|
| May 23, 2006 | Tuesday | Rabi-us-Sani 24, 1427 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
Looking beyond the K-III
Why another rise in gas tariff?
Not an American century
Soft on sleaze?
“MOVE out Joseph, seek your fortune elsewhere” said the emperor to his meddlesome brother, “Europe is too small for the two of us.” Destiny, evidently, had prepared a different script for Napoleon Bonaparte. In the end, a small island in the South Atlantic proved big enough for the great man.
MR KHALILUR RAHMAN may no more be the NWFP’s governor, but that does not necessarily mean Mr Akram Khan Durrani’s victory. It is known that the governor and the chief minister never got along very well, and this had undesirable consequences for the provincial administration, especially with regard to sensitive issues such as the situation in Waziristan. When retired Lt.-Gen. Iftikhar Hussain resigned as governor in March last year, it would have been in the fitness of things if Islamabad had chosen a politically neutral civilian for the governor’s post. Instead, the NWFP got a governor who was not only a politician and a retired military man but also a PML senator and deputy chairman of the upper house.
The MMA government had complaints against Mr Iftikhar Hussain, too, during his four-year tenure as governor, but it seems Mr Rahman did not take much of the consequences of the confrontation between Mr Durrani and his predecessor. The MMA leadership’s main complaint was that Mr Rahman completely ignored the provincial government’s home department in matters relating to Fata, and that all policy matters with regard to the Wana operations were taken by Islamabad and the governor without the provincial government being consulted. During the local body elections, too, the MMA felt that the governor worked against their interests. However, matters came to a head over the senate elections and the sale-of-votes scandal that rocked the MMA boat. While this is no place to go into the details of the episode, suffice it to say that the governor played a partisan role by delaying the holding of the provincial assembly session which, if held, would have ensured the victory of MMA candidates for the senate seats. The delay on the part of the governor was countered by the MMA in the form a request from the necessary number of MPAs asking the governor to call the assembly into session.
There is no doubt that it takes two to tango. The MMA government, too, does not hold a high moral ground when seen against the bribery scandal and its utter failure to improve the quality of life of the people of the NWFP. But any observer of the Wana scene could not but see that the federal government and the governor paid scant attention to what the provincial government had to say, and that it often appeared that the governor flew a solo flight when it came to the political and military strategy with regard to the Wana crisis. In this he enjoyed the federal government’s full support. This flawed approach deprived the federal government of the benefit of the MMA’s mediatory potential in the Wana conflict. Because they claim to be religious and had won the 2002 elections by capitalising on the anti-American wave, the MMA’s good offices could have been utilised in approaching tribal elders for calling a halt to the military operations and finding a negotiated solution to the presence of foreign militants in Wana. That this was not done has led to a prolongation of the Wana conflict, in which civilians are as much victims as the security forces. At a recent press conference, Mr Durrani said that the situation in Wana could have been stabilised if the provincial government’s advice were followed. While this is an over-simplification of a very complex problem, one hopes that the new governor will be more receptive to what the MMA leadership has to say and will take it along instead of bypassing it.
WITH the completion ahead of schedule and opening of the K-III water project near Karachi on Sunday, citizens of this water-starved metropolis can now have some sense of relief. Also, it is heartening to know that the city’s water board has been able to plug 33 per cent of the leakages plaguing its distribution system. That the inauguration of the project has come in the middle of summer when demand is at its peak is also a good thing to have happened. The project is meant to provide Karachi with a much-needed, additional 100 million gallons of water a day. This should ease the situation of chronic water shortages endured by residents in many parts of the city over the years.
That said, the commissioning of the K-III alone will not entirely resolve the problem of water shortage in the mega city. There are large inhabited areas, even in upscale neighbourhoods, where water pipelines were never laid even though the now defunct KDA had collected development charges from landowners a long time ago. In Clifton, for instance, many blocks on the sea front do not have water pipelines, even though residents are obliged to pay water and sewerage charges under a court order for years now. Until such gross anomalies are removed, the so-called tanker mafia operating in the city will continue to rule the roost, especially in areas where water pipelines do not exist and the average consumer remains at its mercy. Because the city has expanded over the past decades at a rapid speed — and the trend continues — as a result of immigration from rural areas, a comprehensive water strategy needs to be put in place. While the cantonment boards may be weighing the option of setting up expensive desalination plants of their own, for the rest of the city a master plan with an eye on the future must be formulated. The uncertainty faced by the country on account of erratic flow of rivers calls for this. A city the size of Karachi needs a comprehensive plan aimed at increasing its water supply to meet the growing demand in the years ahead.
