|
| January 22, 2007 | Monday | Muharram 02, 1428 |
Railway’s lopsided priorities
Meaningless EIAs
Was PM’s Kabul trip useful?
Wheelie bins
THE success or failure of a high-level visit is determined by its outcome. Has Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz’s recent visit to Kabul resulted in strengthening the existing relationship between the two countries? How many substantive agreements were signed? Was an identity of approach on bilateral, regional and international issues achieved during the visit? If answers to these questions are in the affirmative, the visit could be considered a success, otherwise it can at best be termed a tourist jaunt or a private pilgrimage.
WITH opinion polls giving him only 14 per cent of popular support, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is fighting a losing battle for political survival. Most observers of the Israeli scene think that his resignation is only a matter of time, for he and his Defence Minister Amir Peretz have become what an Israeli newspaper called “lame ducks on the way to the slaughterhouse”. Even though most Israelis expected Mr Olmert to resign immediately after the 34-day Lebanese war, the pressure for him to quit mounted after Chief of Staff Gen Dan Halutz resigned. The end of the war in July-August found Israel without having achieved any of its aims, including the recovery of the captured soldier. Hezbollah is there as strong as ever, with Israel having lost 159 soldiers and 39 civilians, besides incurring material losses. More frustrating for the Kadima government, the war exposed Israeli cities’ vulnerability to Hezbollah missiles. In contrast, Syed Hassan Nasrallah and Hezbollah, for whose destruction Mr Olmert had unleashed his war, have become heroes for the entire Arab-Islamic world. Also, even though the pro-western media tried to blame both Israel and Hezbollah for civilian deaths, it was clear which side first began hitting civilian targets, resulting in the death of nearly 1,000 Lebanese civilians. This included the massacre at Qana when the Israeli air force decided to attack civilian targets, including homes and apartment buildings, as part of its policy to wreak vengeance on the Lebanese people.
Mr Olmert is also at the centre of a controversy involving his role in bank privatisation in 2005, with the Israeli attorney-general having started a criminal probe last Tuesday. However, the big issue is the inquiry report, to be released in the coming few weeks, on the performance of Israel’s political and military leaders in the Lebanese war and the failure of the Israeli intelligence to gauge Hezbollah’s strength. Defence Minister Peretz, who belongs to the Labour Party, and Mr Olmert himself have no war experience, and it is widely believed that Gen Halutz has been made a scapegoat by both. If the two resign, as seems likely, it is obvious that there will be a fresh election, and that will mean a further delay in a possible resumption of the peace process.
It would be a mistake if America were to look at all this as an internal Israeli matter, for the crisis brewing in Israeli politics stems essentially from the larger Palestinian question and the Olmert government’s refusal to seek a lasting peace by opening talks with the elected Palestinian government. Setting aside Israel’s traditional hubris about the Palestinian issue, even those who matter — the US and the European Union — have not helped matters. By toeing the Israeli line and cutting off non-humanitarian assistance to bring the Hamas government headed by Mr Ismail Haniye down, they have helped perpetuate the deadlock in the peace process. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who was recently in the Middle East, went back home without obtaining any guarantee from Mr Olmert that he would talk to the Palestinian government. Instead, Israeli officials have been talking about “temporary borders” — a proposal rejected by President Mahmoud Abbas. So long as Israel remains in occupation of the Palestinian territories, the holy land will continue to see wars, which — as the results of the 34-day war show — Israel is not always going to win.
PAKISTAN Railway, despite having a passenger base of some 73 million and carrying a freight tonnage of 6.1 million, continues to be a deficit-ridden entity. The PR’s accumulated overdraft over the years now runs into billions. While some of the deficit can be attributed to the rise in fuel prices, and thus in operational costs, much of it is due to chronic inefficiency plaguing the railway system. The railway ministry’s energies in the last two years have been spent on reducing the losses by introducing new, faster, non-stop, trains, computerising its operations, modernising the running inventory, dualisation of a portion of the main line and broadening the capacity of its customer and freight base. All these are grand plans, while the PR’s existing infrastructure has remained woefully inadequate and outdated, with train derailments, crashes and bridge collapses having touched a record high over the same period.
