A debilitating blow

FINALLY it is over. Not only has the May 12 deadline passed, there now appears no possibility that all the judges will be restored and the PML-N has therefore decided to leave the federal cabinet as it had pledged. The PPP’s lack of enthusiasm for getting all the judges, especially Iftikhar Chaudhry, reinstated had been known. Benazir Bhutto had made her stance on this issue clear, save for a very temporary change of heart. She was interested, she had said, in an independent judiciary and not in individuals. Asif Ali Zardari made public his own reservations about Iftikhar Chaudhry and the judiciary in general when he told an interviewer that the judges didn’t even consider his bail application when he was imprisoned. Then there were factors such as the NRO, and possible commitments extended to the president and the mediators who had facilitated the PPP’s rehabilitation. Surely, the party leadership should have kept this backdrop in mind while negotiating with the PML-N. More so because the Sharifs were consistent in their position — all judges must be restored.

This being the fundamental difference in the two parties’ attitude to the judges’ question, why did the PPP adopt the course it did? We believe the people would not be far wrong if they detected a demeaning duplicity on the PPP’s part throughout the negotiations. The Bhurban Declaration, signed on March 9, three weeks after the Feb 18 polls, was a blunder on the part of Mr Zardari and his party. Why did the party leadership agree to a 30-day deadline to restore the judges through a resolution when it had no intention of honouring it? Now, in addition to public concern over the fate of the deposed judges, the question agitating the people’s mind is about the survival of the grand coalition.

The PML-N has said it will quit the cabinet but will continue to support the PPP inside parliament. This is a positive decision, for a break-up of the coalition could do enormous harm to the already tottering economy. One cannot but despair that Ishaq Dar, who has been in the thick of negotiations with international financial institutions, may not remain finance minister for long. A change of horses in midstream could upset the planning he might have done to check the slide and give the inflation-squeezed people some relief in the budget. While the PPP will need to explain why it chose to renege on its promise, the irony of Nawaz Sharif gaining the moral high ground would not be lost on it. Had it not been for Benazir Bhutto’s insistence, the PML-N would have boycotted the polls and been as relevant today as Qazi Hussain Ahmed’s Jamaat-i-Islami and Imran Khan’s Tehrik-i-Insaf. The PPP will be well advised to try and save the coalition government in Punjab. For if that government collapses, the consequent instability and its impact on the economy is something the country can ill afford.

Reforming the Sindh police

TALKING big is one thing, delivering on promises quite another. It is all too common in this country for politicians and public servants to say what is expedient and then renege on their pledges or ignore their commitments. But Shoaib Suddle is neither a politician nor a run-of-the-mill officer of the state, and as such he will be held to a higher standard when it comes to matching words with deeds. On Saturday, Sindh’s provincial police officer detailed his plans to “enforce ruthless accountability” in a police force that, in his words, is facing a “serious internal crisis” due to “years of politicisation and criminalisation”. PPO Suddle certainly has his work cut out for him. Armed criminals are running rampant in Sindh and there is a growing sense of insecurity in both urban and rural areas. Though widely respected, Mr Suddle also has powerful enemies who are expected to make his tenure as rocky as possible.

His greatest challenge, however, will come from within. The Sindh police, like its counterparts elsewhere in the country, is set in its ways and arresting decades of degeneration is a mammoth and unenviable task. But it is time someone cracked the whip and we hope Mr Suddle will succeed where those who preceded him failed. No one expects a complete transformation and any headway made in tackling police corruption, inefficiency and apathy would be laudable. According to the PPO there will be “zero tolerance” for corruption, the performance of police officers will be reviewed on a weekly basis, and external (read political) pressure will have no bearing on transfers, postings and promotions. Ten thousand new recruits a year have been promised but a larger force with the same work ethic — for which poor pay is partially responsible — will serve no purpose whatsoever. The PPO will also need to take cognizance of how the local government system has changed the situation on the ground, with area notables even more powerful now because of their political clout. Then there is VIP and guard duty which is a major drain on resources. How can there be any justification for thousands of policemen protecting only the influential? Mr Suddle has apparently set up a special section under his supervision that will hear public complaints, but he would also do well to streamline and publicise the workings of the provincial Public Safety and Police Complaints Commission. Clearly, the new PPO will need all the help he can muster.

