AFGHANISTAN claims this valued space so often that one cannot but begin on an apologetic note. Amongst the several reasons for this preoccupation with the Afghan conflict is its spillover into Pakistan. A substantial part of the Pakistani armed forces are deployed along its border.

What is now conventionally known as the blowback of three decades of turmoil in Afghanistan flares up in one town or another of Pakistan every day; even its capital is no longer immune to it. A good reason for reverting to the subject is the accelerated degradation of the conflict over which the governments in Kabul and Islamabad do not seem to have much control but for which they pay a heavy price in public esteem.

This factor impinges on the sovereignty of Pakistan and demands a candid assessment of real — as distinct from the merely declaratory -- intentions of the states occupying Afghanistan. Some Pakistani commentators evade a discussion of the basic dynamic at work in the war torn country next door, i.e. the plan for an extended occupation to add military bases of exceptional value to an existing network of such bases in the Eurasian landmass and in the Gulf littoral.

They continue to perpetuate the myth that it a war against Islamic fanatics out to overturn the world order. They try hard to obfuscate the fact that the current ‘pacification’ of Afghanistan aims at rearranging power projection by a new global empire to the exclusion of emerging rivals. They help conceal the real reasons of the present brutality of the conflict and write pretentious essays without ever mentioning the foreign occupation that overshadows every other aspect of the Afghan situation.

The factor of the matter is that it is becoming a ruthless war with different military forces employing different tactics. The electronic age defeats snatching of cameras and destruction or deletion of images of terror by the occupying armies and provides enough material substantiating a deliberate disregard of the laws of war.

The rightwing western media attributes the revival of the Taliban to the fact that the British troops operating in Helmand were not ruthless enough and joyfully claim that the slack is being taken up by special operation groups and by the American airpower which show no mercy the suspected opponents and which do not wait for “positive identification” of human targets before obliterating them with precision weapons.

There is a steady stream of stories flowing out of Afghanistan of Apaches swinging in low and opening up with 30 mm cannons on civilians indiscriminately.

That the insurgency has spread to the west and even some areas of the north indicates that the killing of civilians is making the Taliban more acceptable. The Taliban propaganda machine has made good use of incidents where ordinary citizens were killed either from the air or by special operations units on the ground.

The director of Harvard University’s Human Rights Centre, Sarah Sewall, observed the other day that the numbing pattern of “collateral damage” incidents, most dramatically from air strikes, fuels local perception of a brutal ally and undermines Nato’s attempts to apply a softer approach to Afghan security.

Underlying such comments is the analysis that the West has two almost conflicting missions in Afghanistan: the UN-sponsored forces aim at nation building and the strengthening of the central regime of President Karzai while US forces seek to physically eliminate all opposition to their military presence. Recent statements from Nato sources that they are in for a long haul, however, cast doubt if the two missions have different goals.

Anyway, they enable the Taliban to present themselves as the vanguard of a classical national freedom struggle. Every atrocity committed to compensate for the squeamishness of the British soldier, who incidentally has the advantage of the collective memory of a nation that fought three Afghan wars during its imperial era, widens the opposition to the new empire which is reverting to the tactics of the Vietnam war.

Admittedly, the small clusters of trees that usually announce an Afghan settlement in a sprawling rugged land have not as yet been subjected to Agent Orange and the survivors of special operations do not have to fear that their generations to come will suffer from horrific genetic defects. But the nature of reprisals already connects Afghanistan to Vietnam.

Reprisals — often dubbed as pre-emptive action — do not respect the international border, and targets inside Pakistan are being attacked with impunity. Implications of civilian deaths in Afghanistan or Pakistan for the governments of the two states receive no serious attention. In fact, face -- saving statements made by both governments are quickly punctured with holes with triumphal details of operations and the new weapons being used.

Recently, in the course of a single week, the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan had to contend with the backlash of civilian casualties inflicted by special operations on either side of the border.

First President Karzai declared that military operations by foreign forces were causing unacceptable civilian casualties and warned that in future they would somehow be subject to his approval. This was a brave statement as the occupying army assigns him no place in its chain of command. Whatever faith the Afghans put in Karzai’s resolve was shattered when another indiscriminate attack in Helmand area killed even more civilians.

In Pakistan, the government had great difficulty in taking a credible position on lethal attacks by coalition forces inside its territory in Waziristan. It began by going into complete denial as in the past.

When that denial became unsustainable because of the graphic details of the operation in the American media, the Pakistan foreign office meekly re-stated the general principle that the incident underscored the need for better coordination and restraint by Nato forces.

