| April 13, 2007 | Friday | Rabi-ul-Awwal 24, 1428 |
Labour’s foreign policy in the dock
How many summers of discontent?
ISLAMABAD: There was nothing earth-shaking about the 14th Saarc summit in New Delhi last week that merely reiterated the old pledge of translating words into concrete action and harped on the theme of connectivity.
Categorised as the “most successful and least contentious” by the Indian foreign minister, the summit yielded only two agreements: to establish a South Asian University and a Saarc Food Bank. Iran was given the green light as the sixth observer nation despite the US attempt to isolate Tehran over its nuclear issue. No tangible progress was reported on the South Asian Free Trade Area Agreement (Safta).
While there was all the grand talk about ‘connectivity’ and telecommunications, Pakistani journalists covering the event struggled desperately with the internet, telephone and fax connections at the fancy hotel where they were staying. The links continued to be disrupted, courtesy mysterious power breakdowns and even cellphone users could not avail roaming service.
One noteworthy aspect of the summit was the open acknowledgement by India for the first time that bilateral political disputes had mired the Saarc process and prevented the regional grouping from achieving its potential.
This came across loud and clear in Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s inaugural address conveying signs of hope that governments were now addressing bilateral political issues.
OMISSION: A glaring omission in Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz’s address at the inaugural session was the issue of terrorism. It is not clear if this omission was by design or default. While leaders of most South Asian countries, including India, Sri Lanka and the regional grouping’s new member Afghanistan, highlighted the issue in their opening statements, it was completely overlooked by Pakistan. By not mentioning it Pakistan gave the impression that it was on the defensive, if not apologetic. The general view was that the issue should have figured in the prime minister’s speech given that Pakistan itself is a victim of terrorism and is making immense efforts to address the issue. Also, because there was a strong statement against terrorism in the Delhi Declaration adopted at the conclusion of the 14th summit in which Pakistan had a major input. Apparently the clause on terrorism in the eight-page Delhi Declaration was firmed up after much squabbling between Pakistan and India. Even the sections on Safta and Saarc Development Fund were negotiated at length.
EMBRACE: Afghan President Hamid Karzai who had been bad-mouthing Pakistan till just a day before the summit, was visibly disarmed when at the inaugural session Prime Minister Aziz went ahead and embraced him in sharp contrast to the other South Asian leaders who just shook hands with him after the signing of the declaration formalising Afghanistan’s entry into Saarc.
Mr Karzai was also somewhat humbled by the strong welcome his country received from Pakistan and by the reports that Mr Aziz steered clear of pointed questions about the Afghan president’s anti-Pakistan rhetoric at a media interaction later where he refused to be dragged into saying anything negative or controversial about him or his country. Perhaps that is what prompted him to extend a dinner invite to the PM on the eve of their meeting. Initially, they were to meet in the afternoon over a cup of tea. The PM accepted the invitation which delayed his departure by more than an hour.
CEMENT OFFER: On the bilateral front it was not Kashmir or other longstanding bilateral disputes but trade matters that remained the focus of Mr Aziz’s meeting with the Indian prime minister last week.
Contrary to the impression given there was no serious discussion on Kashmir as the issue continues to be actively pursued through the back-channel.
The two economic-minded premiers who seem to have a good rapport talked more about energy, banking, business and increasing air links between the two countries. The big story for the Indians was Pakistan’s offer to export cement to India, a point that was duly highlighted in the press release issued by the Indian Prime Minister’s Office. However, there was no reference to it at all in the two-page press release that came from our Foreign Office which merely noted that the leaders also discussed trade issues. Hence, this aspect was missed by Pakistani media. Even Prime Minister Aziz did not mention a word about his cement offer when he briefed the media after his meeting with Manmohan Singh.
Perhaps it was a deliberate omission to blunt domestic criticism given that while talking to Indian editors and senior media representatives just a day earlier Mr Aziz had linked enhanced trade flows between the two countries to dispute resolution.
The offer came as a surprise to the Indians as Pakistan has been reluctant to grant the most favoured nation status (MFN) to India and has also “denied India MFN rights” under Safta. This was read as Pakistan simply taking advantage of the reduction in import duty on cement announced by India a day earlier.
According to an insider at the meeting when Mr Aziz told Mr Singh that Pakistan would like to sell cement to India, the latter turned around and said India would love to buy it. The timing of the offer is significant both from the Indian and Pakistani perspective as well as the events that preceded it.
The Indians were thrilled at the offer because the country has seen cement prices spiralling in the middle of a big construction boom. The rising price of cement was developing into a major issue coming on the heels of a real estate boom that sent property prices through the roof. Already the Congress is under tremendous pressure where many Indians argue that they have received no fruits and only inflation in a period when Indian economy is growing at a spectacular rate of 9.3 per cent.
Apparently the Indian finance ministry had recently requested the cement producers to control the price of their product but the request met outright rejection. So this was a big issue for the ruling Congress party with the upcoming polls in India’s largest and most populated state Uttar Pradesh. Thus the Indian government announced a reduction in import duty of cement, a move that is believed to have encouraged prompted Pakistan to go ahead with the offer to export cement.
