One more ‘dazzler’

ALL the three main foreign trade targets — export, import and trade deficit — announced for the current year on Monday appear to be largely unrealistic. To increase exports, Pakistan needs increased market access in rich countries, additional markets around the world and adequate exportable surpluses in traditional and non-traditional items. All these three conditions are non-existent as of today. We are still far from fulfilling the preconditions for reaching a free-trade agreement with the US. And all those FTAs, PTAs and early harvest arrangements entered into with half a dozen or so countries over the last three years are still only paper agreements. The current fiscal and monetary policies seem to contain a strong bias against the real economy. These have promoted a crass casino culture with the stock exchanges and the real estate market functioning as gambling dens.

Next, they have encouraged a free-for-all consumerism as a result of which much of the investable resources have gone into sectors without any export bias like the automobile and luxury consumer goods. So, there was not much left for encouraging the real economy or promoting the fabrication of non-traditional export items. Of course, every year, along with the trade policy, the government has been announcing a number of measures for encouraging the production of exportable surpluses in traditional and non-traditional items. But most of these have yet to produce results. Like the carpet cities and expo centres announced this year, there was this promise some time back of setting up textile cities and one village-one product schemes. Nothing has come out of these either. Most of such announcements like the one for setting up a Dazzle centre near the Karachi airport made this year seemingly are included in the policy for the dazzle effect only and nothing else. Given the bureaucratic sloth and ineptitude most of the grandiose measures announced this year, including the setting up of a Trade Development Authority will take at least three years to materalise and by that time new realities would have overtaken them requiring new dazzlers.

The backbone of Pakistan’s export is textiles. Export of this sector increased by over 18 per cent last year. But the way it has been pampered with incentives and concessions once again this year would make it seem as if textile exports are facing tough competition in the world market. The world textile market, no doubt, is very tough. But it is tough for high quality value added products but not for the low-grade products that we traditionally sell. In fact, compared to Indian and Chinese currencies, and to some regional currencies, the Pakistani rupee is still highly competitive. We also know how much taxes this sector pays. That this sector pilfers utilities like power, gas and water to raise their margins of profit is no secret at all. So much for the export target of $18.6 billion. The import target too is highly unrealistic because, in the face of escalating world oil prices, the anticipated supply shortages of food and other essentials during the current year and the increasing appetite for semi-luxury imported goods for domestic market, it would be nearly impossible to keep the import bill at $28 billion level. This would surely widen the trade gap much beyond the target of $ 9.4 billion.

Lebanon: a killing field

ALL sane minds the world over must be appalled by the call by Rabbis’ Council in the West Bank for killing all civilians in Gaza and Lebanon. Rightly termed inhuman by the Makkah-based World Muslim League, the rabbis’ plea must evoke revulsion all around at a time when the world is fighting terrorism most of whose victims are civilians. All one can say is that the call by these fanatics does not represent the Abrahamic faith that Judaism is, and that all right-minded Jews throughout the world, including the peace activists in Israel, will condemn the rabbis’ abhorrent demand with all the force that it calls for. However, the rabbis can draw satisfaction from the fact that their government is doing exactly what they have called for. The number of civilian dead in Lebanon so far is 271, and there is no sign yet that Israel is going to call off its campaign, which has killed more civilians than Hezbollah fighters. Most observers of the war scene agree that Hezbollah’s strength remains unimpaired, for Israel has yet to give a specific figure for the Hezbollah fighters killed, wounded or taken prisoner.

In the meantime, Israel seems determined to turn Lebanon into a killing field. What began as an attack on southern Lebanon has spread to the entire country, with Israeli air strikes hitting residential blocks, ports, airports, bridges, highways, power stations, grain silos and factories, making at least half a million people internal refugees. The southern part of the country especially has been destroyed, and even with foreign aid Lebanon will take at least a decade to recover. Regrettably, America has given a free hand to Tel Aviv to keep pounding Lebanon, for the Bush administration has made it clear several times that it does not want a ceasefire. On Monday, President George Bush seemed to slight UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan when he said in St. Petersburg that he did not like the sequence of Mr Anna’s suggestion, adding, “His attitude is basically ceasefire and everything else happens”. Translated into plain English, it means: let there be no ceasefire so that Israel can devastate Lebanon and kill as many civilians as it can — as the rabbis in the West Bank would wish.

