As the Chenab dries up

THE last days of the kharif (summer) agricultural season are proving to be a nail-biter for farmers. In recent weeks, the rice, cotton and sugarcane crops have been threatened by a shortage of irrigation water. Now it appears that India may be adding to the water woes by reducing the flow of water in the Chenab river. Directly threatened are the fields of basmati rice on either side of the Chenab, dealing a potentially heavy blow to the economy. The Rice Exporters Association of Pakistan has predicted that Pakistan could earn up to $3bn from the export of rice — a crucial fillip for an economy struggling with a record current account deficit. However, a shortfall of water in the crucial last two weeks of the kharif season is sure to adversely affect the output of the rice, cotton and sugarcane crops.

It is not clear what precisely is causing the drop in the Chenab river. On the one hand, the Indus river system is generally facing a shortage of water this year and the drop in the Chenab river could be a part of this general picture. On the other hand, Pakistan’s suspicions of the Baglihar hydroelectric dam project, built on the Chenab river in the Indian-administered Jammu region, have resurfaced. Last month, the Pakistan Indus Water Commissioner Jamaat Ali Shah warned that India was violating the Indus Waters Treaty, signed in 1960 and brokered by the World Bank, on two counts by filling the Baglihar dam. According to Mr Shah, India may only fill the Baglihar dam up to Aug 31 and that too only if 55,000 cusecs of water is released downstream. Today, the water flow is approximately 20,000 cusecs, significantly less than the average low of 35,000 cusecs. So is India filling Baglihar beyond the period it is allowed to and over and above what is permissible?

There can be no immediate answer. Commissioner Shah will write to his Indian counterpart, G. Aranganathan, who will then write to the Jammu and Kashmir Indus water commissioner before writing back to Mr Shah — by which time the kharif season will have ended. There is, however, a long-term issue at stake. Pakistan’s concerns over the Baglihar dam, the construction of which began in 1999, led to the appointment of a neutral expert, Raymond Lafitte, who delivered a binding verdict in Feb 2007 which suggested some changes to the design of the dam but also overruled some of Pakistan’s objections. In late July, Commissioner Shah inspected the dam and declared that it conformed to Professor Lafitte’s recommendations. However, the underlying issue — that India can and is manipulating the flow of water in the Chenab through the Baglihar dam — is clearly not settled. For this, Pakistan must study the relevant data and present proof of foul play, if any, to the World Bank for resolution.

Delhi bomb blasts

PRESIDENT Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani did well to condemn without reservations the bomb blasts that spilled innocent blood in New Delhi on Saturday. These synchronised blasts created havoc in some of the Indian capital’s busiest shopping districts, killing at least 20 people and injuring over 100, besides causing widespread panic. With the Indian Mujahideen — as yet a shadowy group — having claimed the responsibility for the slaughter, at least at the initial stage of investigation there is little room for Indian officials or the press to blame Pakistan or Pakistan-based groups, as has been the practice in the past. In recent months, the Indian Mujahideen have claimed responsibility for a number of similar blasts in other Indian cities including Ahmedabad and Jaipur, but it is far from clear what precisely they intend to achieve by these acts of brutal madness that kill innocent people and fan existing communal tensions.

The explosions have coincided with demonstrations in Indian-administered Kashmir, where a new wave of protests against New Delhi’s rule has been raging since the controversial June transfer of 100 acres of land to a Hindu trust — although it is not clear whether the explosions have any link to the Kashmir unrest. But bombing shopping centres and killing innocent men, women and children are hardly the way to ventilate one’s grievances and seek their redressal. On the contrary, such barbaric deeds are counterproductive and serve only to strengthen the hands of other communal organisations. Hopefully, investigations into the blasts will lead to the arrest of those responsible for the crime.

