|
| May 16, 2006 | Tuesday | Rabi-us-Sani 17, 1427 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
Oil pricing controversy
D-8’s message to Washington
Kashmir: defining the first step
Reviving the Cold War
IN the mid-1980s, when I was Pakistan’s ambassador to India, there could never be any question of my visiting Jammu and Kashmir. Neither Delhi nor Islamabad would allow it. Twenty odd years on, I was able to travel by road from Wagah to Jammu and then fly to Srinagar. Nobody raised any objections. This was welcome evidence that Indo-Pakistan relations may be moving in the right direction.
THE “Charter of Democracy” signed by Ms Benazir Bhutto and Mr Nawaz Sharif in London on Sunday arouses both hope and scepticism. Coming from two former prime ministers whose alternate periods of government were characterised by instability, political tussles and widespread corruption, the charter will be viewed by most people as a climactic point of the two parties’ anti-government, pro-democracy rhetoric of the last seven years. Full of pious intentions, the charter betrays traces of confession, for the principles to which it commits the two leaders were exactly the ones the two former prime ministers had violated in their times. For instance, they have now pledged not to seek the army’s support for coming to power, but during the post-Zia period (1988-99), this is precisely what each did to oust the other. The mutual antagonism was so deep that, as Punjab chief minister, Mr Sharif would make it a point not to stay in Lahore whenever Ms Bhutto as prime minister visited the city, to avoid receiving her formally. This simply did not help the political process. Instead, what the nation witnessed was a confrontation between Punjab and the federal government.
Ms Bhutto’s government fell within 20 months, thanks to the intrigues by the Sharif family and their allies in the opposition, the President House and the army. The ouster of her government was not followed by a free and fair election. The intrigues to which Mr Sharif was party included the formation of a new alliance crafted by the intelligence agencies and fully supported by Army Chief Gen Mirza Beg, who later went public with the admission that he had distributed Rs 140 million taken from the Mehran Bank to distribute to army loyalists. Once in the opposition, Ms Bhutto was equally determined to pay Mr Sharif back in the same coin. She organised “long marches” and later had the satisfaction of seeing Mr Sharif go — first dismissed by President Ghulam Ishaq Khan (and later reinstated by the judiciary) and later resign following a tiff with the president. Evidently, neither of the two leaders learned from their first experience as prime minister, for the same sordid game continued to be played, with Mr Sharif and others appealing to the president and the army “to do their duty”. Ms Bhutto was finally dismissed a second time — this time by a president who happened to belong to her own party. Mr Sharif’s second term was a disaster, even though he had “won” with “a heavy mandate”. Besides financial shenanigans, he showed contempt for the judiciary by organising an attack on the Supreme Court building and was seeking to do something unheard of in Pakistan — he was trying to manipulate the army, when ironically it struck to oust his government.
For the military rulers, the charter poses no new problems, for the country is already in a political mess created by them. By sidelining the two leaders whose parties have roots in Punjab and Sindh, the generals have given the religious parties a free run of the field, thus perpetuating the mullah-military alliance. The present quasi-civilian rule has full blessings of the religious parties, which voted for the 17th Amendment Bill to enable the incorporation of the Legal Framework Order into the Constitution. The MMA has a vested interest in the continuation of the present order, for they are rulers in two of the four provinces. The only way out of the mess is that the next election should be truly fair and free. Any manipulation of the electoral process will merely prolong the present agony, making democracy a forlorn prospect.
WHILE the government is making gigantic efforts to woo foreign investment to make the country a regional energy hub, the National Accountability Bureau (NAB), which lacks credibility because of its selective agenda, has been asked to probe the pricing by the Oil Companies Advisory Committee (OCAC). Earlier, the OCAC was mandated by the government to fix oil prices under a prescribed official formula and is now accused of falsifying accounts and pricing. NAB’s intervention indicated gross inconsistency in official policies and tends to vitiate the investment climate. In a report carried by this newspaper on Monday, the oil marketing companies have threatened to cease investing if NAB’s proposal to recover Rs 4.5 billion from them is pursued by the government. The underlying issue is the failure of the government to set up a strong regulatory body equipped with the right expertise to protect the legitimate interests of both the consumers and business in relation to sensitive items like petroleum products.
