What the people of Pakistan deserve

THIS Independence Day as we tune into patriotic song and dance or witness the festive youth in the streets, out on a daylong celebration, it is the resilience of the people despite the odds confronting them which must be saluted. Here is a nation that comes together as one, in spite of everything that tries to divide it. This is true especially when there is a cause that demands a national response, be it the earthquake tragedy which altered our northern terrain in 2005, or now the tremors shaking the presidency and the parliament which will reshape Islamabad’s political landscape in the days ahead. The bravery with which the people have been weathering the many storms is commendable. There have been highs and lows, the latter arguably outnumbering the former; nonetheless, on the positive side of unfolding events, we have moved ahead on the road to democracy, for one.

It has been a tough year. But first to developments that inspire optimism: Pakistan at 60 was confronted once again with making a choice between autocratic rule clothed as it may have been in a quasi-democratic dispensation and a democratic order that would truly represent the will of the people. It has been a year when exiled, popular leaders came home to a tumultuous welcome; a year when civil society waged an uncompromising struggle for establishing the rule of law, and won considerable ground against the arbitrary dismissal of the Chief Justice of Pakistan by Gen Musharraf. The pre-Nov 3 judiciary finally had an opportunity to redeem itself by restoring its sacked chief despite immense pressure to impeach him. Gen Musharraf, who came to power as a result of a military coup in 1999 and was subsequently elected president by his handpicked deputies in parliament, was forced to resign his army post. His re-election by the outgoing parliament was opposed equally forcefully by democratic forces and civil society; increased public pressure then ensured that those who might have planned to rig the February election were left frozen in their tracks. The subsequent triumph of the people’s will in the fairest election held since 1970 was a watershed.

On the pessimistic side of events, strengthening law and order and the bid by civil society to enforce the rule of law by reinstating the 60 odd judges sent packing on Nov 3 has remained a pipedream. Imposition of emergency rule, abrogation of the Constitution, though partially, and the gagging of the independent media has come back to haunt the nation. Extremists have gained much more ground than it was believed possible; they have struck with impunity at a time and place of their own choosing; the writ of the state has receded in the north-west; the insurgency in Balochistan has continued, with little effort made to reach out to the aggrieved nationalist elements there. Pakistan lost one of its finest and most talented leaders in Benazir Bhutto, with only reluctant efforts made to bring her killers to justice. Spiralling inflation and staple food shortages have stalked the people perhaps like never before; the economy showed signs of decline, with the rupee weakening, foreign exchange reserves dwindling and foreign investment significantly receding. The foreign policy has remained a slippery territory; bilateral relations between Pakistan and two of its neighbours, Afghanistan and India, have hit snags; those with the US have remained at their ambivalent best; incursions into Pakistani territory by Nato forces have continued from Afghanistan, as has the trust deficit between Islamabad and Washington/ Kabul.

As we write these lines, the ruling coalition is set to bring an impeachment motion before parliament against a president it sees as an obstacle in the way of carrying out the will of the people. The president is believed to be weighing his options, including resignation. Good governance may have been elusive before and after the February election, but a democratically elected government is more likely to respond to the people’s needs and aspirations than an autocratic setup. This is the hope Pakistanis hang on to. They have paid a heavy price for deviations and diversions made off the path of democratic rule. The country can ill-afford any more political adventurism. Today, as we celebrate freedom from colonial rule that ended 61 years ago, it is time to bury once and for all its homegrown, devilish incarnation: autocracy. Those in the government, the opposition, the presidential camp and the barracks must let the democratic process, and not individual or institutional ego, take its course as they weigh the choices before them — because the people deserve better.