Apparently Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s key aides were overjoyed by this offer because for them it was vindication of his whole thesis that eventually market forces and economy will help stabilise hostile relations.
During his interaction with leading Indian media representatives one realised that he was at times speaking the same language as new Delhi. At one point when asked about the timeframe for settlement of the Kashmir issue, he talked about a “step by step approach” a line that has been taken by the Indians since the resumption of the peace dialogue in January 2004. The PM ducked a question on whom he considered to be the true representatives of the Kashmiri people on the Indian side. His response that he would rather not get into it just hours before he was to meet the APHC leadership surprised many.
KASHMIRI CONCERN: The overriding and common message from the APHC leadership to the PM during a marathon session with him at Pakistan High Commissioner Mr Shahid Malik’s residence last week was: they support the peace process and had faith in Pakistan but were concerned that it had not yielded any results despite three years of engagement. That the situation on ground had not improved much and the human rights violations continued. There was a view that Mufti Sayed’s talk about demilitarization was at India’s behest and a bid to make him popular. That India was playing games and not reciprocating initiatives taken by Pakistan and that Islamabad should not show one-sided flexibility.
THE world, especially the third world should be grateful to Oxfam, the universally respected British NGO for all that it has done for the downtrodden, the deprived, the diseased and the abandoned around the world. Its role on the side of the victims in the various conflict zones has been beyond comparison. Today it is seemingly ashamed of the way Britain, its home-base, is behaving in the world, especially in the Middle East and particularly in Iraq. It sounds extremely unhappy over what it believes to be Britain’s double standards in its dealings with the world at large which it says is affecting Oxfam’s own effectiveness in what it is doing the world over. Fed up perhaps with the continued downslide in Britain’s place in the comity of nation the Oxfam has taken upon itself to propose the following five principles upon which it says future British foreign policy should be based:
1. Actively working to protect civilians, as a cornerstone of British foreign policy.
2. Consistently challenging abuses of humanitarian law and human rights, whether committed by allies or others.
3. Delivering on good policies, such as achieving an international Arms Trade Treaty by 2010, and ensuring other government actions bolster rather than undermine this.
4. Adapting to the changing balance of world power, by finding new ways to influence emerging powers, and pursuing more just and equitable relations with the developing world as a whole.
5. Strengthening multilateral institutions, particularly the United Nations, so that these bodies can effectively protect innocent people.
Meanwhile, the Oxford Research Group has launched a book titled Beyond Terror which also directly links the mounting mess in the world to the overwhelming emphasis on terror in the foreign policies of the UK and the US. According to this book since the 9/11 attacks, many Western governments assumed terrorism to be the greatest threat the world faced and in response, their dangerous policies attempt to maintain control and keep the status quo by using overwhelming military force. This important book shows why this approach has been such a failure, and how it distracts us from other, much greater, threats:
* Climate change
* Competition over resources
* Marginalisation of the majority world
* Global militarisation
Unless urgent, coordinated action is taken in the next five to ten years on all these issues, the authors say it will be almost impossible to avoid the earth becoming a highly unstable place by the middle years of this century. Beyond Terror offers an alternative path for politicians, journalists and concerned citizens alike.
What the Oxfam and the book Beyond Terror are trying to stop is what the current foreign policy of the UK government is trying to achieve. A disturbing vision of the dangers threatening the UK was revealed by Prime Minister Tony Blair when he unveiled in February a landmark foreign policy review. The review said:
Threats to security — the danger from both foreign extremists and ‘home-grown’ terrorists has risen since the September 2001 Al Qaeda attacks.
Weapons of mass destruction — a ‘serious challenge’ with the immediate focus on North Korea and Iran, but one which could well get worse as other countries turn to nuclear technology as part of the fight against climate change.
Energy — with Britain set to become a net importer of oil and gas, Russia and Iran control 40 per cent of world gas reserves. By 2020 half of the world’s oil production will occur in potentially unstable regions.
In addition to the environmental perils, the paper predicted possible major political and security upheavals as a result of its specific effects of climate change inside China, India, Russia, Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan.
The policy review paper, called ‘Britain in the World’, also predicted a major shift in the world’s balance of power — with China, India, Brazil and Russia all likely to emerge as more assertive and influential, alongside Germany and Japan.
‘All these challenges are inter-related,’ the policy paper argued, while adding that ‘an integrated response is essential — military, diplomatic and development interventions.’
Officials said the Prime Minister felt strongly there is a progressive case for military intervention, whether in places like the Balkans and Sierra Leone, Iraq and Afghanistan, dating back to the Spanish Civil War.
He also felt — as this policy paper made clear — that in the 21st century world, foreign policy must be about a range of different tools, and that it will also be essential for Britain to find a way to make international institutions work far better.
The policy review concluded that the EU is seriously lagging behind economically and, for at least the next decade, the United States will remain the dominant world power — a strong argument, it suggested, for Britain to ensure that it safeguards its ‘strategic alliance with the US.