The media in the United States went on to claim that the Pakistani government was complicit in the attack. No sensitivity was shown to a government that has sacrificed more than 700 soldiers and that is battling suicide bombers and assorted terrorists on its soil as a direct consequence of its commitment to the war on terror.

Every patriotic Pakistani is dismayed by the increasing number of terrorist attacks on Pakistani military personnel, outrages unprecedented in Pakistan’s history. The allegation that the government has failed to safeguard national sovereignty and the sanctity of its frontiers is particularly damaging at a time when a general election to the national and provincial assemblies is looming large on the horizon.

The reason why President Karzai is histrionics and the Pakistani government’s inane recitation of the need for better coordination across an inflamed border turn out to be equally futile is that the juggernaut unleashed by the invasion of Afghanistan rolls on regardless of the national interest of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

It is part of a global enterprise and the regimes in Kabul and Islamabad are valued only for facilitating its success.

The helplessness of the two governments which have no effective mechanism available to them to influence military actions of Nato and the US forces erodes the self-esteem and sense of honour of the two nations which in sheer frustration often end up accusing each other of bad faith.

Neither of them can call the abiding cause of instability in the area by its name — the foreign occupation of a Muslim land as part of a larger effort to eliminate opposition in the region to a US-ordained world order and western-dominated globalisation.

The joint declaration made by President Bush and President Karzai on May 23, 2005, stated that US military forces operating in Afghanistan would continue to have access to Bagram Air Base and its facilities, and facilities at other locations as might be mutually determined. Hundreds of aircraft are based at the Bagram airbase and 13 other bases in Afghanistan.

A defence analyst, G.Trowbridge, has said that “with installations in Iraq and Afghanistan, US troops would surround America’s biggest rival for influence in the region, Iran.”

This is another complicating factor. Iran had tacitly cooperated with the United States in overthrowing the Taliban regime only to face the prospect that after the successful occupation of Iraq, it might be the next preferred regime change mission of an American administration driven by the neo-conservatives.

The counter measures taken by Iran at the time have translated into its enhanced ability to impact on American fortunes in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Taliban have survived Nato’s spring offensive and are stretching the Nato forces in a larger area than ever before. Unless the United States abandons its hostility to Iran, Tehran may well see some advantage in the western forces getting bogged down in Afghanistan as well.

The Taliban are making the occupying powers desperate enough to disregard the laws of war; the resultant degradation is a new dimension of the Afghan conflict that may adversely shape events in the region for a long time to come. The Afghan conflict needs a radical new approach. It is pointless to perpetuate a discourse centred on the quantum of troops, efficiencies of the reconstruction teams and the capacity of the Pakistan government to “do more”.

A political solution has to be designed in consultation with regional states on the basis of giving up the objective of converting this land of fiercely independent people into just another slab from where to project imperial power. Afghanistan needs to be taken out from present and future great games in the region and helped generously and selflessly to become a successful neutral state at peace with itself and with the rest of the world.

It is a difficult task but it can be done if the hidden motives of occupation are given up in the larger interest of regional and international peace. It is time for another international conference to define Afghanistan’s place in the world with credible international guarantees to protect it.

The writer is a former foreign secretary.

“THOSE who prepare in advance, suffer less in emergencies.” This was observed by Lt. General Farooq Ahmad Khan, chairman of the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) during the plenary session of the Global Platform on Disaster Risk Reduction held in Geneva last month.

Ironically, within two weeks of this assertion, the pre-monsoon rain spell in Karachi and the NWFP and the tropical cyclone along the coastal belt of Sindh and Balochistan exposed the lowest level of preparedness against recurring hazards in Pakistan.

In Karachi, the drainage crisis, power failure, electrocution and the collapse of power-operated billboards caused the death of more than 250 people. Despite the timely warning by the Met department about the torrential rains, what was done at the institutional level to prepare areas and communities at risk? Government spokespersons are always quick to shift responsibility of destruction on the fury of nature without looking into institutional commitment, capacity and performance of the respective organs of governance.

For instance, what do they say in the case of casualties in Karachi? It was an obvious example of the failure of governance, town planning and services like water and sanitation as a result of institutional neglect of the principles of public safety.It’s an oft-repeated fact that disasters do not affect everybody equally. Their impact is different on various groups depending on the level of exposure and their degree of resilience to an impending disaster. According to a report, the entire city of Karachi suffered from torrential rainfall, but the areas inhabited by low-income people were the most threatened and this was the group that suffered most.