The Georgian debacle

TUESDAY’S six-point peace deal between Tbilisi and Moscow might have given the embattled Georgians the respite they had been so desperately looking for, but will the truce hold? After all, the dispute between Russia and Georgia over the latter’s renegade territories is a longstanding one and defies an instantaneous solution. The truce clearly shows that mighty Russia has the upper hand. For this, Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili has only himself to blame. Had he not violated a ceasefire — and that too just hours after it had been reached — with separatists in the breakaway province of South Ossetia last Thursday, he may not have felt the full wrath of the Russians who do not want the territory to be under Georgia’s control. Russia, which has peacekeepers stationed in Georgia but is accused of aiding the separatists, said that Georgia’s attack threatened its own citizens in South Ossetia. (For the record, Moscow has been distributing Russian passports in the province). It retaliated with full force, extending its show of military strength beyond South Ossetia.

Reports say hundreds of people died in the almost weeklong fighting while the UN estimates that thousands have been rendered homeless. Fear of further onslaughts has led to citizens stocking up on fuel and food supplies. It is not only the insecurity of war that is now dogging the Georgians. For many, there is also the fear of ethnic divisions. However, even though President Saakashvili made a grave miscalculation, his punishment, as he watched his country being pummelled, far exceeds his crime. For the issue is not simply one of protecting the human rights of its people as Russia makes it out to be. Russia has for long resented Georgia’s pro-West tilt as it has always regarded the Caucasus region as its sphere of influence. With Georgia’s bid for Nato membership (that it was denied some time ago but which it is still pursuing) it feels the danger of being hemmed in by a traditional rival. Oil and gas politics have also enhanced this feeling of insecurity for Moscow since several pipelines transit Georgia, and some could bypass Russia that is then faced with the prospect of greater competition.

The peace deal brokered by French President Nicolas Sarkozy envisions the troops of both countries withdrawing to their former positions. On the face of it they may, even though eyewitness reports say that violations are still being committed. But the conflict has left Russia in a dominant position, proving that the Georgian military whose prowess had been enhanced by the US and Israel, is still no match for its aggressive rival. The international community will have to keep the pressure up on both to stick to the conditions of the deal until a more comprehensive plan, that includes the status of Georgia’s disputed territories, is on the table.

Abject surrender

PAKISTAN’S diplomacy has historically been imbued with imagination and initiative. Recently, however, there was an occasion when our effort to engage in a salvage operation was stopped virtually in midstream.

Its origins go back to the July 2005 George Bush-Manmohan Singh joint statement that carried the US commitment to provide civilian nuclear technology to India. Bush had then stated that his administration would not only “adjust US laws and policies”, but also “work with friends and allies to adjust international regimes to enable full nuclear energy cooperation and trade with India”.

A year later, the US Congress passed the Henry Hyde US-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Act of 2006, which Bush signed into law on Dec 18, 2006. Thereafter on July 27, 2007, India and the US reached a consensus on the text of a nuclear cooperation agreement, prompting Bush to reiterate the US desire to base relations with India on “a strategic vision that transcends even today’s most pressing security concerns”. However, for this agreement to be put into operation, India and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) needed to agree on a Safeguards Agreement.

This high-stake game moved recently to Vienna where the IAEA Board of Governors was hustled into approving, by consensus, the draft of the Safeguards Agreement that contained procedural errors as well as critical exceptions and concessions that other IAEA agreements did not contain.

For example, it does not, unlike accepted IAEA format, use the word “in perpetuity” with reference to the safeguards, which can only be taken as indicative of India’s desire to keep open the possibility of reneging on the agreement. It also has a provision that permits India to take “corrective measures to ensure the uninterrupted operation of its civilian nuclear reactors in the event of disruption of foreign fuel supplies”.

Since such a disruption can happen only if India resumes nuclear testing, this loophole will stop the IAEA from preventing the diversion of materials from civilian safeguarded reactors to military purposes. Nor does the agreement include a list of facilities to be safeguarded. Instead, India has been permitted to volunteer which of its facilities will be placed under safeguards and when. This has led some to describe it as an “empty shell” agreement.

Earlier, when US largesse to India had caused deep concern to American advocates of non-proliferation as well as our national security experts, the last government had chosen to adopt an attitude that revealed both ignorance and apathy.