THE sudden decision by the Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority to raise gas prices by an average of 7.2 per cent from July 1 will put a further squeeze on the pockets of the consumers. It will take away the sense of relief among the people on account of the stabilisation of petrol prices last month, when the government wisely decided not to pass on the additional burden of rising prices in the international market to the consumers. Now the same cannot be used as an excuse to extract more money out of the domestic and industrial users of the other key source of fuel. More so, because in recent years natural gas has been increasingly termed a cheaper and eco-friendly alternative to oil. Consumers in the industrial and domestic sectors, including motorists, have been relying more and more on gas as a preferred fuel option, widening the user base of the commodity. Already the two gas utilities — Sui Northern and Sui Southern — supplying gas across the country have registered a 28-plus per cent rise in their tariffs since January last. It is patently unfair to burden the people any further. There has got to be some explanation for such arbitrary tariff hikes other than linking fuel prices to those at the global level.
The proposed upward revision of the gas tariff is all the more untenable because nearly all the gas being supplied to consumers is home-sourced, and unlike petrol, not an imported commodity. The worst affected will be the domestic consumers, many of whom have limited incomes and no affordable alternatives to meet their daily fuel needs. Besides, any increase in the price of gas will also have a spiraling effect on the prices of other daily-use items, at a time when inflation is running in double digits. The ill-advised decision should be reviewed with these ground realities as a guiding factor.
Empires are underwritten by power but built and sustained by wisdom. Complacency sows the seeds of decline while folly hastens it. By all accounts and criteria this should have been the American century. The United States possesses all the assets of a lasting empire. Its awesome military muscle combined with massive economic might, managed by able and creative men should have guaranteed, at least for the currency of this century, a place of unsurpassed eminence in the comity of nations. The genesis of American ascendancy had a unique quality, unknown in history. It had emerged as the sole superpower, not as a result of military conflict but essentially due to the superiority of its ideals.
The communist ideology rooted in the denial of human liberty and economic enterprise collapsed under the weight of these distortions. Marxism’s vast territorial holdings encompassing most of Eastern Europe and Central Asia were swept aside by the power of freedom. The democratic/ freemarket system, with America as its foremost proponent, triumphed without a shot being fired. The event was hailed, prematurely as it turned out, as signalling the end of history.
The ingenuity of the American people was instrumental in accelerating the march to greatness. The diligence, creativity and dedication of its scientists, academics, entrepreneurs, captains of industry, military strategists and economic managers helped add a new dimension to the imperial concept. Following the Soviet collapse, American dominance was so real that it could, to a great extent, impose its will on the world without having to resort to physical intervention. It could influence national policies and the outcome of international decisions through the sheer weight of its diplomatic clout.
The Greeks, Romans and the Ottomans had to physically occupy foreign lands in order to establish their writ. The United States, so enormous was its power and so overwhelming its technological advantage, could do so without resorting to the standard colonial practice of occupation.
The US had improved upon the imperial model in another significant aspect. The erstwhile empires used their dominance largely to exploit the material resources of their possessions or to recruit the local populace to fight their wars. The comparison is not exact, since the United States never practised the classic norms of colonialism, but contrary to the previous imperial pattern, it used its economic strength to act as a magnet for the finest minds in the developing world to seek knowledge in its many seats of learning and secure gainful employment in its corporations and academia.
Outside talent mingled with local skills to produce the highest levels of efficiency and innovation. America is a society in constant grip of intellectual and technological ferment, allowing the creative impulse to continuously reinvigorate itself, which helps expand its already significant advantage in most spheres of human endeavour. These remarkable assets, and not just military ascendancy, provided the ingredients which appeared to herald the 21st century as the American century.
Those of us who have lived and worked in the United States and in Europe could easily discern the starkly different chemistry of the two continents. Europe is somnolent with contentment while America bursts with energy. The Europeans have had their empires, savoured long periods of glory, soaked their land with the blood of fellow Europeans before deciding to live at peace with themselves. America is still halfway through its quest for greatness, continually fuelled by the genius of innovation and technological advance.