Nurses’ grievances

THAT there is one nurse for every 35 patients in the country highlights just how pitiful the public healthcare facilities are. Nowhere does this seem more pronounced than in the NWFP where, according to a recent report, the doctor-nurse ratio is five to one whereas the World Health Organisation rules require it to be one to four. This discrepancy must be removed — and soon as the nurses in the Frontier have threatened to go on strike. If that happens, as it did once before earlier this year, it will have serious consequences for the already beleaguered patients who have no choice but to go to public hospitals. It is a testament to their profession that these nurses called off their strike in March because they were assured by the government that their grievances would be addressed but it is disturbing that it has not done so. This apathetic attitude points to the low priority given to healthcare. Nurses are the backbone of any healthcare system and their problems should be promptly tackled as there is a dire shortage of them — there are reportedly only 2,000 nurses in the NWFP. Instead of focusing on strategies on how to induct new nurses or building more nursing colleges to fill the vacuum, the government must attend to the problem at hand.

It is disturbing that unlike their counterparts in other provinces who receive a stipend of Rs 4,100, student nurses in the NWFP get only Rs 1,275. This anomaly must be removed immediately. It is no wonder that no one is willing to consider nursing as a good career option. Not only are their working conditions abysmal, nurses are routinely harassed. Much more emphasis needs to be placed on improving their working conditions as well as training more nurses to fill the gaps in this sector.

Pretexts, provocations and consequences

WHEN a series of bomb blasts ripped through seven commuter trains, causing mayhem in Mumbai nine days ago, it was hardly surprising that suspicion immediately fell on Islamist militants, with Lashkar-i-Taiba becoming the main focus of attention on account of its sordid track record. It denied responsibility, which has more recently been claimed by an outfit calling itself Lashkar-i-Qahhar. The latter has sought to justify the indiscriminate murder of nearly 200 innocents on the basis of events in Kashmir and Gujarat.

It is more likely, though, that the logic behind the despicable acts of terror was simpler: that the bombs were calculated to provoke communal disharmony and violence on the one hand, and to disrupt the process whereby India and Pakistan have gradually been drifting towards fulfilling the minimum conditions for amicable coexistence.

If that was indeed the case, the terrorists appear, fortunately, to have failed on the first count. It must be hoped that efforts to sour relations between New Delhi and Islamabad will also ultimately founder, but the initial indications are far from reassuring: the postponement of the routine talks scheduled for this week comes at a time when it is particularly important for the neighbours to clear the air between them.

Pakistan’s foreign minister Khurshid Kasuri copped a great deal of flak for mentioning Kashmir in the context of the Mumbai bombings. However, it is hard to see how those who are pointing accusatory fingers towards the infrastructure of terrorism in Pakistan can fail to acknowledge that the unresolved dispute over Kashmir is not only central to nearly six decades of tensions between the two countries but also provides extremists with a pretext for their wanton acts of violence.

Much of the rhetoric from New Delhi in recent days has been couched in “war on terror” cliches. Islamabad’s ripostes have been almost equally unimaginative, although it is well within its rights to demand evidence of Pakistani complicity in the Mumbai attacks. Of course, Pakistan, too, seldom hesitates to insinuate an Indian link in the event of violent occurrences. There are plenty of knees on both sides of the border that are ever ready to jerk. In the latest instance, however, there is little point in denying the plausibility of a Pakistani connection, even though it ought not to be taken for granted. Charges that Pakistan is insufficiently tough on terrorism have, of course, been flowing for some years, usually from the northwest, with western military officials occasionally echoing Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s regular complaints. The apparent resurgence of the Taliban has inevitably been accompanied by the now familiar accusations, and from a distance it is all but impossible to ascertain the extent to which the Kabul authorities and foreign forces may be trying to excuse their own inadequacies.