The government did not need to be reminded that independent regulators were a must to prevent market abuse. Instead, the government chose to leave oil pricing to the OCAC under an official formula which has given rise to the current problem. It was only in February this year that the Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority (OGRA) was made responsible for monitoring the oil pricing by the OCAC under the official formula but not to fix prices yet as the regulators are supposed to do. If the oil marketing companies have taken advantage of the situation as NAB alleges, the government is equally to blame for it. A one-sided accountability would not meet the end of justice. If both domestic and foreign investment is to be encouraged to sustain the current rate of economic growth, a far more sophisticated approach is required to set things right. Perhaps, armed with correct facts and figures, the government could authorise OGRA to settle matters amicably through negotiations. NAB’s findings could serve as a pressure point in negotiations. But it is imperative that NAB should be totally out of the picture.
THE D-8 summit at Bali deemed it wiser to skirt the crisis brewing over the Iranian nuclear programme. The participants, however, discreetly advised Iran, a fellow member, to continue cooperating with the IAEA to find a peaceful solution to the dispute. But their tacit support for Iran was evident from their statement in the declaration affirming their commitment to developing alternative and renewable energy sources, including nuclear energy for peaceful use. It is plain that the Third World, especially the Muslim countries, are not inclined to question Iran’s right to develop nuclear power as a source of energy which most of them badly need. With Iran adhering to its obligations under the NPT, many countries feel that a move to obstruct Tehran’s uranium enrichment programme is not at all warranted. They do not equate uranium enrichment with bomb making especially when President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has categorically declared that he has no bomb-making plans.
One hopes that the message from Bali will reach Washington and President George Bush will be persuaded to soften his stance on the nuclear issue. As confirmed by the IAEA’s monitors, Iran has so far not committed any breach of its NPT commitments. However, some doubts have been expressed by the inspectors on some matters which call for a clarification. But these can be sorted out without resorting to force as the US is threatening to do. This is not a time for polarisation between the two sides. The D-8 comprises eight of the most populous Muslim countries that have considerable clout in world affairs. The grouping has the capacity to mobilise a number of developing countries behind Iran. But this is not a time for a confrontation at the global level. The Bali summit should be taken as reflecting the mood of the Third World which calls for restraint at all levels.
The occasion was a seminar, organized by the Delhi-based Centre for Dialogue and Reconciliation, which brought together groups of Kashmiris from both sides of the LoC to discuss their future. It was part of a continuing effort to encourage an intra-Kashmiri dialogue in the hope that an identifiable consensus among them may emerge, so that pious assertions about respecting the wishes of the Kashmiri people, made by India and Pakistan, can be put to the test.
Given that the idea of a plebiscite has been ruled out, the question arises, how do we find out what the Kashmiris, as a whole, want. So far the focus has been on the Valley, which is the most heavily populated part of the former state, but comprises only one-fifth of its total area. What about Jammu and Ladakh, Azad Kashmir and the Northern areas? Surely it would be invidious to focus only on a small portion and give it special treatment. There was a consensus in the group that meeting the wishes of the Kashmiri people was an essential element of a final solution and that this meant all the people of the former state.
The next question was: who speaks for the people of Kashmir as a whole? Up to now, the dissident leadership has represented only the valley. It was recognized that bodies like the All Parties Hurryiat Conference were not, in this sense, fully representative. Various ideas were floated but no agreement could be reached as to how such a leadership might be identified.
Meanwhile, it was felt that it was desirable to feed various Kashmiri viewpoints into the bilateral dialogue on a continuing basis. In this regard, the growing contacts between the present Kashmiri leadership and the governments of India and Pakistan were welcome. There was also general support among the participants for the composite dialogue underway between the two countries.
Those attending the seminar represented a wide range of Kashmiri opinion and it was heartening to find complete agreement on a variety of issues. Most important was the stress laid on the cessation of violence, committed by the militants and by Indian security forces. It was felt that Pakistan still needed to convincingly prove that it was actively stopping cross-border activity. India still had to control the excesses of the security forces and also to compensate those innocent people who had suffered at their hands. The general demand was that India should withdraw, from civilian areas, all armed forces except the police.
The second important point of consensus was ‘the re-unification of the state as it existed on August 14, 1947’. To some, this meant an independent Kashmir with guarantees from India and Pakistan. But the pragmatic view was that this was unlikely to be acceptable to either country. The next best alternative was ‘unification in terms of ground conditions affecting the way of life of the Kashmiris’.
To achieve this, all restrictions on travel by residents to any part of the old Kashmir should be removed. Similarly, there should be free trade and movement of goods. Procedural formalities should be simplified so that mere possession of an identity card denoting a state citizen should entitle the holder to travel and trade on both sides of the LoC. All traditional road links between the two parts should be restored
Citizens on both sides of the LoC should be encouraged and facilitated in setting up joint ventures in tourism and there should be consultative mechanisms established at state level in common fields like forestry, water utilisation, power generation, environmental issues and so on.
