|
|
| April 09, 2007 | Monday | Rabi-ul-Awwal 20, 1428 |
For whose benefit?
Contaminated water
Which way will France go?
Diplomacy pays off
WITH two weeks left before they go to the polls for the first round of presidential elections, French voters are getting an earful of patriotic, anti-immigrant and anti-globalisation propaganda from the two main conservative and socialist contenders for the top job – as well as the country’s long-standing extreme right candidate. No wonder many are confused, uncertain and unsure of just who deserves their vote.
WITH surging demand outstripping supply, the rising power shortage is forcing Wapda to increase loadshedding with the onset of summer. Wapda estimates the current power shortage at roughly 1,300 megawatts, mainly caused by what it says is a decrease in water releases by the Indus River System Authority (Irsa) — a situation created by the competing demands of power generation and farming. Irsa maintains that agriculture has the first claim on irrigation water. Confirming the critical power shortage, Minister for Water and Power Liaquat Ali Jatoi hopes that an additional 12,000MW of electricity will be generated by next year. Meanwhile, the interrupted power supply as a result of loadshedding will affect the production and delivery schedules of export goods at a time when industries are already agitating against high electricity tariffs impacting their cost of production. If the power shortage persists, investors will not risk setting up new industries and the emerging housing boom could peter out.
While a multidimensional approach is required to tackle the complex power shortage problem, it is essentially an issue of policy failure. For the past few years the government has been projecting an economic growth rate of six to eight per cent a year without taking into account the additional energy supplies needed to fuel it. First, it restrained public-sector utilities from setting up new generation plants without being able to attract investment from the private sector. When the shortage assumed critical proportions, Wapda was allowed to set up some power plants on an emergency basis. Now the ministry of finance is reported to have refused to arrange finances for setting up thermal power stations in the public sector at Multan and Khuzdar, projects earlier approved in principle by the government. The shifting official policies are not helpful in easing a difficult situation. In times of crises, a dogmatic approach (additional power generation must at all cost come from the private sector) that does not yield positive results must be replaced by a pragmatic approach involving brief state intervention. Power plants must be set up by public utilities on a priority basis until such time the private sector steps in. The government’s response to the crisis is slow; it needs to act promptly and expeditiously. Mr Jatoi says the government is busy finalising an energy conservation plan for the current year — something that should have been put into effect before the start of the summer season.
The power shortage can only be eased by a joint effort involving the government, the utilities and consumers. The core issue is ensuring an uninterrupted power supply at globally competitive rates. Wapda line losses are estimated at 21.5 per cent, which can be significantly reduced by opting for improved technologies and better engineering practices. Export-oriented industries, hit by high power tariffs, should opt for energy-efficient tools that reduce costs. For its part, the government should encourage them with the right incentives. Finally, the government needs to focus on a mix of small solar, wind and hydro-power projects that do not require huge investment and can be put into operation in a relatively short time. A right step just taken in this direction is the NWFP’s decision to attract private investment in hydro-power projects with capacities ranging from one to 50MW. No doubt, the government has a policy and a programme to boost power generation but it has not yet produced the desired results.
WITH the development mantra growing louder by the day, the health of the environment is becoming increasingly irrelevant in the official scheme of things. The country’s well-being is now defined largely in cosmetic terms, as apparent from the growing number of exclusive, fortified housing projects, luxury hotels, golf courses, private clubs and other assorted playgrounds of the wealthy. The welfare of a tiny segment of the population appears to be of paramount importance in the current order of business and the powerful developers’ lobby the driving force behind government policy. The opportunity for graft and personal enrichment also cannot be discounted as a factor in the ‘development’ drive being witnessed across the country. Contracts worth billions are being handed out at an enormous rate, fuelling allegations that a portion of these funds is being pocketed by some top officials. If so, it would partly explain why new façades of prosperity are being raised with such rapidity.
Rules and regulations have all but fallen by the wayside in this mad rush for a fast buck. Environmental laws, for instance, might as well not exist given how routinely they are violated. In Islamabad, no Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) has been carried out in connection with the Capital Development Authority’s revised master plan, which allows construction in areas that were previously protected. The Pakistan Environmental Protection Agency seems helpless in all this. It has reportedly been told that no action should be taken against the CDA for violating the law, such as the failure to conduct an EIA as required by the Pakistan Environmental Protection Act 1997 and Pakistan Environmental Protection Agency (Review of IEE and EIA) Regulations 2000. Trees are being slaughtered in cities to make way for underpasses and expressways, which ideally should be planned in a way that accommodates nature instead of destroying it. Off the coast of Karachi, development work has commenced on Bundal and Buddo islands, a high-priority marine ecosystem and a source of livelihood for fishermen, even though an EIA is yet to be conducted. Development must be sustainable if the desired goal is long-term prosperity. Sadly, the focus now is on glamour, money-making and instant gratification.
