Building trust

IN a welcome change of tone, Washington has agreed to upgrade the existing fleet of Pakistan Air Force’s F-16 aircraft. The move can be seen as a curtain-raiser to Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani’s forthcoming visit to the US, with the hope that it is a sign of America’s Pakistan policy finally maturing because it seems to believe in investing in a democratically elected government as opposed to dealing directly with the military establishment. This can provide the much needed, and hitherto elusive, trust that is so very essential for an enduring friendship to take root between any two nations. Also, there are indications that the US may ease the restrictions imposed on non-stop commercial flights from Pakistan to America, which will be welcomed by Pakistanis travelling to the US. It was heartening, after a long time, to hear the State Department and the White House defend unequivocally the decision to upgrade Pakistan’s F-16s when faced with questions from certain quarters. This, too, will go down well with the Pakistani public. Islamabad’s detractors need only to pay attention to Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi’s rationale put forth in London the other day, defining his government’s strategy to combat terrorism with assistance from Pakistan’s friends. The expectation that Islamabad too should benefit from a similar nuclear deal that the US has signed with India makes sense.

The F-16 upgrades offered to Pakistan will allow its fleet night vision, enhanced radar capabilities and better onboard communication with ground troops, enabling the flying machines to be among the most modern available today to any air force. The move comes after Pakistan requested that part of the counter-terrorism funds the US had already approved to help Islamabad fight the global war on terror be diverted to upgrading its existing fleet of ageing F-16 aircraft instead of Islamabad shopping for other military hardware at this time. The argument that the PAF’s enhanced capabilities could trigger an arms race in South Asia falls flat in the face of the emerging ground realities today — especially now that the US-India nuclear deal is a fait accompli.

The truth is that Pakistan and the US have a common enemy in terrorism. Because Pakistan is told repeatedly that many of the terrorists threatening its own stability and world peace are operating from its territory, it makes sense that the elected government in Islamabad, rather than Washington, set its priorities in how best to deal with the scourge. The consensus among the ruling coalition parties in Pakistan is that use of force is the option to be exercised when persuasion has failed. This should be respected by all concerned. The blame game that Pakistan is not doing enough must stop. Unless there is complete trust between the US-led partners and Pakistan in their fight against terrorism, little can be hoped to be achieved.

Back to square one?

IT is a pity that recent progress made on the West-Iran nuclear standoff should once again be offset by a general lack of trust and the uncompromising attitudes of the Iranian and US political leaderships. On Wednesday — days after talks in Geneva which were attended for the first time by a senior

American delegate — President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made it clear that Iran had no intention of giving up its nuclear agenda. On the same day, the White House announced that, while it hoped Tehran would end its atomic drive, there would be further sanctions if it did not. It is a resolve that is bound to be echoed and acted upon by the next American administration as well, regardless of its political stripes. This is borne out by the recent statements by Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama, who has extensively discussed Iran’s atomic programme in private meetings with Israeli leaders, apart from criticising Tehran in public in strong tones.

Following the Geneva parleys between Iranian officials and the EU-led six-nation delegation, Iran was given a new deadline to respond to the West’s offer of incentives in return for freezing its atomic programme. Else it could face yet another round of sanctions. Unfortunately, unbending political positions on both sides indicate that there is little likelihood of a thaw. This dampens the optimism that had arisen earlier when Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki hinted at a temporary nuclear freeze or when, more recently, Mr Ahmadinejad welcomed the presence of William Burns, the American official, at the Geneva talks.

The threat of military action against Iran still remains. True, it is not as imminent as it once appeared when the US was more forceful in its rhetoric about containing Iran’s nuclear ambitions. But Israel’s extensive military exercises conducted last month and Iran’s test-firing of missiles have once again set alarm bells ringing — especially as there has been no breakthrough, and the possibilities of achieving one anytime soon appear to be slim. The situation cannot be allowed to deteriorate. It is time all sides showed flexibility and ended distrust. Iran can do this by halting the production of weapons-grade uranium without freezing the nuclear programme as such, while the western countries can put pressure on Israel to desist from bullying Tehran and acting in a way calculated to throw the entire region into turmoil.

Victory off the field

A BIT against the run of play, one may say, but the decision by the International Cricket Council not to shift the forthcoming Champions Trophy out of Pakistan is just what it should have been. There was stiff resistance from certain quarters, but the ICC held firm. Which is something it is not particularly known for. The credit for making it happen must go to the Pakistan Cricket Board, which fought this battle all on its own without any input from the foreign ministry, even though the whole issue is related to the country’s perception abroad. The PCB has taken a lot of flak in recent years, and deservingly so, for its failure to ensure an acceptable level of team performance on the field but the ICC decision is a major victory off it. The master stroke in its strategy was to take the Asian members on board, especially India with its massive marketing muscle. It may not sound politically correct, but circumstances have created a whites-versus-brown situation within the ICC where Australia, South Africa, England and New Zealand are trying to pit themselves against the so-called Asian bloc. It is an unfortunate reality, but also a sign of the times.

