The government has drawn up a 25-year plan (2005-2030) for increasing energy production in the country. That is needed to meet the demand for energy which is increasing by ten to twelve per cent annually, says Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz. That is one of the major development plans.

The energy development plan is accompanied by initial cost estimates which will be $37 billion to $40 billion that has to come in the form of foreign aid or foreign investment. And that is a very large sum. But the annual average expenditure works out to $1.5 billion. If Pakistan itself was to make the investment, the total cost might be less.

Initially the government is seeking foreign direct investment for seven energy projects which are to be completed in five to seven years and that has to be apart from the current efforts to interest foreign investors in oil and gas exploration and development, and the privatization outlay in the oil and gas sector and other energy enterprises.

Immediately, the government is inviting foreign investors to finance its $3 billion plan for import and build a supply chain of liquefied natural gas (LNG) enabling the country to meet the fast approaching shortfall. This will be needed to fill the gap in energy supply between 2007 and 2011 when the pipeline for gas from outside the country could start functioning. At that stage the total energy consumption could increase from the current 55 million tones of oil equivalent to over 80 million tones by 2021-22.

The government is also mobilizing international investors to invest in the $7 billion Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline, $5 billion on the Turkmenistan-Pakistan-India gas pipeline and $8 billion on the Qatar-Pakistan-India gas pipelines. The three pipelines together will cost $20 billion, along with that $8 billion is being sought for generating 32,000 MW of hydro electric power.

In addition, one to two billion dollars investment is being mobilized for development of energy from coal and $5 billion more for the thermal plants to meet immediate power shortage.

Along with that increasing gas production at home will enjoy top priority as that is the cheapest source of power after hydel power. The OGDC has been directed to drill 100 wells this year but with the financial year being 3/4th over how many wells have been drilled is not obvious.

On the basis of comparative prices local cost of gas comes to 3.4 dollars per million British thermal unit against five dollars for imported gas. Gasification of coal will make it cost 5.5 dollars per unit, while the cost of the high sulphur fuel oil comes to about 7.5 dollars per unit.

Such vast outlays on the energy sector, including in some currently disturbed and violence prone areas needs political stability in the country. That is all the more so when major foreign investors and foreign countries like Iran, Turkmenistan and Qatar are involved.

The number of foreign countries interested in the $7 billion Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline may dwindle sharply if the current conflict between Iran and the US takes a worse turn. The US wants to penalize companies which help Iran develop its oil and gas industry which is currently handicapped by its low technology.

For attracting such large investments, the country needs not only political stability at the centre and in the provinces like Balochistan, but also a national consensus on the plan. Hence, before adopting the 25-year energy plan, it is advisable to seek the support of major political parties. In fact, the country has no alternative but to actively pursue such a long-term energy augmentation plan.

Admittedly we cannot attract enough number of foreign investors and make them invest on such a large scale unless we ensure adequate power supply. Even the domestic investors may not be excited about making large investments unless they are certain they can get enough power supply regularly.

Even otherwise along with the constant fluctuation in oil price, though the Opec has not cut its production quota as feared earlier, there is now the fear of the oil price hitting 100 dollars a barrel some time soon. In such uncertain conditions in the oil world, Pakistan has to secure its sources of oil and if most of the power is to come from within the country, that is indeed very welcome.

Russia, the second largest producer of oil in the world, has become an uncertain supplier, particularly after its foreign investors had filed a suit against Yukos, its one-time giant oil producer. Russia has also imposed higher tax on its gas export, which is upsetting the Europeans.

Iran which produces four million barrels of oil and exports 2.5 million barrels or five per cent of the world’s supply has also become an uncertain supplier following its dispute with the US. It has the second largest reserve of oil and wants to develop four of its energy fields but lacks adequate advanced technology.

The turmoil in oil-rich Iraq continues and threatens to break out into a civil war. The civil strife in Nigeria continues with frequent strikes and other disruptions. All that has enhanced the importance of nuclear power which has become an economic commodity because of the high price of oil and fear of further rise. In such a context the US has offered its cooperation to India in the civilian nuclear field after eight nuclear reactors have been excluded from the civilian sphere. The US has also agreed to offer nuclear fuel for power production to India, which is a radical step.