Hepatitis on campus

DEATH by any means is painful, only more so if its cause can be prevented. The results of blood tests carried out at Punjab University in Lahore show how lack of prevention could be endangering the lives of many young men and women. The tests, conducted by a student organisation with help from doctors, paints a grim picture of students’ health. It reveals that 139 out of the 2,000 students tested were infected with various types of hepatitis and at least one was found to be HIV positive. If nothing else, this high number of severely infected students follows the pattern found in the population generally. Although the student’s party attacked the university administration for the prevalence of these diseases and held the poor state of hygiene at the campus responsible for it, it is not fair to heap the blame on the management. Hepatitis C and hepatitis B, which were found to be most common, also have a high incidence in the overall population. They are not waterborne diseases as is being made out to be. Of the various varieties, only hepatitis A can be prevented by ensuring that the water supply is potable.

The university administration claims that the blood tests are a political move and an attempt to give it a black name by an organisation trying to arm-twist PU into submission. The varsity authorities also argue that water available at the campus is lab-tested and has been found fit for human consumption, and as such the students’ ill health cannot be blamed on what they eat and drink on campus. This claim may be correct. But the university would do well to arrange for the vaccination of all students against hepatitis B, the only variety for which vaccine is available. In fact all universities in the country should follow suit. After all, if schools are considered the best place to give children anti-polio drops, why can’t colleges and universities become a convenient venue for administering anti-hepatitis vaccines?

OTHER VOICES - Sindhi Press

A revival of old scenario

Hilal Pakistan

In Pakistan, nothing is impossible. It is said that nothing is final in politics. This idea is applicable to the case of the ruling coalition which came into being after the Feb 18 elections, on the basis of national interest, national reconciliation, the restoration of democracy and independence of the judiciary.

The recent developments indicate that it is on the verge of a break-up. Friendship and bonhomie between the two coalition partners may come to an end due to the judges’ issue. The Bhurban declaration, the Dubai accord and talks in London have proved futile. What kind of alliance was this that it could not last more than one and a half months? There is still scepticism about the reinstatement of the judges within the deadline. Maybe a new deadline will be fixed.

The stance of the PPP shows that it is avoiding honouring its pledge and is succumbing to the use of delaying tactics. It appears that someone else is pulling the strings of the puppets. Reports from London suggest that the PPP–PML-N coalition has virtually come to a breaking point, though it has not been formally announced yet. Nawaz Sharif has called for resignations from his party’s ministers, preparing the party to withdraw from the PPP-led coalition government. To reduce the PPP’s dependence on the PML-N in terms of numbers and prevent collapse in this sense after the latter walks out, PPP co-chairperson Mr Asif Ali Zardari met MQM chief Altaf Hussain and held negotiations to extend the alliance from the provincial level to the national level.

There are reports that a formula of PML-Q minus the Chaudhries of Gujrat is being devised, making this party more acceptable to the PPP. Political observers are of the view that the coming days would be witness to a ruling coalition where Nawaz Sharif would be sidelined. Who is playing this game? This has become an open secret after the statement of US ambassador Anne Peterson which is enough to explain that the entire scenario is being created to defend the interests of someone...

The aspirations of the people have not been met as nothing has changed except the faces. The sacrifices rendered by the people all seem to have been in vain… The lawyers’ movement has not died yet and there are strong indications that it may be revived in the coming days. This time the lawyers will not be alone as more sections of society will join them. On the other hand, political forces which were part of the previous government are heading back to the corridors of power. These are the forces which had blocked the path of democratic forces and strengthened dictatorship. It seems like a revival of the old scenario. — (May 11)

— Selected and translated by Sohail Sangi

Time is running out

THE transfer of political power to the elected representatives of the people is occurring at an exceptionally difficult time for the Pakistani economy. I have been a student of the Pakistani economy for the last four decades and I know that the country has faced many crises before.

They were the ones in 1947 when Pakistan was born, in the late 1940s and the early 1950s when the Indian leadership attempted to smother Pakistan economically, and in 1969-71 when a deep political crisis resulted in splitting the country into two halves. Then came the 1970s when the momentum of growth was lost as a result of the deep restructuring of the economy. In 1998-99, the country had to deal with foreign economic sanctions imposed in the wake of the decision to test nuclear devices.

Now in 2008, we are watching the unravelling of the model of economic growth put in place by the previous administration. This is happening at a time when the global economy is going through enormous strains and stresses to which adjustments need to be made.

Is this crisis deeper than those the country dealt with previously? This is a question I will leave for economic historians to answer. But, while the developments in the global economy are playing a part, actions of men — those who made public policy in the last eight years — bear a great deal of responsibility for the grim situation we face today.

Some economists have counted several ‘deficits’ the new set of policymakers must deal with. I will briefly deal with four of these, three of which are increasing at an unsustainable level. These are fiscal deficits, trade deficit and the current account deficit.