IT IS distressing that almost a quarter of a million children in the country die of waterborne diseases every year. Consumed by people in both urban and rural areas, contaminated water accounts for some 80 per cent of all illnesses in the country. This is not surprising given that pollution of our rivers and waterways by industrial effluents and pesticides is widespread and that underground water is often laced with arsenic that is dangerously above internationally accepted safety levels. Also worrisome is that manufacturers of bottled water, generally considered a safe alternative, often tap underground reserves that could be contaminated. The government recently promised that the country would have clean drinking water by March 2008. But judging by the current state of affairs, the target will be difficult to realise. In fact, there is good reason to fear that the millennium development goal of halving the number of people without access to potable water by 2015 will elude Pakistan, where efforts to provide clean water are not keeping pace with the growing population.
Unfortunately, despite possessing national environmental legislation and a drinking water policy, the government has failed to turn the situation around. There has been little implementation of laws (like penalising industrial units contributing to the pollution of water resources) because the government lacks the will to do so. What is equally disappointing is the public apathy on this score. Statistics showing thousands of children dying from totally preventable illnesses does not seem to move the masses who appear to have accepted contaminated water as a part of life. Such an attitude has led to even more complacency on the part of the government. A difference can be made if motivated organisations and individuals join hands to highlight an issue that deserves immediate attention.
Recent opinion polls, reflecting voters’ doubts, show that centre-right candidate Nicolas Sarkozy is backed by 26 per cent of voters, compared to 24.5 per cent for his socialist rival Segolene Royal – making history as the first woman in France to stand for president. Jean-Marie Le Pen of the far right National Front is given 15 per cent, his highest level since January, while Francois Bayrou, who leads the centrist Union for French Democracy, comes in at 19.5 per cent.
Significantly, however, a large number of voters say they have not firmly made up their minds on how they will vote on April 22. Their confusion is not difficult to understand. While the early months of the presidential campaign were dominated by the undeniable charismatic personality of the two main candidates, the last few weeks have seen the two rivals indulging in almost incoherentdiatribes against France’s Muslim minority and in favour of economic protectionism.
The recent riots at a Paris train station once again put the spotlight on immigration and crime, with analysts voicing fears that the images of youths destroying stores and ticket booths would help Le Pen to gain points among potential voters given his traditional tough law-and-order platform.
The other candidates are striving hard to sound as tough as Le Pen but their focus on preserving and promoting France’s national identity has taken some curious turns.
Royal, for instance, has said she wants all French households to keep the tricolour (national flag) in their homes and all socialists to sing the Marseillaise national anthem at party meetings. Not to be outdone, Sarkozy has warned of a social explosion unless immigration to France is brought under control and has suggested the establishment of a ministry of "immigration and national identity".
While stealing xenophobic rhetoric from Le Pen may win them some supporters from the far-right, neither Sarkozy nor Royal seem totally in tune with their traditional electorate. Two prominent members of Sarkozy's own camp have expressed reservations about his ministry idea, with Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin saying that he was "not entirely in favour". French Holocaust survivor and former minister Simone Veil has denounced the suggestion and said instead it should be a ministry of "immigration and integration."
Once infatuated by the sea change in traditional French male-dominated politics reflected by Royal’s rise, many French socialists, meanwhile, are beginning to wonder if they would not be better off casting their ballot in favour of Bayrou who has promised to govern beyond the “left-right divide.”
The photogenic Royal certainly attracts the cameras and is still vastly popular with women voters. But she is often seen as ill-briefed and incoherent. Most damagingly, her campaign team appears to be at perpetual loggerheads with the socialist party whose “elephants” or barons, including heavyweights former ministers Dominique Strauss-Kahn and Laurent Fabius, have been sniping at Royal from the sidelines.
Significantly, both candidates have gone out of their way to sound tough on immigrants. Royal has called for the setting up of “boot camps” to deal with delinquents. Sarkozy, who described the disaffected Arab and African youths who went on the rampage in Paris suburbs in 2005 as “thugs and scum”, is certainly not a favourite among young French people of Arab and African descent.