The Pakistan Fisherfolk Forum identified the three most affected union councils in Karachi including UC-8 Gabo Pat of Keamari Town, UC Ibrahim Hyderi of Bin Qasim Town and UC Rehri of Bin Qasim Town. “Being located on the coast of the Arabian sea these villages are always at the risk of sea-water-intrusions,” the PFF assessment report observed. “Due to rainwater pressure, the small water storage reservoirs/dams have broken and inundated the villages.” The report added. “It can safely be argued that if rainfall continues the sea will intrude into the settlement areas.”

However, early warnings sometimes prove counter-productive if the corresponding response mechanism is not in place. In May 1999, a tropical cyclone named 02A caused heavy damage in southeastern Sindh. The early warning for this cyclone was released by the Met department, but it was not heeded by the local administration that opted not to disseminate this warning because of the panic and law and order situation likely to be created by it.

Regarding the recent tropical cyclone Yemyin that formed in the Arabian sea on June 22, a weather advisory was issued. Dr Qamar-uz Zaman Chaudhry, the director-general of the meteorological department, notified through this advisory that a strong monsoon weather system (deep depression) over India was likely to approach the Sindh coastal area over 36 to 48 hours. The advisory further explained that under its influence widespread rains with scattered heavy to very heavy rainfall was likely in Sindh, especially southern Sindh, and the coastal areas including Karachi.

The advisory said that sea conditions would be very rough to extremely rough along the Sindh coast. Fishermen were advised to stop fishing activities from the afternoon of June 24 to that of June 27.

Elaborating on the implications of a deep depression over Balochistan, the weather advisory maintained: “Later the monsoon weather system may move towards the Balochistan coastal areas.” It said, “Under its influence widespread rains with scattered heavy to very heavy rainfall are also likely in Balochistan especially in coastal areas including Gwadar, Jiwani, Pasni, Ormara, Lasbela etc. Hilly areas especially in southern Balochistan may experience flash floods.” It also warned of rough sea conditions and advised fishermen not to venture out to sea from June 25 to June 28.

Four days after the warning, the cyclonic landfall occurred in the coastal areas of Sindh and Balochistan. The authorities had four long days to mobilise the corresponding response mechanism but it was not done. Later, the chief minister of Sindh, Arbab Ghulam Rahim was reported to have criticised the “weather authorities” for failing to issue timely warnings about the storm. This clearly reflects the level of coordination among state organs responsible for the security and safety of citizens in crisis situations. Intriguingly, the newly formed NDMA adds further to the confusion.

As stated in its official mandate, the NDMA is supposed to be a nodal agency for coordination and policy guidance on disaster management and preparedness in the country. However, the institutional capacity of this body is a matter of great concern as the whole authority has the total strength of 13 people out of which two are the personal staff of the chairman and two are UN-sponsored advisors to the chairman on disaster risk reduction.

There is one disaster response advisor while two senior members and two co-opted members make the NDMA team. The rest consists of IT staff and those responsible for other logistical issues. Apparently, there are no financial and logistical resources at the discretion of the NDMA which could be mobilised at the time of emergency.

Against this backdrop, the NDMA is confined to recycling the information it gathers through the Met department, provincial governments, newspapers and NGOs and presents it to the media at regularly held press briefings. It is pertinent to note that the ISPR, provincial governments and government agencies use the same track of “public-relations” in such an event. There is, therefore, an overlapping of information, which leads to contradictory statements and statistics leaving people confused.

The delay in relief provision caused distrust in communities. In Turbat for instance, people took out processions to protest against the negligence and unresponsiveness of authorities to provide immediate relief in terms of rescue, shelter and food. According to some media reports, tear-gas and bullets were used to disperse the protestors. Apparently, in some cases, stinking food was distributed among hungry victims which they threw back on the faces of the distributors.

District governments, which should be the first to respond to such calamities, complained that they were not provided with the relief goods and resources to meet the needs of the people in their constituencies. A district nazim of an affected area in Balochistan resigned in protest.

As we all know, Pakistan is prone to multiple hazards which are now being accentuated by ill-conceived development planning and haphazard urban growth in the country. There is a need to move from the traditional method of disaster response which is largely confined to relief and emergency management.

Though NDMA has recognised, at least at a rhetorical level, the need for a shift from emergency management to risk management, it needs to understand that early warning does not bring results unless a befitting response regime is in place. Therefore, the principles of policy and practice need to be changed by integrating disaster risk reduction into mainstream development planning.