And here is what the Oxfam felt the current foreign policy of Britain has accomplished:
Britain’s ability to help stop genocide, mass war crimes and human rights abuses has been seriously undermined by the Iraq war and other foreign policy errors.
Labour’s foreign policy has been marked by successes such as the interventions in Sierra Leone and Kosovo, and its leadership in promoting development at the G8 in 2005. However, Oxfam workers in the world’s war zones are reporting a disturbing trend of “anti-Britishism”, driven by perceived double standards in the UK’s foreign policy.
During the conflict in Lebanon in 2006, aid workers reported strong anti-British feeling after the UK government failed to call for an immediate ceasefire by all sides. Oxfam had to refuse UK government funding in both Iraq and Lebanon, in part to demonstrate that there is a clear separation between its work and UK foreign policy.
The report argues that the only way for Britain to rebuild its reputation and effectiveness overseas is to act consistently, criticising both its friends and its enemies for violations of international human rights and humanitarian law.
“Day in day out, Oxfam sees the human consequences of Britain’s foreign policies at first hand, both good and bad. Labour’s foreign policy has been at its best when it has been in tune with public opinion and international law. However it is now clear that the invasion of Iraq, and the government’s failure to stand up to all governments when they break international law and harm innocent people, have seriously damaged Britain’s capacity to be a force for good on the world stage,” said Barbara Stocking, Director of Oxfam.
The report warns of the danger that the experience of the Iraq war will dissuade future leaders from acting to prevent mass killings through both peaceful and, as a last resort, military means.
“The Iraq war was a terrible misadventure. But it must not cause future Prime Ministers to return to the caution of the previous Conservative government. That administration stood by while the genocides in Bosnia and Rwanda unfolded. We must say ‘never again’ as much to our failure to stop these atrocities, as to repeating Iraq,” added Stocking.
AFTER some summers, life in this port city may be comfortable, and Pakistan’s biggest but unfortunate metropolis may yet live up to its Jewel of the East label. Those who believe in this scenario may have the flyovers and underpasses coming up in the city in mind.
They forget the cost they are paying in terms of money and time, and the long term negative impact on their health. However, the unending power breakdowns and the shameless assurances given by those at the helm of affairs baffles everyone because many summers have passed and things go from bad to worse.
This time there has been a cosmetic change at the KESC’s top management. Will the city ever get uninterrupted power, the people don’t know, perhaps even the KESC officials don’t know. Whenever the people complain, the KESC conveniently passes the buck to Wapda and vice versa.
The consumers are told the power outage is due to overloading or tripping of feeders and shortfall of supply. What they are not told is why over the years the KESC’s own power plants are unable to meet the growing demand, why they have been problem ridden and are generating less than the previous year. Because of this people were switching to generators or UPS to ensure electricity.
The frequent power breakdowns have made people short tempered and intolerant as they don’t get a good night’s sleep. It has badly affected industrial output, besides exposing the utility’s inability to generate electricity to meet the growing power needs.
The entire city is experiencing prolonged power cuts overnight and enduring scorching heat. The power outages have also caused a large number of electrical appliances to develop faults and break down. But the KESC does not feel obliged to explain why it has failed to reinforce its distribution system.
The Karachi Electricity Supply Corporation’s performance is also being blamed on the undefined roles of its corporate heads and the contractor firm responsible for the operations and management of the power utility.
Although there has been a change of guard in the utility since its privatisation, the management failed to improve the power generation and distribution system. The former chief executive of the utility had admitted that he had no role in the operations and management affairs.
"According to the agreement, we cannot interfere in the affairs of the operations and management of the contractor firm, Siemens. We can question them regarding reasons for power failures and that also only in our board meeting," he had said. Though the contractors have totally changed the administrative structure and carried out a major reshuffle, there is hardly any visible investment in improving the 11 kv distribution system. Under the agreement the contactor firm's jobs and duties were to increase generation and transmission capacity; develop efficient, effective, self-sustaining organization, make operation and maintenance efficient, introduce risk management for people, property and finance; better the whole financial performance, improve metering and billing procedures, establish most modern information technology, prepare and implement the next year's budget, start a complete reporting and documenting scheme, implement training for employees and contractors, develop strategies and goals for the future of the KESC, improve industrial safety equipment, and submit a daily progress report to the management.
For years the KESC has not invested in building its own power plants and has been depending on WAPDA to meet the growing shortfall. This heavy reliance on WAPDA by a city of about 15 million people with a major industrial infrastructure is unforgivable carelessness. Karachi should have surplus capacity to meet even future demand. One cannot conceive a changing coastline and industrial zones without energy.
If the KESC is unable to do this, it would be in the fitness of things to divide the city into different zones and give the franchise to different public utilities. This should be examined because after all the defence people are building their own desalination-cum-power generation plant, though on a small scale. We also hear the industrial community could build its own generating plant and have its own distribution system to overcome their energy problem. The policy makers should also visualise the worst scenario when Wapda for reasons of mounting fuel cost and water shortage declines to meet KESC’s requirements or the national grid is hit by terrorist attack. What will happen then? It is time we gave it a thought?