The Soviet Union too has made similar commitments to India making it easy and more economic for India to increase its nuclear output.

But Pakistan will not be offered such a facility by the US in view of its proliferation record, said the US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice while in Pakistan. The US secretary for energy Samuel Boodman who led the delegation to Pakistan immediately after President Bush’s visit, said: “India’s needs are different, its problems are different and its programmes are different.” And he advised Pakistan to get gas not from Iran, but from Qatar at a cost of $8 billion for the pipeline.

Pakistan wants the US to forget the past, as it has done in the case of India and have a uniform policy for both India and Pakistan or a single package and not separate packages. The US has not so far agreed to change its discriminatory policy, while the deal with India is facing strong opposition in US Congress from members opposed to proliferation.

Meanwhile, the G-8 energy ministers who met in Moscow last week wanted a uniform policy with regard to supply of nuclear fuel to those who had signed the NPT and denounced the resort to making nuclear weapons.

The US is ready to offer assistance in the energy development sector to Pakistan. Following the visit of the US energy secretary to Pakistan, the two sides agreed on setting up a working group, which is to meet next month in Washington for early initiatives. The group will explore the possibilities of cooperation in all sectors except nuclear energy.

The prime minister says Pakistan is ready to serve as an energy corridor for Central Asia, China and other countries. As far as nuclear energy is concerned, Pakistan has offered to many countries to buy all the power produced by nuclear reactors that they set up. Pakistan is ready to cooperate with other countries in the area of hydel and thermal power production, power from coal, nuclear energy, LNG and renewable energy besides importing gas from Iran, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. The sources for gas are in plenty, but building the gas line to bring it here is costly .

Pakistan is to cooperate with China in developing energy from various sources including nuclear reactors and particularly gasification of the tar coal, an area in which Chinese experience is outstanding. The 300 MW nuclear power plant set up with Chinese assistance has been operating for long and the construction of a second reactor at Chashma has begun. And China has been requested to set up two more nuclear reactors with a capacity of 900 MW or more in Pakistan.

A senior Chinese energy official is to visit Pakistan soon leading a delegation of experts for a full fledged conference on the energy options available to Pakistan and all the possibilities will be explored. And if the US and Russia can supply nuclear fuel to India, China can help Pakistan in that regard at a time of the weakening of the NPT, which Pakistan has not signed. Along with that all, Pakistan is hoping to discover oil from its offshore drilling operations. If Bombay High can find oil in plenty Pakistan may too succeed.

In spite of the generous exceptions made by the US in the case of India, the US will not recognize India as a nuclear power says the White House. India does not meet the definition set out in the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and we will not seek to amend the treaty says the White House

Meanwhile, the country is forging ahead in the area of alternative energy. The government has issued 32 letters of intent to future investors for producing solar energy, wind power and other non-traditional energy. The Sindh government has promised 1,000 acres of land for each project. The government has already allotted 10,000 acres and an arrangement for delivering 20,000 acres more is in process.

The government wants to produce 9,000 MW of power through other than conventional means. Meanwhile, India has been formally invited by Pakistan, Turkmenistan and the Asian Development Bank to join the project or give a definite reply within three months to build the pipeline. Meanwhile, reports say that while India has not itself taken to sharing its nuclear secrets with others, it has benefited from the proliferation indulged in by others including the suppliers. Among the suppliers was the Khan network. But India is not going to be punished for that because of its newfound status as “a major global power” according to the US.

Disclosing the details of the 25-year energy augmentation plan Shaukat Aziz says consumption of power in Pakistan will increase seven fold by 2030 and the energy needs will increase by eight fold.

THE press conference at the Aiwan-i-Sadr in Islamabad on March 4 furnished an unusual spectacle: US ambassador Ryan C. Crocker seated close to the US First Lady, Laura Bush, with eyes closed and presenting a picture of nonchalance, a diffident President Musharraf fidgeting nervously at the rostrum, and President Bush visibly lacking warmth and going through the formality of defining US-Pakistan ties.