The European state has espoused the welfare and happiness of its people as its central objective, which accounts for the enormous expenditures on social security and paltry allocations to defence. Mainland Europe is an aging and an increasingly closed society whereas the United States is continually rediscovering itself. Those who believe that Europe will one day act as a counterweight to the United States overlook the fundamental difference in the character of the two states.
For several years it seemed that the United States would deploy its unique position of authority to create a rule-based world order. Its strong advocacy for banning nuclear testing provided the momentum to successfully conclude the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. It ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention, albeit at the last moment, following strenuous efforts by the administration to neutralise the considerable resistance the treaty had encountered in Congress.
It signed the Kyoto Protocol, signalling its partnership approach to the resolution of global problems. It also put its signature to the Rome Statute establishing the International Criminal Court tasked to try perpetrators of crimes against humanity.
American diplomats participated actively in the elaboration of a protocol to the Biological Weapons Convention which was intended to develop a monitoring regime for implementing the treaty. Its vigorous diplomacy stopped the slaughter of Muslims in Bosnia. Even though it failed, the mission in Somalia was motivated by humanitarian considerations. Its initiative and sustained involvement almost succeeded in enabling the Palestinians and the Israelis to resolve their differences.
Above all the United States mobilised the entire international community to rollback the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Having accomplished this objective, the Americans did not move into Iraq to effect regime change or to dismantle the suspected nuclear and chemical weapons installations in that country. The latter task was appropriately left to the United Nations and the IAEA. A rational approach was adopted in America’s dealings with China, an emerging great power. A policy of strategic partnership was pursued as opposed to strategic containment. The right to self defence, as stipulated in the Charter of the United Nations, was not confused with pre-emption.
In short, the lone superpower, while conscious of its unmatched political, military and economic superiority and inclined to arrogance which so much power inevitably engenders, was willing to work with the international community to achieve its strategic goals and in the process ready to accept the constraints and limitations inherent in this process.
The United States had wisely decided to apply a novel and sophisticated version of ‘empire’ which enabled it to pursue its objectives at relatively little cost. Unlike the French emperor, it did not attempt to completely deny diplomatic and economic space to other nations, despite its paramountcy on the world stage.
The seminal events of September 11, are generally held responsible for the radical departure from the aforementioned approach. Unquestionably, that horrific September morning has left a seething scar on the American psyche. The most powerful state in the world was attacked in its heartland with such brutal precision which bordered on the surreal. Understandably, it created a surge of loathing and anger across the country and indeed around the world. The following day Le Monde, a prestigious French daily, not known for its strong pro-American inclinations expressed a universally shared sentiment when it proclaimed in its main headline ‘Today we are all Americans’.
Great men tend to blame the stars for their failures. One wonders whether it ever occurred to Napoleon, as he brooded over the past in the desolation of Longwood House, that grave errors of judgment and not the ordinance of fate had made a mockery of his belief, which once seemed so real, that the continent of Europe, the cradle of contemporary civilisation, was simply not big enough for him and his brother.
Within a short span of five years Le Monde’s proclamation is beginning to sound unreal. Far from becoming an American century this one is increasingly shaping to become the anti-American century. Partly by conviction and partly default the classic imperial impulse of physical control and absolute domination seems to have prevailed over its more subtle version which had characterised the early years of unipolarity. Why and how it happened as also how needless it is, would be examined in the sequel to this article.
The writer is a former ambassador.
THE belated release last week of secret service logs showing that disgraced former lobbyist Jack Abramoff indeed visited the White House ends an almost comical attempt by the Bush administration to dissociate itself from the admitted K Street felon. But the administration isn’t alone in its Abramoff denial. In passing separate “lobbying reform” bills, both houses of Congress have done too little to address the corrupting coziness between legislators and lobbyists that Abramoff came to symbolize.
Fortunately, a House-Senate conference committee charged with reconciling the two bills still could produce something that is more than the sum of its imperfect parts. If the committee doesn’t, challengers in this fall’s congressional elections will be able to argue, fairly, that incumbents are soft on sleaze.
—Los Angeles Times