The Indian press is calling for tougher anti-terror laws and is blaming the security agencies for intelligence failure. However, this can only be part of the solution to a menace that is rooted in communal and socio-economic grievances. It would also be in keeping with India’s secular credentials if laws to curtail terror were applied to all groups guilty of inciting communal hatred. This will help ensure that the Indian government keeps its focus on combating the activities of all extremist elements seen as much in the New Delhi explosions as in the recent attacks on India’s Christian minority and churches. Failure to do so will cause further resentment against the state and fuel militancy.

For the sake of children

CHILD mortality rates are a good indication of the priority a country attaches to the health of its children. In this regard, there is optimism that governments are paying closer attention to the issue. According to Unicef, child mortality rates have fallen by 27 per cent since 1990. On the grimmer side, however, the figure is in favour of the developed world while insufficient progress has been made in Africa and Asia on the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing the under-five mortality rate by two-thirds. The under-five mortality rate in Pakistan was recorded at 99 per 1,000 live births in 2005, well above the average of 68 per 1,000 live births around the world. While progress has been made to some extent in comparison to past figures, the country needs to do much more to achieve the MDG in child mortality. The pursuit of this goal implores the question: what determines the child mortality rate in Pakistan? It would be impossible to isolate factors such as education, income, maternal care practices, basic sanitation, lack of infrastructure and healthcare facilities, under-nutrition and the urban-rural divide from child mortality.

The causes of child mortality provide the key to its solution. The overall lack of infrastructure and facilities has a devastating impact on child mortality rates. The government needs to put in place such infrastructure so that poverty-stricken families in both urban and rural areas have access to healthcare facilities. Given the far-reaching impact of skyrocketing food prices, targeted subsidies should be given to deal with the problems of hunger and undernourishment. Programmes aimed at lowering the child mortality rate should target low-income, illiterate families whose children have all the cumulative risks associated with malnourishment, poor access to healthcare and economic barriers. Education and awareness are equally important for teaching families about the basics of child healthcare such as essential vaccinations. There is a dearth of female teachers and health workers in the country which exacerbates the problem. Meanwhile, the advances made by countries such as Bangladesh and Nepal in this respect should serve as an eye-opener for Pakistan and propel it to act with speed.

How not to fight the US

DEVIATING somewhat from his usual mantra — that fighting terrorism is in Pakistan’s own interest — President Bush recently laid the ‘responsibility’ of fighting terrorism at Pakistan’s doorstep. This raises questions about the terms on which Pakistan joined the war.

In democracies, such questions are decided in parliament. But unfortunately, in Pakistan, most wars have been fought under one or the other military ruler. The decision to join the current war was also taken by Gen Musharraf on the spur of moment. Since then a pall of secrecy has surrounded the terms of engagement. The official line is that Pakistan joined the war in its own interest. In reality, the war was godsend for Gen Musharraf especially when Pakistan was dubbed as America’s ‘non-Nato ally’ in the war.

But the country paid a heavy price for Gen Musharraf’s political indebtedness to the West. The Americans, it seems, were given a free hand in running the war, using our facilities, intruding our territory, killing our civilians, destroying the tribal and administrative structure of Fata, and thus fanning fury against the state. Yes, in return Pakistan did receive millions of dollars a month, but to what end?

Apparently, the war on terror was the outcome of the events of 9/11, but analysts hold that such a war exemplifies one long conceived by the neo-con votaries of the Bush doctrine. Its purpose was to achieve political objectives using awesome US military power and violating human rights and international laws including the Geneva Conventions.

Therefore, instead of using ground forces to mop up Al Qaeda – Taliban strongholds in Afghanistan, the tactics used were to inspire awe and terror through massive aerial bombing, killing thousands of innocent civilians and destroying their homes and hamlets. It is no surprise that the hostility towards the Americans arising from such attacks allowed the Taliban to continue their sway over large swathes of territory running from southeastern Afghanistan to Pakistan’s tribal regions in the northwest.