The July 2005 triple-train crash near Ghotki in Sindh, the January 2006 derailment of an Islamabad-Lahore express train near Jhelum, and the collapse of the Run Patthani bridge near Karachi after torrential rains during the last monsoon season, claimed more than 150 lives. Investigations into the fatal tragedies revealed that besides human error, a crumbling infrastructure and outdated signals were to blame, even though the inquiry committees constituted fell short of making their full reports public. If the railway minister is to be taken seriously, there seems to be another mad rush to introduce new, express trains to cut travelling time between major cities by also involving the private sector. The government’s move to lift the railways up will at best remain a job half done unless steps are also taken to modernise the existing infrastructure. The lesson of the recent tragedies is that expansion of the rail network and introduction of faster trains cannot be done at the cost of continuous neglect shown to the state of existing tracks, signals and the poor quality of service being provided by the PR. It is this vital aspect that the railway ministry seems oblivious of, and that will keep the travelling public wary of the railways.
BOTH the Punjab environment minister and the director-general of the provincial environmental protection agency stressed recently that quality of life cannot be sacrificed at the altar of growth and development. An environmental impact assessment (EIA) is mandatory for large projects, they maintained, with the director-general adding that the government will not allow the well-being of citizens to be jeopardised at any cost. This from the top environment officials of a province where trees are being slaughtered in the thousands to make way for underpasses and interchanges, where pollution levels are far in excess of safety standards, and where no consideration is given to linking the location of industrial units to optimal land use. Almost anything goes in the name of ‘development’. The same is true of the rest of the country. Take the case of Bundal and Buddo islands near Karachi, where no heed is being paid to serious concerns about ecological degradation and loss of livelihood.
The environment minister identified lack of expertise and a failure to fulfil legal obligations as the primary hurdles in the way of EIA enforcement. These are not valid grounds — shortages must be overcome and the law enforced. Moreover, it is important that the EIA requirement is not reduced to a mere formality. In the case of the latest underpass planned for Lahore, the EIA found that some 300 full-grown trees would have to be cut — and there the matter ended for all intents and purposes. An assessment of this nature should be enough to shelve the project and explore alternate routes; instead, the cutting of trees is presented as a fait accompli. The EIA also loses much of its value if it is carried out by the designer of the project, as was the case here. To be meaningful, EIAs must be assigned to reputable independent organisations.
In order to achieve these objectives, extensive negotiations are necessary at the diplomatic level before the visit as well as meticulous arrangements for the visit. The need for such measures becomes even more urgent if relations between the two countries are somewhat sour or not very friendly. Results can be disappointing and at times even counterproductive if high-level visits are undertaken in a haphazard manner. Whether these prerequisites were finalised before the prime minister’s recent visit to Kabul and did he achieve the objectives for which the visit was undertaken are the subject of this discussion.
Normally, the foretaste of a high-level visit is contained in an official statement announcing the date and other details of the visit. The bland statement issued before the prime minister’s visit did not give many details. It only described relations between Afghanistan and Pakistan as “unique” and the frequent interaction between the leaders of the two countries as a “hallmark” of this relationship. With a view to improving the existing relationship all aspects were to be discussed during the visit, the statement added.
A well-informed journalist with access to government sources said in a comment that the visit was arranged in the “shortest possible time” and both governments had agreed to create a conducive atmosphere for the success of the prime minister’s visit. It was also indicated by press reports that the question of fencing and mining the Pak-Afghan border, on which acute differences had surfaced between the two countries, would be discussed. A significant feature of the visit was that the influential and vocal information minister, Muhammad Ali Durrani, was sent to Kabul ahead of the prime minister’s arrival to pave the way for some positive results.
Whether any of the objectives mentioned above were achieved during the visit is hotly contested between pro-government elements and neutral observers. The government apologists consider the visit highly successful (like every visit of a Pakistani leader abroad) and quote the agreement on the repatriation of the Afghan refugees living in Pakistan and the naming of a Pakistan commission to arrange (along with its Afghan counterpart) joint jirgas as a positive outcome. But in supporting their viewpoint, critics cite the failure of the two sides to come to an understanding on substantive issues such as the fencing and mining of the border and the failure of the Afghan side to appreciate and acknowledge the efforts of the Pakistani leadership to minimise terrorist activities across the border.
Instead, President Karzai accused Pakistan of many unfriendly actions, including patronising the Taliban militants to destabilise his government and the killing of Afghan children and bombing of schools by pro-Pakistan elements. The most surprising aspect of Mr Karzai’s statement at the joint press conference, in the presence of the Pakistani, Afghan and international media, was his decrying of high-level visits between the two countries (and there have been many — in fact too many — in the recent past) as, according to him, these bore little fruit. Mr Karzai also accused Pakistan of mistrust and predicted an increase in the already existing “gap” in relations.