The most damaging allegations are those that implicate elements within the ruling structure, notably the ISI. It is widely known (although not officially acknowledged) that in years gone by the military intelligence agency played a profoundly unhelpful role in both the Afghan and the Kashmiri contexts. General Pervez Musharraf apparently purged the most obvious Islamist sympathisers from the ISI hierarchy in the aftermath of 9/11. A relapse would be ominous, regardless of the extent of Musharraf’s involvement. On the other hand, had there been any proof of ISI malfeasance in the Islamist and/or terrorist sphere, wouldn’t the United States have confronted Musharraf with it?

In other respects, the “soft on terrorism” claims are bolstered by indications that Musharraf’s measures against Muslim fanatics often seem half-hearted or prove to be temporary. In some cases, it may indeed be true that the suspect individuals or organisations are beyond the reach of the authorities. In others, the general probably feels obliged to tread somewhat gingerly for fear of antagonising large sections of the population. It’s not a happy compromise. But then, no one had any right to expect that the return to relatively secular Muslim statehood would be an easy task after the obscurantist excesses of the Ziaul Haq era, a period when the incumbent military dictator stayed in Washington’s good books by building up the forces that Musharraf is expected to destroy.

Anyhow, it would be profoundly unfortunate — as well as an unwarranted gift to the Mumbai terrorists - were India and Pakistan’s slow march towards a modus vivendi to be indefinitely interrupted at this juncture. It would be considerably wiser for Delhi to accept Musharraf’s offer of full cooperation in the investigation than to pursue any of the confrontational strategies currently being proposed.

For instance, The Guardian’s Jonathan Steele reports a suggestion from Ajai Sahni of the Institute for Conflict Management to the effect that India “impose costs” on Pakistan “by increasing defence spending and starting an arms race that would bankrupt its neighbour”. That’s a supremely stupid idea from every possible aspect, not least because it would be likely to deplete rather than enhance India’s security.

It would be even more unwise for New Delhi to heed the advice of those who have lately been suggesting, in the light of recent events, that India should model its behaviour on that of Israel. Such egregious folly would be disastrous beyond anyone’s wildest nightmares, a recipe for regular bloodshed that would also serve the purpose of entrenching and expanding terrorist networks.

Israel’s latest exploits illustrate not only its immorality and its bloodlust, but also the ultimate futility of seeking to resolve longstanding problems exclusively through force.

On the day after the carnage in Mumbai, members of the Lebanese militia Hezbollah crossed Israel’s northern border and captured two soldiers after killing a few of their comrades. Israel responded with air attacks that have claimed more lives than the Mumbai bombers. Almost all of Israel’s victims thus far have been civilians, including large numbers of children. Hezbollah has retaliated to the bombing raids with rocket attacks on Haifa and other targets; these too have claimed civilian lives, albeit on a much smaller scale.

A couple of weeks earlier, Palestinians from Gaza had carried out a similar raid, capturing one Israeli soldier and killing three. The consequence was Israeli attacks on Gaza that were designed to destroy its infrastructure, creating a humanitarian crisis. About a year ago, Israel had withdrawn its troops and Jewish settlers from the Gaza Strip, effectively turning the tiny territory into a prison for one million Palestinians, a few of whom subsequently chose to lob crude and not particularly lethal Qassam rockets into adjacent parts of Israel.

Pending the release of its soldier (it’s worth noting that Israel holds 9,000 Palestinian prisoners, a tenth of whom are held without trial), the Israelis are holding hostage about a third of elected Palestinian representatives and ministers, and the premises of Hamas office-holders are regularly coming under attack. The crisis came at a time when Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas was on the verge of winning the Hamas government’s acquiescence on the goal of a two-state solution, so it may have suited Hamas’s interests to provide a distraction, and Israel proved all too eager to join in the game.