Sarkozy’s unpopularity in the suburbs may hurt his presidential ambitions. After staying on the sidelines of French politics for decades, immigrant communities across France are empowering themselves politically and young French people of Arab and African descent are registering to vote. Many are certain to vote against Sarkozy who ironically is the son of Hungarian immigrants.
Even more damagingly, both Sarkozy and Royal are indulging in a bout of good old-fashioned economic protectionism and anti-globalisation rhetoric which has the country’s top business leaders running for cover.
Once hailed as France’s answer to the market-loving former British premier Margaret Thatcher, Sarkozy has turned more protectionist in recent weeks. Sarkozy, Royal, and their centrist challenger, Bayrou, have all pledged to protect Airbus workers from job cuts. They have all
vowed to fight "speculative" capitalism and sending jobs out of the country. And all called for a lower euro to keep up production and jobs.
Their statements are proof that fears of globalisation in France go deeper than anywhere else in the European Union, with many in the country especially worried about the displacement of French factories and plants to locations in eastern Europe and China. French citizens also fear job losses triggered by the arrival of low-cost workers from the EU’s new eastern member states.
Royal has said she wants to punish companies that move production sites abroad and calls for a Europe that "protects its citizens" from the chill winds of globalisation. She would re-nationalise the former electricity and gas monopolies, Électricité de France and Gaz de France, and supports a higher minimum wage.
Even Sarkozy, who started out with promises of breaking with the past, has gradually changed his language. He sent shock waves through the EU recently by insisting that free trade was "a policy of naivety" and vowing to go on "a diplomatic offensive" to lower the euro. The former finance minister also promised an industrial policy that would block foreign takeover bids of strategic companies.
The paradox of course is that while the politicians rage against globalisation and the threat from China and India, French companies are reaping the rewards of a more open global economy. A third of Europe's biggest multinationals are French.
Although EU officials are careful not to be seen as meddling in French politics – and therefore refuse to take sides in the debate – most are hoping for a Sarkozy victory. The centre right leader is seen as most business-friendly, most likely to build fences with the US and the most pro-European.
His preference for a mini EU treaty to replace the defeated constitution – rejected by French and Dutch voters in 2005 – fits in with German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s plan to revive the treaty without submitting it to another referendum in France or the Netherlands.
But while Sarkozy is in the lead at the moment, Royal’s popular appeal as the first woman to challenge male-dominated French politics should not be under-estimated. And Bayrou’s sudden emergence as the third man in French politics also continues to fascinate many voters.
It’s also worth remembering that surprises are a regular feature of French elections. In 2002, opinion polls did not foresee that Le Pen would eliminate Prime Minister Lionel Jospin in the first round. In 2005, the ‘no’ vote in the referendum on the European constitution also stunned many observers. And in 1995, President Jacques Chirac was the underdog who upset the prime minister at the time, Edouard Balladur, to succeed François Mitterrand. Who knows what surprises French voters hold up their sleeves this time around?
IRAN'S release of 15 British sailors held hostage for 13 days is a tribute to the value of diplomacy. But relief over the end of the crisis is likely to be short-lived. Looming are thorny decisions about how to deal with an Iranian regime that appears determined to pursue its nuclear program and likely to continue to flex its considerable geopolitical muscle in other unpleasant ways.
Because the US relationship with Tehran is likely to remain confrontational, Britain's handling of the crisis offers a model worth studying. London did not posture or threaten the Iranians, which would have been counterproductive. Yet neither did it apologise for a territorial trespass it insists its sailors did not commit. It has since agreed to discuss with Tehran territorial issues and operations in the tense Persian Gulf, which is a good idea in any case.
Accompanying the freeing of the British sailors was the suspiciously timed release of an Iranian diplomat in Baghdad, Jalal Sharafi, who had been kidnapped by armed Iraqis of unknown loyalty two months ago. The British deny any connection, of course, as do the Iraqis and the Americans. Such denials are a diplomatic necessity, but they should not be mistaken for the truth.
The United States has every right to insist on the arrest, prosecution or expulsion from Iraq of Iranians, officials or not, who abet terrorism. But it attempts to redefine the rules of diplomatic immunity at its own peril. In this regard, even though the US rejects claims by Iranian representatives to diplomatic status, it should promptly allow them consular access to five other Iranians arrested in Iraq in January — a courtesy that Tehran pointedly denied the British sailors.
By humiliating the sailors and extracting staged "confessions," driving up the price of oil in European markets (although it has since fallen) and then appearing magnanimous by giving the hostages their freedom, Iranian hard-liners have scored a propaganda victory.
— Los Angeles Times