On the civilian front, President Karzai has utterly failed to develop the civil and political institutions of his own country in order to build a viable state. He has ruled with the support of warlords. Therefore, instead of political parties, it is powerful groups based on tribal, sectarian or ethnic lines that dominate.

The so-called provincial reconstruction teams installed by the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan to run developmental projects have also proved ineffectual. Finally, the eradication of poppy production in Afghanistan that fetches billions of dollars per annum and thus feeds much of the Al Qaeda–Taliban insurgency is far from being accomplished.

No wonder that after having fought a seven-year futile war, killing thousands of innocent people and squandering billions of dollars, the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen has admitted that America is “not winning” the war in Afghanistan.

But he has not owned US military and political failures in Afghanistan, and has instead concentrated on terrorist attacks on Nato, launched from safe havens in Fata. Therefore, pursuing a new military strategy the US has initiated ground and aerial attacks in Fata, ignoring the reservations of its Nato allies.

Although Gen Kayani and Prime Minister Gilani have stood up against this violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty, a difficult question has arisen for the fledgling government: how does one resist US aggression?

Predictably, some leaders are expounding a quid pro quo approach, and have suggested a blockade on US transit cargo to Afghanistan and retaliating militarily. Such bravado may earn them public support, but will prove detrimental if not suicidal for the country. Even if Pakistan succeeded in resisting US military attacks, it could not withstand the economic and political fallout of such a confrontation, especially in view of its floundering economy and worsening law and order situation.

Moreover, we may all share anti-US sentiments, but we do not share a national outlook on the war, as did the Vietnamese in their fight against the US. The conduct of our politics has divided us into disparate political, sectarian and ethnic groups. We cannot confront a superpower on the issue of terrorism that has all but ruined our polity.

Therefore, prudence is needed to steer the country out of its predicament. We should use our being a front-line state in this war to our own advantage and engage the US-led West in a long-term constructive partnership on the lines of what once front-line states like Germany and Japan did after the Second World War.

Luckily, the Americans also seem to think along these lines. Already, the administration has come up with a large aid package over the next decade. The Saudis have also pledged funds to ease Pakistan’s oil burden. Given that the war on terror is a global menace, the Europeans and powers like Russia should also be convinced of the need to share the financial burden in this region.

A national consensus must also be forged through parliament on renegotiating the terms of engagement with the US. The consensus would enable the government to negotiate from a position of strength. The new terms should clearly define operational areas and objectives.

Each party should restrict its operations to the Durand Line; sharing resources and intelligence, the objective should be not only to destroy terrorist infrastructure, but also to reconstruct the social and political infrastructure of Fata — a place where most are out of a job, illiteracy prevails and where there are no modern political institutions.

There is little doubt that development in Fata and the defeat of terrorism there holds the key to at least temporary success. If Pakistan’s sovereignty and territorial integrity are at stake in Fata, then the future of the war on terror and the credibility of the Bush doctrine are also at stake.

A point to remember is that even if the war is won along the Afghan and Pakistan frontier, terrorism will still not be defeated as long as injustices continue in Kashmir, Palestine and the Arab countries — just as it will not as long as the US continues with its hostilities towards Iran and supports dictators the world over.

shahabusto@hotmail.com

Russia’s Opec bear hug

AS if the prospect of a global recession isn’t enough, consider the latest threat to world economic stability: an alliance between Russia and Opec, the oil-producing cartel dominated by Saudi Arabia.

That’s a scary possibility, as Russia supplies one third of Europe’s energy needs, while Opec accounts for nearly 40 per cent of global oil production. Together they produce half the world’s oil, so any pact that paves the way for Russia to become a full member of the cartel would present a threat to many countries, which are becoming increasingly dependent on their energy imports.

But is such a merger really on the cards? The Russians would clearly like one: last week, it sent its energy minister Igor Sechin to attend Opec’s meeting in Vienna and proposed ‘extensive co-operation’ with the cartel. A memorandum of understanding is being prepared for signature in the coming months.