As for the hue and cry raised by players’ association in Australia and South Africa, it is too flimsy to be taken seriously. Just recently, many of these players were taking part in the Indian Premier League when seven blasts left some 80 dead in Jaipur, which was the base camp, among others, of South African captain Graeme Smith as well as a couple of Australian stars. Besides, there were quite a few big names in other teams that also visited Jaipur without so much as making a noise. They all stayed back and fulfilled their commitments even though they were not on national duty and could have taken their own decisions. Certainly, IPL mega bucks were the only deciding factor. When it comes to national duty, however, their reaction is reflective of an entirely different mindset. If this does not constitute double standards, what else does.

OTHER VOICES - North American Press

Particularly bad timing

The New York Times

WITH the global economy slowing, prices soaring for oil and food and protectionist passions boiling up everywhere, it is an especially dangerous time to give up on international trade negotiations. Unfortunately, the world’s leading trading nations seem ready to abandon the World Trade Organisation’s seven-year effort to reduce some of the world’s obstacles to trade.

The talks, initiated in 2001 in Doha, Qatar, were supposed to help the world’s poorest countries. An agreement would open markets to their main products, like food and textiles, and reduce the lavish farm subsidies in the rich world that have put poor farmers out of business. After years of wrangling, the negotiations now appear to be deadlocked.

While the reluctance to cut farm subsidies in Europe and the United States had been a main obstacle, the big developing countries also bear a lot of responsibility.

At marathon meetings this week in Geneva, the United States offered to further lower the ceiling for its agricultural subsidies — to roughly $15bn a year from the current $48bn. Europe — with France objecting — also fleshed out a new offer.

Big developing countries, notably Brazil and India, however, are insisting on even deeper subsidy cuts. And they are refusing to submit any offers of their own to reduce tariffs on industrial imports. They argue that the wealthy countries really aren’t giving up much. American agricultural subsidies, they note, have already fallen sharply as food prices have soared, to about half the proposed new ceiling.

We fear the whole process is on the verge of collapse. This is the last chance to get a deal during the Bush administration, experts say.

Locking in lower farm subsidies would encourage direly needed agricultural investment in Africa and in poor nations that are struggling with soaring food prices. Curbing food export barriers would also push down prices.

If the world’s richest nations give in to the temptations of protectionism, the world’s poorest countries will suffer the most. But no one, including the rich nations, will escape the damage to the global economy. — (July 25)

EU’s interest in Pakistan

A COLUMN on European concerns over Pakistan’s uncertain political future may seem irrelevant as Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani and his top aides prepare to visit Washington.

But here’s the rub: while America can provide Pakistan with military hardware to tackle urgent security risks, consolidating democracy and avoiding economic collapse will require help from a variety of actors, including support and assistance from the European Union.

Security and democracy/development are closely interconnected — as are US and EU interests in Pakistan. European governments are just as concerned and frustrated as the US administration at the mounting casualties among their troops in Afghanistan. Both the US and the EU are increasing pressure on Pakistan to take stronger action against the Taliban forces taking sanctuary on its territory.

Nato Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer will be in Pakistan in early autumn to press home the point, albeit probably in a less stark manner than recent warnings by senior US officials, including Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mike Mullen.

However, while they may harbour similar fears about the increase in Taliban activity both in Afghanistan and within Pakistan, US and EU policymakers appear to be approaching the challenge in different ways.

The US continues to view Pakistan through a relatively narrow security prism. The Pentagon has a strong — some would argue the strongest — say in US policy towards Pakistan. Bolstering Pakistan’s military through assistance that includes financial aid is therefore likely to remain a top US priority, even under the next US administration.

In contrast, European policymakers are taking a broader, multifaceted approach to tackling the challenge of increasing militancy, religious extremism, and democracy and development in Pakistan. The focus is on building and reinforcing ramshackle state institutions, not backing personalities. It is about consolidating Pakistan’s still ramshackle reform efforts, improving the functioning of the National Assembly and encouraging the protection of minorities as well as protecting human rights.

Recent EU discussions have focused on possible funding for development projects in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (Fata) although implementing such a blueprint is conditional on the security situation in the area. Europeans could also support recent suggestions by some Pakistani economists for the convening of an international conference to draw up a badly needed balance-of-payments aid package to help Pakistan weather the current economic crisis.

Europe’s determination to step up its engagement with Pakistan is certainly new and almost as certainly linked to the worsening situation in Afghanistan. EU governments, reluctant to forge stronger ties with Pakistan under military rule, see opportunities for cooperation with the country’s democratically elected leaders. “We have to do more in Pakistan now that it has a democratic government,” EU External Relations Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner told this correspondent recently, adding that the focus of EU actions in the country would be on encouraging democracy and reform.