All this would be entirely feasible if the composite dialogue between India and Pakistan was vigorously pursued and there was a spirit of cooperation between the two aides.
Looked at objectively, none of the suggestions made at the seminar are impossible to implement. Both India and Pakistan are publicly committed to making the LoC irrelevant. If this becomes a reality, militancy will lose its rationale. The mood in Kashmir now borders on anger because there has been so much suffering. There is hardly a family in the affected areas which has not lost a loved one or a home at the hands of the militants or the security forces. There is no eager expression of a wish to join Pakistan. At the same time, there is a deep alienation from India.
What the Kashmiris would appear to need most is a prolonged period of peace and normalty, free from outside interference. Given this, together with meaningful economic development, perhaps a healing process can be set in train. They will get an opportunity to talk coolly and calmly among themselves and perhaps reach a visible consensus on what they finally want. They will also realize that they have to keep certain realities in mind and if those realities are not oppressive, perhaps they will come to terms with them.
All this means that we have to visualize the solution of the Kashmir problem as a process rather than an event. So long as it is seen as a bargaining issue between India and Pakistan in which each tries to come out on top, there can never be a solution. It is only when it is seen as a common problem, the solution of which is desirable for both will progress be possible. What better first step than to honour those wishes of the Kashmiri people that they are immediately expressing. The expected visit to Pakistan by Dr. Manmohan Singh would be a good opportunity for a fresh initiative.
The writer is a former ambassador.
MORE than a decade after the disintegration of the Soviet Union, the shadow of the Cold War still lingers on. One could feel it when the United States and Russia traded harsh criticism recently.
Addressing leaders of some former members of the Soviet Union at the Vilnius Conference 2006 in Lithuania, a gathering of leaders of the Baltic and Black Sea regions, US Vice President Dick Cheney accused Russia of running against democracy, limiting human rights and using its energy riches to “blackmail” the world. His remark was regarded by some western diplomats the strongest criticism against Russia from a senior US official ever since the end of the Cold War.
Moscow responded sharply when Gleb Pavlovsky, a senior advisor to the Kremlin, declared: Russia has always believed that the US is seeking for an enemy to maintain its status (as world policeman), now we can prove it.
The US has been using various means to expand its sphere of influence since the Soviet Union dismembered. While pressing Russia to change towards the direction it desires, the country has also intensified the casting of influence on former Soviet members surrounding Russia.
By supporting pro-West opposition factions in CIS countries, Washington also tried to exert political pressure on Russia through “colour revolution”. Besides, the US-led Nato also took the chance to push its regime closer to Russia by eastern enlargement.
All these moves have kept on intensifying Russia’s worry about geo-political changes. As domestic economy got better Russia has shifted from defence to “attack” by making use of its advantages in energy and military fields. The shadow of the Cold War, it seemed, began to gather secretly. US media labelled the Russian policy in gas fight with Ukraine as an “Empire’s counterblow”, while business daily Kommersant’s front page headline said Cheney’s speech “practically established the start of the second Cold War”. Obviously, the US and the West are feeling increasingly uncertain and uneasy in the face of the Russian re-rise and Putin’s iron politics.
Has a new Cold War really begun? Perhaps it’s too early for a conclusion. However, there is no denying that Cold War mindset runs through the US-Russia “squabble”. In fact, some westerners have never shaken off their “Cold War outlook”. In their eyes, the end of the Cold War just means a success of the West, a success of western ideology and political system, and post-Cold War era means continuously increased western influence.
After the “September 11”, the US policy adjustment on national security also followed such concept, as anti-terrorism is closely linked with the pushing of American-style democracy worldwide. Some Americans entered the 21st century with such mentality, and are greatly alarmed by the re-rise of Russia, especially by its stance of not resigning itself to being weakened and its playing of cards regardless of western “game rules”.
However, even if the Cold War returns, it will be unlike the past one. A fundamental change has taken place in the form of confrontation between the two powers. In the past it assumed the form of confrontation between two military groups, and a balance of nuclear deterrence; but now it chiefly shows in infiltration and anti-infiltration of values, frictions in national interests and fight for positions in the world’s future political map.
Under the backdrop of economic globalisation, interests of the two sides are deeply intermingled, and they need cooperation in many fields such as trade and economy, finance, energy and anti-terrorism. It’s impossible for the US to organize again an alliance against Russia while Russia is incapable of overall confrontation with the West and the US.
— People’s Daily Online