Besides the hot words, the gestures, the body language and the finger-pointing were enough to gauge the mood at the joint press conference. (The front-page picture of the event published in this newspaper is indeed very telling). The public display of resentment by Mr Karzai against a visiting head of government raises many questions about diplomatic propriety and its impact on relations between the two countries. While these are important questions and will be discussed for a long time in many capitals of the world, I want to analyse the gains that President Karzai wanted to achieve from his public outburst.
There is no doubt that the Afghan president is in deep trouble both at home and abroad. Domestically, he is dubbed as a weak leader who has not been able to extend his writ beyond Kabul. Even in the capital he is heavily dependent on the help and protection of the foreign occupying forces — an anathema for all Afghans. He is accused of collaborating with the erstwhile warlords who wield considerable power and influence in his administration. He has not been able to control corruption, which has increased considerably since the Taliban days.
The law and order situation has deteriorated and no one feels safe. Internationally, he is no more considered a panacea for all Afghan ills by his patrons and mentors. In fact, some of them regard him as part of the problem. The manifold increase in the cultivation of poppy has aggravated the worries of western governments. What then is Mr Karzai supposed to do in this situation? As he is not in a position to do much to improve the domestic situation, he has to find a scapegoat to shift the blame from himself. And Pakistan is that convenient scapegoat.
According to his line of argument, he cannot protect the innocent Afghan masses from the attacks of the American and other foreign forces stationed in his country because Pakistan is behind the insurgency. He cannot confront the Taliban because Pakistan is supporting them with arms and money and provides them safe sanctuary on its side of the border.
He is siding with the warlords because they control the area from where they come and have organised forces which can confront the Taliban — supposedly Pakistan’s proteges. In fact, name any ill that is infesting Afghanistan these days and it will be attributed by the Afghan president to the so-called unfriendly and non-cooperative Pakistan.
One singular success of Mr Karzai is that he has been able to convince the Afghan people that Pakistan is constantly and persistently interfering in Afghan affairs and wants to have a government of its own choice in Kabul. Because of this constant propaganda and some of our own follies, Pakistan is perhaps the most disliked country in Afghanistan. Pakistan has singularly failed to dispel this negative impression or to create a positive image of itself in the minds of the Afghan masses.
So what is Pakistan to do in this unfriendly situation vis-a-vis Afghanistan?
First of all, Pakistan should tone down its enthusiasm about Afghanistan till it is assured of a friendly and responsible response from the other side. For the present, Pakistan should stop talking of a Marshall plan or holding of a donor conference on its soil. Its dignitaries should also give up the habit of announcing additional grants for the Karzai government during every visit to Kabul or as a response to an unfriendly remark by the Afghan president. Hastily arranged and improperly organised visits should be avoided at all cost.
All such gestures have so far been taken as a sign of weakness on the part of Pakistan and presented before the Afghan public in a negative manner. Pakistan should conduct its relations with Afghanistan in a normal and proper diplomatic manner as done with other countries of the world. While there is no need to be strident or overbearing, complacency and a cringing attitude is also not desirable.
The writer is a former ambassador to Afghanistan.
THE storms have blown a promising new national icon on to the public stage: the wheelie bin. Caught by the gusts and knocked over like skittles, thousands of the jumbo bins have lined the Britain’s pavements, flat on their sides. This is their weakness, and it is one which is being tackled by the most inventive minds in local government waste disposal: should they have lockable lids? heavier bases? better-trained households who whisk them in and out when the dustmen are due?
The discussion is time and effort well spent, because the wheelie bin has ended years of miserably inefficient rubbish collection in Britain. Old-fashioned dustbins were grim for their collectors, while black plastic bags attract every scavenging pet and fox.
The wheelies lend themselves easily to sophisticated rubbish separation: green for recycled goods, brown for garden waste and so forth. And increasingly they provide an unexpected social service in their role as a reminder of speed limits. There are few things more effective for highway safety than a line of bins, each with a 30 roundel on its side. That is an increasingly common sight, as are bins sheathed in decorative coats; the internet offers thousands of bespoke patterns, photographs, even reproductions of Old Masters. The name itself is pleasant, and even in their storm- toppled vulnerability wheelies have the appeal of a beetle on its back or of London’s poor stranded whale. The red pillar box and telephone kiosk have found a 21st-century equal.
— The Guardian, London