The visit had earlier buoyed expectations. Only a few days ago, President Bush had told PTV that the “first thing that’s really important for people to understand is that relations between our countries often times depend on the relations between the leaders...” His visit would give a chance to speak to the people of Pakistan, and say, look we care for you, and remind people that in our country there’s a great (community of) Pakistani Americans.”

Yet, on March 4 such noble protestations hardly found a vocal expression. Instead, the US president made a jarring remark that rattled Pakistanis. “We discussed a civilian nuclear programme, and I explained that Pakistan and India are different countries with different needs and different histories. So, as we proceed forward, our strategy will take in effect those well-known differences.”

Given the fact that both Pakistan and India enjoy equal nuclear power status, and both acted clandestinely and zestfully to reach the epic goal, the preferential reference to the latter was particularly stinging.

But the remark did not come as a complete surprise to knowledgeable viewers who know that US patronage of India’s nuclear strivings has had a precedent. India successfully graduated into the nuclear weapon club, thanks to the support that it unwittingly received from the US. congressional committee hearings on the first Indian nuclear explosion in the 1970s. It was a startling disclosure that over 1,100 Indian scientists and engineers had received training at various atomic energy facilities in the United States. What is more, a 72-million dollar US AID loan facilitated the installation of India’s first major reactor at Tarapur. As early as 1956, India imported 21 tons of heavy water for its CIRRUS reactor. It was plutonium from CIRRUS that was used for the 1974 Pokhran explosion.

Another Washington report identifies India as one of the nine sensitive countries “which obtained US government technology and computer codes useful for developing atomic weapons despite laws limiting the release of such data.” The US indirectly assisted India to stage its 1974 nuclear explosion through the liberal publication of unclassified (fuel) reprocessing information. The latest nuclear deal between the US and India therefore should not come as a complete surprise.

A reason advanced for signing the March 2 agreement in Delhi was that India, unlike Pakistan, has not been a nuclear proliferator. The facts are to the contrary. India’s role in aiding and abetting Iran’s nuclear programme is well known. So also is its shady dealings with Iraq. To cite just one example: On January 19, 2002, the Los Angeles Times headline on the front page said “Indian firm aided Iraq”. The disclosure came at a time when the US was abuzz with war preparations against Baghdad.

The Times charge was well substantiated. According to a paragraph preceding the explosive text: “In defiance of UN resolutions, a company used deceit to export material that could be used in weapons, Indian court records show.” Replete with evidence, the exhaustive story by Times staff writer Bob Drogin in New Delhi, was revealing: “An obscure Indian trading company has provided the first clear evidence that Iraq obtained materials over the last four years to produce or deliver weapons of mass destruction. The company, NEC Engineering Private Ltd., used phony customs declarations and other false documents, as well as front companies in three countries, to export 10 consignments of raw materials and equipment that Saddam Hussein’s regime could use to produce chemical weapons and propellants for long-range missiles, according to Indian court sources...”

Regretfully, while efforts to smear Pakistan have followed an unrelentingly uniform pattern, such disclosures hardly recur in the western media and are conveniently forgotten by journalists, diplomats, politicians, and administration.

What is the immediate outcome of the March 2 Indo-US nuclear agreement? Pakistan is being advised to harness alternative sources of energy. A country outclassed in conventional resources and in pressing need of nuclear power is being asked to spurn the nuclear energy option. Is history in the process of repeating itself?

There is the singularly inexplicable precedent of India playing foul in the 1970s by conducting a nuclear test and restrictions being imposed on Pakistan to penalize Islamabad so as to curtail its nuclear strivings! Soon after the Indian explosion, Canada backed out from its agreement to extend technical support and fuel to the Karachi Nuclear Power Plant (Kanupp). Blackouts were predicted in Pakistan’s ‘city of lights’ — Karachi — as the nuclear plant meeting one-third of the city’s needs at that time found itself precariously perched.

Numerous measures were taken to scuttle Pakistan’s peaceful programme even young scientists aspiring to pursue nuclear science studies at foreign universities were barred from doing so. Inertia crept into the vibrant research centres and gleaming research reactors established by the visionary Dr I. H. Usmani.