The three deficits are related to one another. The fiscal deficit increases aggregate demand which increases imports. Trade deficit can result in a large balance of payments deficit when external flows are not available in needed amounts to cover the difference between the receipts of exports and the expenditure on imports.

Policymakers must simultaneously act to deal with all three deficits. They must examine the government’s revenues and expenditures in order to narrow the fiscal deficit; they must formulate a trade policy to increase exports and, if need be, to reduce imports; they must adopt measures to increase the inflow of foreign savings.

The fourth deficit the economy must handle relates to the quality of the human resource. This is the outcome of decades of neglect of education and research. This is the only deficit that is not increasing but it is still large. Its increase has been constrained by the combined effort of the private sector and, in recent years, by the public sector. I will write about this subject in a forthcoming article.

My colleagues, economists Hafiz Pasha and Pervez Hasan, have calculated what we consider to be sustainable levels of two of the four deficits listed above — five per cent for the fiscal and four per cent for the current account deficit. The actions needed to address these should be taken within policy frameworks in order to bring predictability and transparency to the process of adjustment. The Fiscal Responsibility and Debt Limitation Act enacted in 2005 provides a framework for the fiscal side. It needs to be strengthened with more focus on limiting the current expenditure.

There should also be a provision for reporting by the ministry of finance to the national legislature on a quarterly basis. Similarly, the central bank governor should appear every quarter before a committee of parliament to report on the state of inflation and various monetary targets that are being used to keep it under control.

Today, in discussing the direction of public policy I would like to focus more on how it should be made and where it should be made rather than its content. In discussing the ‘how’ and ‘where’ aspect, I would like to mention three things.

First the ‘how’. There should be much greater people’s input in the making of public policy. As democracy gains a foothold in our political culture, the legislative system must play a more active role in the making of policy and in keeping watch over its implementation. Legislative committees need to play a role and to do that they should be provided with staff support.

The legislators themselves will have to learn their trade. They have to realise that they are sent to their respective assemblies to serve the interests of their constituents and write legislations while keeping the working of the executive under review.

Second, in making economic policies, changes in the global system must be constantly factored in. Take, for instance, the recent rise in international commodity prices, which poses a problem for consumers in Pakistan but, at the same time, offers an opportunity for agricultural producers. The recent increase in the price of commodities has turned the terms of trade in favour of agricultural producers.

Price incentives that have become available should be used to increase agricultural productivity, the farmers’ income and reduce the incidence of rural poverty. At the same time, poor consumers for whom food purchases account for over 60 per cent of the family budget should be assisted through various measures including cash transfers and employment generating public works projects.

Let me now turn to the question of ‘when’? There has to be much greater responsibility assigned to the provinces in the making of public policy. This was accommodated in the original 1973 Constitution which, over time, got subverted.

Pakistan now has a highly centralised system of governance that needs to change and much greater authority needs to devolve to the provinces. The system of local government established in 2001 needs to be strengthened with greater authority devolving to the local government institutions.

I should emphasise that the ultimate objective of economic development is improving the lives of the citizenry, in particular of those who live in a state of absolute poverty. That too is a large subject and I will deal with it separately at a later date.

Time is fast running out for the new policymakers to address the problem the country faces. There must not be any further delay. While the teething problems faced by the emerging political order need to be dealt with, this must not occupy the entire time of the new political establishment. Politicians who have been voted into their offices by the people must give even more attention to economic matters. I hope the new set of policymakers will give it their full attention.

Nuke deal set to time out

FACED with continuing domestic opposition to the United States-India nuclear cooperation deal, the Indian government has launched ‘one last push’ to complete negotiations before the window of opportunity slams shut.

But the chances of success of its latest bid appear to be no higher than they were some weeks ago.

Going by the recent deliberations of a special joint committee on the deal, formed by the ruling United Progressive Alliance and its Left allies, obstacles to its passage remain in place. The eighth meeting of the committee, established last year, failed to produce agreement.

At the meeting, UPA representatives asked the Left to give the government ‘‘clearance” to finalise an India-specific agreement on inspections (safeguards) for civilian nuclear facilities, which it recently inked with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The agreement is a precondition for approval of the deal by the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers’ Group (NSG), and its subsequent ratification by the US Congress.

However, the Left demanded further clarifications on the safeguards agreement before it offers its response. Although the government has promised to give these clarifications in the next few days, it seems unlikely that the committee’s next meeting, scheduled for May 28, will clinch the issue.