The expansion of the conflict into Lebanon is, of course, an extremely dangerous escalation: there is a risk that Hezbollah’s backers Syria and Iran could be drawn in, which would effectively mean an all-out Middle East war. It has been suggested that Hezbollah’s pointless provocation a week ago may have been recommended by Damascus or Tehran, or both. Now Israel has said its attacks on Lebanon will not cease unless Hezbollah is disarmed.

UN Security Council resolution 1559 had called for the militia’s disarmament, but that part of it was never implemented — not least because Hezbollah, which evolved into a formidable fighting force during Israel’s 18-year occupation of Lebanese territory and took credit, with some justification for Israel’s 2000 decision to abandon its so-called security zone in the south of the country, is arguably more powerful than the Lebanese army. For Israel to attempt a disarmament would entail a land invasion by tens of thousands of soldiers, something that the Ehud Olmert government appears unwilling to risk.

Many analysts are of the view that the situation will eventually be resolved through a prisoner exchange of some sort, although it needn’t be simultaneous. I hope they are right, but theirs is clearly a best-case scenario — and there’s no saying how many Lebanese must die before it becomes viable.

Israel’s “disproportionate” reprisals in Gaza and Lebanon have attracted mild western criticism, but the Bush administration has been totally supportive, with George W. Bush even opposing, during the Group of Eight summit in St Petersburg, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan’s call for a ceasefire. In his opinion, Damascus should be leaned upon so that it can persuade Hezbollah to “stop doing this ...”.

No surprises there either, and the eloquence is touching. One could, after all, hardly expect Bush to appreciate the fact that Hezbollah is a much smaller problem in the Middle Eastern context than Israel’s attitude, and its determination to unilaterally leave Palestinians with even less than the 22 per cent of historical Palestine that they are demanding. For as long as the idea of a cohesive and viable Palestinian state remains chimerical, the region will know no peace.

All in all, surely the situation in that part of the world is hardly the sort of scenario India should be seeking to replicate in the subcontinent.

Email: mahirali1@gmail.com

Ukrainians’ choice

TWO years ago, politics in Ukraine seemed to be a battle between good and evil. Now the picture is more complicated. The good guy is president, but the bad guy is likely to become the next prime minister. Some say it’s a failure of democracy. We disagree.

In the uproar after Ukraine’s 2004 presidential election, there were clear principles at stake. Viktor Yanukovich, the Russia-backed candidate, tried to steal the presidential election through massive voting fraud. His pro-West opponent, Viktor Yushchenko, nearly died after a poison attack that no one has yet explained. Ukraine’s weak democratic institutions were crumbling under the weight of election rigging and political violence. Massive popular demonstrations forced a rerun of the presidential race and ultimately kept a vote-rigger out of the presidential palace.

But since then, Mr Yushchenko and his Orange coalition have faltered. The government has had to face Russian bullying and a bevy of domestic problems while the momentum of revolution waned. In March’s parliamentary elections, the party of Mr Yanukovich claimed the most seats. And after months of parliamentary wrangling, he won the nomination for prime minister last week.

It’s not an outcome the West will like; Mr Yanukovich as prime minister will do his best to keep Ukraine in Moscow’s orbit. Even if he doesn’t get the parliament’s top job, which is still a possibility given the volatility of Ukrainian politics, Mr Yanukovich will rank among the most influential politicians in government. It is tempting to wish that Ukraine’s president would call for new parliamentary elections, a move he called a last resort on Saturday, in the hope that a pro-West coalition would get more seats.

But Ukrainians elected the current parliament only three months ago, and there was no evidence of widespread vote tampering. The emerging political settlement in Ukraine reflects the current divisions within the country.

—The Washington Post