It should be recognised that disasters are pending issues of governance and development and these cannot be dealt with in isolation as mere one-time events. Rather, disasters are to be looked upon as a process and should be addressed as such. Against this backdrop, the NDMA needs to first build its own capacity before building that of others. Mere press briefings and policy rhetoric might not serve the purpose.

amjad@rdpi.org

EVERY year on July 11, World Population Day is celebrated to draw attention to issues related to population and the importance of resolving these issues, and to focus on the impact of the growing population on development and for ensuing overall progress. It began as a celebration by the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) in 1988 to mark July 11, 1987, the day the world population hit the five billion mark.

According to a UN estimate the world population stood at 6.06 billion in 2000, which, increasing steadily at the rate of 78 million per year has reached 6.7 billion. Statistics predict that there will be 9.2 billion people in the world by the year 2050.Although the population growth rate has slowed worldwide, the issue still needs attention in developing countries where 90 per cent of the current growth is taking place. Unfortunately, these are the countries where the needs of the people far outweigh the resources. The problem is further exacerbated as they also have a huge unmet requirement for family planning services, without which reducing population growth is impossible.

Pakistan is the seventh most populous nation in the world and its 153 million strong population is growing at the rate of 1.8 per cent a year. It is estimated to double in the next 30-35 years. Its population rate growth has declined from 3.5 per cent in the ‘80s to 1.8 per cent this year; the government plans to reduce it further to 1.3 per cent by 2020.

There is no denying the need to further reduce the population growth rate as the current population size puts severe pressure on the country’s its resources; 23.9 per cent people of still live below the poverty line despite some reduction in the poverty level during the past few years.

Poverty is accompanied by unemployment, malnutrition, illiteracy, low status of women, exposure to environmental risks and limited access to social and health services, including family planning facilities, which hinder overall development. Poverty is also closely related to inequitable distribution of natural resources such as land and water, as well as environmental degradation.

Pakistan is committed to working towards achieving the Millennium Development Goals set by the United Nations, and poverty alleviation is one of these goals. Since poverty is directly linked to the size of the population in proportion to the available resources, the country the country cannot achieve any progress towards alleviating poverty, achieving economic progress, raising the living standards of masses, providing them the better education, health and employment if the population continues to grow at the present rate.

The fast increasing population has a direct bearing on the lives of the people and the resources of the country. It is understandable that the resources cannot be increased at the pace the population is increasing, so that limited resources are depleted at a fast pace. It puts pressure on education and health services, housing, job opportunities, etc. while cultivable land is divided into small portions affecting productivity and lower incomes for families. Injudicious and overuse of natural resources gives way to environmental degradation and ecological problems.

The situation calls for concerted efforts to control population growth, since without that all efforts to alleviate poverty will bear no fruit.

There is a need to create awareness among the general public, especially the young who are in their prime reproductive years, about the economic implications of over-population and its effect on environment, food, health, housing and education with a view to providing quality life to the masses through establishing a balance between the size of the population and the resources available.

In order to further reduce the population growth rate it is essential to analyse the factors that contribute to it. One is the unmet need of family planning facilities and the failure to deliver contraceptive and consultation services.

Another to it is the acceptance factor – for any programme to be successful it has to be accepted by the people who are affected the most. People in the country do not seem to be willing to limit the size of their family. While some believe that it is religiously not right to adopt family planning methods, a large number of them do not accept the idea for reasons of gender preference. Women still have a low status in our society and a son is considered to be a support for the parents in their old age and hence the large size of many families.

An important factor in this regard would be to improve the status of women and to empower them in all fields of life. Sadly, women are still discriminated against, and have no say even on issues regarding their marriage, fertility or reproductive choices. They bear the brunt of unwanted pregnancies because their husbands do not understand the need for family planning, or are averse to taking precautions themselves or because the women do not have access to the needed facilities.

Women should be given the right to take decisions, especially when it comes to deciding how many children they should have. The key to empowerment is education: women should be given equal opportunities for education at all levels. Educated women tend to have fewer children and participate more in development activities.

Better maternal and child healthcare facilities also play a vital role in determining the family size, as it will encourage parents to have fewer children.

Men have an equal responsibility and should be involved in all family planning programmes as it is men who take most decisions like whether to educate their daughters, when to marry them (early marriage leads to large size families and the use of contraceptive.

To make any family planning programme successful special emphasis should be on proper counselling and provision family planning services. This would work out better if the support of all segments of society, including ulema, teachers, opinion makers and community leaders, is sought.

An important approach would be to include population welfare in the curriculum, if not at school, at least at the college level. This idea has often been mooted but not carried to its logical end. It needs to be emphasised that population welfare is not just family planning and limiting the size of the family, but includes standards of living, health and nutrition, gender equality and empowerment of women, education on HIV/Aids, hepatitis, drug abuse, etc. which all are contributing factors to poverty alleviation.