The Left seems to be in no mood to dilute its opposition to the deal. In its view, the deal is an unequal bargain and will draw India into the US strategic orbit and compromise its sovereignty.

‘‘Unless the UPA-Left differences are overcome by the end of May, we are likely to miss the chance to put up the agreement for approval by the IAEA Board of Governors, which is due to meet from June 2 to 6,” says a member of the UPA negotiating team, who insisted on anonymity.

The next Board meeting after June is only scheduled for Sep 22. By then, the US domestic political timetable to discuss the deal in Congress will have run its course. The ‘‘realistic” deadline for sending it to Congress is generally understood to be no later than July, after which the election agenda will overwhelm domestic US politics

The government’s current gambit is to try to delink the safeguards agreement from another crucial component of the deal, namely, a bilateral agreement signed last year, called the ‘‘123 agreement” after Section 123 of the US Atomic Energy Act of 1954.

The Left parties object to the ‘‘123 agreement” on the ground that it restricts the scope of U.S.-India civilian nuclear cooperation, and affects India’s strategic interests, as well as her sovereignty in foreign policy-making.

They also hold that the ‘‘123 agreement” is anchored in a special law enacted by the U.S. Congress at the end of 2006, called the Henry J Hyde Act, which imposes several obligations and restrictions on India that are unrelated to its nuclear programme.

Supporters of the deal recently launched a campaign against the Left. They argue that the Left should not logically oppose the IAEA safeguards agreement because it is independent of the ‘‘123 agreement” and not US-specific. The safeguards agreement is necessary if India is to have nuclear commerce with other countries such as Russia and France, which the Left favours.

Some other advocates of the deal, including India’s former arms-control negotiator Arundhati Ghose, who famously opposed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty at the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva in 1996, have also accused the Left of working to obstruct the deal for ‘‘unashamedly ideological” reasons and thus forgo opportunities to develop India’s nuclear power potential.

The supporters recently got a boost from a somewhat unlikely source, former National Security Adviser Brajesh Mishra, considered a close confidant of former Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee of the main opposition, Hindu-nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party. On Apr 27, Mishra, who had earlier opposed the nuclear deal, executed a U-turn and said that India should sign it; and not doing so would have ‘‘harmful effects”. This directly contradicts the BJP’s stand.

However, Mishra’s support for the deal came too late. He was promptly repudiated by the BJP’s top leaders, including former home minister Lal Krishna Advani and former foreign minister Jaswant Singh. Vajpayee, who is ailing, has not spoken on the issue.

The deal’s advocates earlier this week also seized an opportunity offered by a statement issued by Non-Aligned Movement states which are party to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which were meeting in Geneva in the preparatory committee for the 2010 NPT review conference. The statement called for ‘‘complete prohibition” of any kind of nuclear cooperation with NPT non-signatories.

It said that ‘‘recent developments, in particular, the nuclear cooperation agreement signed by a nuclear weapons state (the US) with a non-party to the NPT (India) is a matter of great concern.” The statement was strongly backed by Egypt, Indonesia and Iran.

The deal’s proponents cite this as an attempt by other countries, including those of the NAM, of which India has been a leading member, to scuttle the deal and impair India’s ambitious nuclear power development programme. They argue that allowing this will not be compatible with the Left’s own support for the programme.

‘‘It is true that India’s major Left parties find themselves somewhat in the spot here because they don’t categorically oppose nuclear power, as they should” argues Achin Vanaik, a professor of international relations and global politics at Delhi University. ‘‘But that does not answer the Left’s questions about the content of the IAEA safeguards agreement.”

The Left has not been shown the text of the agreement on the ground that that would be a breach of the negotiation process. But it has raised a number of issues about the agreement, in particular whether it addresses India’s concerns about uninterrupted fuel supply, transfer of technology, reciprocity of obligations, and implications for India’s foreign and security policies.

M.V. Ramana, a nuclear affairs analyst based at the Centre for Interdisciplinary Studies in the Environment and Development in Bangalore argues that “there is a problem here because the IAEA is not a supplier of nuclear fuel. Nor can it uphold or guarantee the ‘right’ that India demands to build a strategic fuel reserve and to take ‘corrective measures’ in case fuel supplies are suspended.”

The questions raised by the Left are unlikely to be resolved anytime soon.

‘‘At the end of the day,” says Vanaik, ‘‘the critical issue is that of the political balance of power. The UPA, which is facing protests because of rising prices and a massive agrarian crisis, seems to be in no position to confront the Left and risk losing its support, which is crucial to its survival in Parliament.’’ — IPS News