Admittedly, our demand for a similar facility would have been brushed aside, given the bitter memories of Kargil and allegations of proliferation misdemeanours. Nevertheless, our refusal to immediately react to the Indo-US deal was deeply disappointing to most Pakistanis.

The restoration of a democratic government had renewed hopes that Pakistan would finally wake up to the grave implications of the Indo-US deal and initiate a vigorous diplomatic campaign on two tracks. One, bilaterally with Washington to press for a criteria-based approach, while seeking its assistance in harnessing alternative sources of energy. Two, by sensitising friendly capitals on this issue and seeking their support to delay, if not deny, passage of the Safeguards Agreement.

In mid-July, a half-hearted effort was finally launched by the Foreign Office, when our permanent representative in Vienna, wrote to the Board of Governors (BOG), as well as member states of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), pointing out the procedural errors as well as substantive concessions contained in the Safeguards Agreement.

By endorsing India’s refusal to place its breeder reactors and thorium-based programme under safeguards, the agreement recognises India’s three-phased nuclear programme, which amounts to gratuitous legitimisation of potential nuclear proliferation that was contrary to IAEA objectives.

The letter also stressed that the IAEA statute does not provide for differentiation between member states on the basis of political consideration, nor did it allow for special treatment for a particular state.

Calling it an India-specific agreement was therefore wrong but any safeguards agreement adopted by the BOG in respect of India should be available as a model for other non-NPT states. The foreign ministry also decided to send a special envoy to China, to obtain its support for our approach.

In response, the Bush administration launched its own campaign to dissuade Pakistan from any effort to thwart the Indo-US game plan. In doing so, it also claimed that the previous government had already given its commitment not to oppose the unprecedented concessions given to India.

Our ambassador in Washington, too, according to well-informed sources, pitched in, recommending that we do nothing to upset the Bush administration’s advice and, instead, terminate all efforts to counter the Indo-US move, at both the IAEA and the NSG, which is to meet to consider the US draft to allow nuclear trade with India. To the Foreign Office’s disappointment, the entire campaign was called off, causing deep dismay at this abject surrender of national interests.

The Indo-US nuclear deal should not be seen merely as a commercial arrangement. Thanks to this deal, India will obtain full access to nuclear technology, while the global ban on civil nuclear cooperation with Pakistan will remain intact. India will also stand admitted to the exclusive club of nuclear weapon states, while Pakistan’s nuclear programme will continue to draw international concern and opprobrium.

Moreover, the manner in which the deal was concluded is reflective of the common desire of New Delhi and Washington to bring about a qualitative change in their bilateral ties, making it truly strategic. This is evident from the manner in which the Bush administration was willing to employ its heavy guns to silence critics, while convincing others that the benefits of a strategic partnership with India far outweighed US commitments (both domestic and international) to non-proliferation.

On the Indian side too, Manmohan Singh was so determined to consummate the ‘deal’ that he was willing to risk a parliamentary vote of non-confidence, in favour of a policy that represents India’s abandonment of the half-a-century old Nehruvian policy of not identifying with any one superpower.

No wonder, the then US Under Secretary of State Nick Burns had asserted: “This is a unique agreement, for a unique country”. But it is our own behaviour that demonstrates the distance travelled since Bhutto refused to buckle under US pressure to abandon the reprocessing plant and Mian Sahib, notwithstanding the combined threats and blandishments of Clinton and Blair, refused to surrender Pakistan’s sovereign right to carry out nuclear tests, in response to those of India.

The fall of oil prices

A rapidly cooling global economy and an increase in supply from Opec nations will see the price of oil ease next year. In its latest monthly market report, the International Energy Agency looks to a “potential easing in fundamentals for the second half of 2008 and into 2009, before a renewed tightening thereafter”, a trend that seemed to be foreshadowed in oil trading on Monday, which saw the price of a barrel of crude drop again, to around $113 a barrel, almost $35 a barrel below the record high of $147.27 recorded in July. For now at least, fears of a $250 barrel can be set aside.