The restrictions took their toll. During an exasperating period of several years not a single megawatt nuclear capacity was added to the grid. Karachiites gained familiarity with Kanupp’s “teething problems,” “load shedding” operations and “reactor tripping” outages. But the blackouts proved a passing phenomenon. Thanks to painstaking strivings and subsequent successes on several fronts — uranium exploration, prospecting and mining in D. G. Khan; laboratory undertakings at Pinstech training at the Centre for Nuclear Studies and the Karachi Nuclear Power Training Centre; development of indigenous nuclear expertise — Kanupp began to gradually gather steam on locally manufactured nuclear fuel. The restrictions imposed by Canada and other western countries came to be regarded as a blessing in disguise as Pakistan was launched on a self-reliant course. Pakistani scientists bravely demonstrated that where there’s a will, there’s a way.

The March 4 memories hurt but as a nation we have to learn from past experiences and move on. Blissfully, there is infinite hope in the words of the late Professor Abdus Salam: “Ours is a numerous — potentially a great — nation. Our tragedy is that we do not seem to realize this; we act in a narrow manner only befitting a small nation. Our people have a natural endowment of first-class talent in science — once it is developed.

I am not saying this as a starry-eyed patriot. I know this from experience after a lifetime of supervising researchers of many nationalities. Likewise, there is no question that we have a great talent in technology. Could a people who can write a whole surah of the Holy Book on a grain of rice not succeed equally when it comes to microelectronics?”

After a winter of despair there is always a spring of hope.

LAST Saturday, an estimated 1.5 million people surged on to the streets of France in protest against Dominique de Villepin’s faltering government. Sparked by weeks of student opposition, and of teargassed occupations and demonstrations, the scenes have revived memories of May 1968.

France’s universities are again centre-stage, with 64 out of 84 institutions blockaded and increasing numbers of secondary schools following suit. Just as before, the main players are an angry student population, a battle-hungry police force and an unpopular government. And now, like then, comes the threat of a crippling general strike called by the trade union movement as workers join the anti-government protests.

But this is where the comparisons should end. Today’s eruption is more complex, its denouement more uncertain. Hot on the heels of the “non” to the European constitution last spring and last November’s riots, it is clear that the current situation is the latest expression of the growing revolt against the authoritarian market society France has become and the elite that wishes to take the Thatcherite project further.

The match that lit this latest fuse is the contrat de premihre embauche (first employment contract), a law that allows employers to fire under-26s immediately and without reason during the first two years of their employment. For the government, the CPE is deemed necessary to tackle chronic unemployment, which stands at 10 per cent — and more than double that for under-25s.

Plenty of economists refute the government’s claims. Michel Husson of Paris’s respected Institute of Economic and Social Research says: “There is simply no available evidence to suggest that higher flexibility translates itself into the net creation of long-term employment.”

Armed with such ammunition, the protesters believe the CPE is instead about further embedding the “flexploitation” model among a section of society increasingly blamed for the ills of France’s economy and society.

As the sociologist Frangois Dubet explains, the uneasiness is more deep-seated that just job insecurity. “The widespread perception in French society is that the gulf separating those ‘inside’ society, even if they are badly paid, from those ‘outside’, in particular living in the suburbs, has become more accentuated” over the past 20 years. Middle-class students live in increasing fear that they may end up on the wrong side of the line at any moment.

In this sense, “the anti-CPE movement is for the middle classes what last November’s riots were to the suburban poor”, who were already on the other side of this boundary and could no longer tolerate it.

The protests are also fuelled by a sophisticated understanding of the underlying political agenda, namely De Villepin’s race with the interior minister, Nicolas Sarkozy, for the presidency. Through his determination to show firmness in the face of the student protests, mirroring Sarkozy’s handling of the November riots, De Villepin has backed himself into a corner. A recent poll revealed that 68 per cent of French people want the repeal of the CPE.

The government has two options: either renounce the law outright or, to save face, use the constitutional council to declare the law unconstitutional and revoke it. But, as one government minister has warned: “If De Villepin steps back, he is dead.”

Whatever the administration chooses to do, the mood of people across French society points to further confrontations ahead - with a dramatic political change of direction a distinct possibility. —Dawn/Guardian Service

The writer is a French journalist and researcher for the Transnational Institute.