Turning those good intentions into concrete actions remains a challenge, however.

Hurdles exist on both sides. Initial European optimism about Pakistan’s future following the February elections is giving way to a more sceptical assessment of the coalition’s policies and priorities. European diplomats admit to being discouraged by the infighting within the government, disagreements with and over President Musharraf and the focus on political score-settling which they warn is distracting Pakistani policymakers from tackling the twin challenges of rising religious extremism and a rapidly deteriorating economy.

The overriding fear, say many Europeans, is that Pakistan’s perpetually squabbling politicians are ignoring vitally important security threats, especially Taliban efforts to destabilise Pakistan.

Finding out just who is in charge in Pakistan is the overarching problem, according to some senior diplomats. While the prime minister is definitely a first port of call for EU ministers and officials, many also know they must meet Asif Zardari or his allies in the Pakistan People’s Party as well as representatives of Nawaz Sharif’s Pakistan Muslim League.

Anxious to consolidate the role of the National Assembly, Europeans also try and make a point of meeting members of the legislature as well as members of provincial governments, especially the ruling Awami National Party government in the NWFP.

And then there’s Gen Parvez Kayani. EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana made it a point not to meet Kayani during his visit to Islamabad earlier this year as proof of European backing for the new civilian government. But many in Europe recognise that when it comes to key security issues, Kayani and the army cannot be ignored.

Distractions also exist in Europe. While Pakistan and Afghanistan are high on the EU agenda at the moment, Europe’s main priorities continue to lie in its immediate neighbourhood. Meetings of EU foreign ministers are dominated by discussions on the Balkans and the Middle East.

Of the 27 EU states, Britain remains the most consistent in its focus on Pakistan but upgrading relations with Islamabad has not so far been a key priority for EU heavyweights like Germany and France. This could change, however, if French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner makes good on his promise to put relations with Pakistan higher up on the bloc’s agenda during the current French EU presidency.

Building a stronger pro-Pakistan lobby within the increasingly influential European Parliament also remains a challenge. The EU assembly has so far invested a great deal of time and energy in discussing and passing resolutions on the situation in Kashmir. In the process, however, the interests of Pakistan per se have been ignored.

Many in Pakistan appear to make no distinction between US and EU policies. That can be expected from the general public, used to viewing ‘the West’ as a monolithic entity. The EU is partly to blame for its failure to project a stronger profile in Pakistan, and in other parts of Asia.

Uncertainty over the future of the reform treaty — which will create the post of an EU foreign minister and a diplomatic service — following its rejection by Irish voters in June is partly responsible for Europe’s lack of visibility in Asia and elsewhere.

America will undoubtedly remain the most powerful foreign player in Pakistan for decades to come. But it’s time Pakistani policymakers sought broader international support. The message from Brussels is that the EU is ready and willing to provide such backing — but Islamabad must first get its act together.

The writer is Dawn’s correspondent in Brussels.

West Bank plan

CONTROVERSIAL plans for the first new settlement to be built in the occupied West Bank in almost a decade have been revived by Israel’s defence ministry, despite calls by the international community for a freeze on construction, which is illegal under international law.

A key planning committee at the ministry has approved a plan to build 20 homes in a new settlement in the Jordan valley to be called Maskiot. The defence minister, Ehud Barak, has not yet given his approval, although Israeli reports on Thursday suggested the plan would go ahead soon.

The decision comes in the same week as two high-profile visits to Israel by Gordon Brown and Barack Obama, who both talked about the importance of a two-state solution to end the Middle East conflict.

All settlements in occupied territory are illegal under international law and Palestinian officials were quick to criticise the proposal.

“This is destroying the process of a two-state solution,” said Saeb Erekat, a senior Palestinian negotiator. “I hope the Americans will make the Israelis revoke the decision. I think they can make the Israelis do this.”

The US road map, which is the basis of the current peace talks, calls for a freeze on all settlement activity.

However, the Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, has promised not to build new settlements. On Thursday his spokesman, Mark Regev, said: “Israel will continue to honour our commitments. There will be no new settlements, there will be no expansion of existing settlements.” The spokesman added that neither Barak nor the prime minister had approved the plan.

It is not the first plan for a Maskiot settlement. Israel said two years ago that it planned to build Maskiot but the plan was frozen under the then defence minister Amir Peretz after international disapproval.

Maskiot began as a military position, which is how many settlements started. Then a religious school was established and this year several families arrived in mobile homes at the site to claim it as their own. If the plan goes ahead Maskiot would be the first new formal settlement in the West Bank for about nine years.

—The Guardian, London