The IEA saw the demand for oil in the United States and Europe as likely to be soft; “High prices are beginning to play a central role in determining demand, at least for the OECD countries.” The IEA also suggests that the long-term trend towards more energy-efficient economies in the West will be accelerated; “Even if retail prices ease, it seems unlikely that motorists who have purchased smaller cars will revert to gas-guzzling vehicles.”

Hopeful signs for an early end to hostilities in Georgia have also helped ease nerves, as has the rise of the dollar, in which currency oil has been traditionally priced. Demand growth in emerging countries, however, remains strong, with Chinese consumption rising above eight million barrels per day for the first time in June, at 8.3m barrels per day. On the supply side, production, especially from Opec, has jumped. The cartel pumped in July about 32.8m barrels per day, a record high, thanks to increases in supply from Saudi Arabia and Iran.

The IEA sees more to come: “There are encouraging signs for crude capacity, with summer field start-ups in Nigeria and Angola, and a reportedly imminent capacity boost in Saudi Arabia, which could raise Opec spare capacity from July’s very low level of 1.5m barrels per day,” the IEA said. “Is this really the tipping point for the market that some pundits have identified?”

But the IEA warned that even at current levels, oil remains expensive, and that even if “any fall from recent peaks is welcome,” prices close to “$115-$120 a barrel remain high by any measure, sustaining inflationary concerns, not least in developing importer countries”.

Opec will meet to review its production levels in Vienna on September 9.

— The Independent

OTHER VOICES - Middle East Press

Parched farmland

The Egyptian Gazette

FARMERS in several parts of the nation have voiced complaints that a lack of irrigation services has made their fertile fields barren.

The situation is made all the more unbearable since it is worryingly on the increase.... As photos never lie, it is easy to see that canals have run dry in the Delta as well as in Sohag governorate in Upper Egypt. However, Minister of Water Resources Mahmoud Abu Zeid keeps repeating that this year the annual cresting of the Nile floodwater is around average or perhaps slightly higher, which means the level of the river will remain steady. So what is the reason behind the lack of water in many canals and sub-canals in the Nile Valley and the Delta which has badly damaged harvests at a time when we are in dire need of raising our food production? Apparently, the problem lies in the misdistribution of land and the encroachment on the river and its sub-canals by real estate speculators. This has led to drought in vast areas in different parts of the country as big businessmen have constructed a system of small dams along the canals to shift the water towards their own canals.

…Irrigation water that had previously reached the project has been diverted by some big farmers, who have obtained huge parcels of land and swallow most of the water as they irrigate crops of rice, vegetables and fruit on a large scale, leaving nothing for the young people to irrigate their own small plots…. — (Aug 12)

Innocent victims

The Arab News

THE case of Dr Aafia Siddiqui, an award-winning Pakistani neuroscientist who grew up in the US and was a star student at top US universities including the Massachusetts Institute of Technology at Boston, is perhaps the most bizarre in the US war on terror…

The US officials claim she was picked up in Ghazni last month with a bag full of “suspicious liquids in glass containers”. Subsequently, we are told, Siddiqui attacked a team of US soldiers and FBI officials with a rifle conveniently placed next to her at an Afghan police station. Also, Siddiqui got herself shot when she attacked the US officials. …The Afghan and US officials peddling this incredible yarn could have at least employed more imagination and ingenuity. How do they expect the world to buy this bunkum?…

If the US and Afghan authorities have betrayed a shockingly casual attitude to human rights and the rule of law in this case, the Pakistani authorities are guilty of not doing enough to protect vulnerable citizens like Dr Siddiqui. The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan says Dr Siddiqui’s case is only the tip of the iceberg. It argues there are hundreds of such people in the US detention in Bagram Airbase in Afghanistan and … Guantanamo Bay. It is time to let them go.

Terrorists need to be ... defeated. But the fight should be in such a way that it does not play into the hands of terrorists by confirming the worst things they say about their enemies…. — (Aug 11)