only in the international arena but also in their dream to become a regional power.
The leaders in Pakistan need to engage the president in an intense dialogue not only on Pakistan-US ties but also on creating an environment of regional peace and security in South Asia. Even though Pakistan needs F-16s and some essential military hardware for defence purposes, the authorities must make it clear that we are trying to avoid a reckless arms race with India as this would further impoverish the 400 million plus people in South Asia.
Since the Agra summit, President Musharraf has made several bold offers to India to resolve the festering Kashmir issue on the basis of the UN resolutions, the Simla agreement or any other framework within which India would like to seek a durable and fair solution acceptable to India, Pakistan and the Kashmiris. This is simply not possible if India continues to field 700, 000 soldiers. One appreciates the recent Indian move to reduce its forces in occupied Kashmir but it must be emphasized that the process is too slow to make the tangible difference that the situation demands.
President Bush may be eager to expand his country’s economic and commercial relations with India and Pakistan but he needs to be told that the absence of hostilities would allow India to divert, over the next 10 years, at least $ 65 billion and Pakistan around $ 25 billion to economic and social development needs. These peace dividends are about half of what they would otherwise spend on conventional and nuclear weapons.
According to some reliable estimates for every dollar the federal government spends on the social sector in the areas of education, health, nutrition, sanitation, etc, almost seven dollars are spent on defence and debt servicing in Pakistan and over three dollars in India. Consequently the peace dividends would be a multiple of the benefits Washington could hope to gain just from the opening up of the Indian and Pakistani markets for US products and services.
More importantly, we need to make it clear that the South Asia has the largest number of people living below the poverty line. According to the World Bank, out of the 1.3 billion poor people in the world, at least 350 million live in India and Pakistan alone. Even though poverty has declined in India the absolute number of poor estimated at 300 million is the largest figure of backlog of poor people in the world. In Pakistan almost 50 million persons are reported to be in the poverty trap.
The situation with respect to other social indicators in India and Pakistan is appalling. Adult literacy is 44 per cent in Pakistan and 65 per cent to 70 per cent in India. Life expectancy is around 64 years in both countries while even in Sri Lanka it is 74 years. The infant mortality rate per 1,000 was 76 in Pakistan and 65 in India compared with only eight in Malaysia. The under-five child mortality rate per 1,000 is 101 in Pakistan and 90 in India compared with 19 in Sri Lanka and eight in Malaysia.
I have quoted these statistics simply to reinforce what late Dr Mehbubul Haq once said, “South Asia is fast emerging as the poorest, the most illiterate, the most malnourished, the least gender sensitive — indeed, the most deprived region in the world. “Yet it continues to make investment in arms sale than in education and the health of its people.
He also estimated that the funds spend on procuring one battle tank could immunize four million children. If one Mirage were not purchased it would make it possible to extend primary school education to an additional three million children. One each submarine purchase means denying safe water to 60 million persons. The above simply indicates that scarce financial resources have huge opportunity costs that can be ignored only at the cost of foregoing improvements in the much needed social indicators in India and Pakistan.
The reason why the two countries to have among the largest armies in the world retales to the unending tensions generated by the 59-year old Kashmir dispute. This single dispute has deflected us from the crucial task of social and economic development for more than half a century while the rest of the world has tackled these problems in a much better manner than we have.
A paradigm shift in resources must take place with a lot more resources going to wards literacy, education, health care, nutrition, safe water supply, rural infrastructure, employment generation, enhancement in productivity through technical enrichment of people especially the poor, regional trade and investments. All this will be possible if we succeed in “banishing hostilities” as observed by the former prime minister of India Atal Behari Vajpayee.
President Musharraf has offered to withdraw troops from its side of the Line of Control India reciprocates. India is reported to be ready to cut the number of troops at the LoC there is scope to accelerate the process. It is also encouraging to note that the combined weight of the CBMs in the last couple of years is far more than it was in the previous half a century. The pace has now acquired momentum because pressure for rapprochement is coming from the top.
With a push from the international community, the current positive but fragmented moves can be galvanized to nudge the peace process forward. It is in this context that the forthcoming visit of President Bush is crucial and has been termed as an opportunity for straightening and strengthening the zigzagging process of peace in South Asia.
A similar opportunity had come up when President Bill Clinton visited the two countries in South Asia in 2000. However, President Clinton lost that great opportunity to initiate the process of resolving the Kashmir problem. He was unable to engage the key leaders of the two countries in a meaningful dialogue and convince them that prolonging confrontation was a disastrous path. President Clinton should have convinced the leaders in the subcontinent to fight only one war, the war against poverty and against ignorance and to fight it jointly. At the time of his visit, President Clinton had warm relations with India but gave a cold shoulder to Pakistan.
However, lot of things have happened since 2000. The world and South Asia have changed enormously. The visit of President George Bush is taking place at a time when the United States has very good relations with both India and Pakistan. This offers a great opportunity for promoting peace in South Asia. The US role could be that of a facilitator.
Since discussions of the issue in the United Nations over the last five decades and bilateral dialogue since 35 years have yielded no positive results, the US, the EU and other key players of the international community should urge the leaders of the two countries to seek new avenues of possible solutions to the tangled Kashmir problem. President Bush was instrumental in averting the war between India and Pakistan in the dark days of 2002. He has another historic opportunity to resolve the thorny issue of Kashmir and usher in peace and prosperity to the subcontinent. The president of the united States should grab it.
The writer is a former advisor to the World Bank.