Oil is Russia’s biggest bargaining chip, as the soaraway price has done more than anything else to give it the confidence and clout to re-assert itself on the world stage. A pact with Opec would strengthen Moscow at a time when it has lost friends in the West following its invasion of Georgia and its harassment of foreign companies, such as BP, which have business interests in Russia.

An extension of the oil cartel to include Russia, however, will be hard to pull off. Saudi Arabia, by far the most important Opec member, is a conservative state supposedly aligned with the United States, and may be reluctant to alienate such a powerful ally. But it is not impossible: Opec already comprises countries hostile to the US, notably Iran and Venezuela. So why not add Russia?

Hidden from the debate, however, is the fact that Saudi Arabia is a cartel within a cartel. With 21 per cent of all Middle Eastern proven oil reserves, it is the only country with significant surplus capacity. That means it can cushion itself from price falls by bumping up volume in a way that other countries can’t. No doubt that was one reason why Russia has been frantically lobbying behind the scenes for Opec to cut production to keep prices high, as it faces capacity restraints and stands to lose billions in foreign reserves.

Last week, the cartel said it would cut production by around 500,000 barrels, bringing a rebuke from the International Energy Agency, which claimed the move would undermine the price relief that consumers have enjoyed in the last month.

But Opec may have overreached itself: by trying keep the price of oil at around $100 a barrel, it has stoked fears that a recession will be deeper than anticipated and will lead to a slump in demand. As a consequence, oil closed on Friday at just under $100 a barrel and could slide further.

— The Guardian, London

OTHER VOICES - Sindhi Press

We must speak with one voice

Ibrat

THE fact that … Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani has said that under the new democratic leadership all elements of national power will defend the country’s territorial integrity with full support of the people is quite encouraging. Speaking at the corps commanders’ conference he talked about the unanimity of opinion between the government and the army. This explanation has come when the transition to democracy has hardly reached completion. At this juncture, an explanation about the unanimity of views raises eyebrows and concerns. But the incumbent army chief is a professional soldier and not in favour of indulging in politics. As soon as he took over command from Gen Musharraf, he called back … army officers from civilian institutions. This is only one example.

While taking notice of US Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen’s statement in which he had said that the US would cover areas on both sides of the border, Gen Kayani vowed to defend Pakistan at all cost. Gen Kayani asserted that there was no agreement with the US forces in which they were allowed to conduct operations inside Pakistani territory.

It would have been better if this statement had come from the president or prime minister. However, there are reports that before issuing this statement the president was consulted. The very next day Prime Minister Gilani endorsed Gen Kayani’s statement and said it “reflected the government’s policy”. In a democratic set-up, the civilian administration is the competent authority to make decisions like what action should be taken on the borders and when and under what strategy should troops be called out from the barracks. Gen Kayani followed the principle that the new democratic leadership will defend the country’s territorial integrity. Hence he rejected the impression created by certain quarters that there were differences between the government and the army.

However, there is a dire need that the Pakistani leadership — civilian and military — speak with one voice and … this must come from the civilian leadership. Prime Minister Gilani’s statement that Pakistan will deal with the situation through a diplomatic approach … is very moderate. This may be a pragmatic approach because war is not the solution to any problem. Although the Pakistani Army has the capability to deal with aggression, diplomatic channels should first be fully utilised.

President Asif Ali Zardari during his visit will meet the British prime minister and raise issues such as the war on terror, the ongoing operation against extremists in Fata and US air raids in Pakistan’s territory. President Zardari will also address the UN Assembly where he is expected to hold meetings with President Bush and Indian Premier Manmohan Singh.

This illustrates that wide-ranging diplomatic efforts are being made. First the diplomatic option should be exercised. In case of war even the Americans will not be winners as they will not get the required results. They would leave huge conflicts … and have a negative impact on the region. Our political leadership is well aware of this situation. Therefore diplomatic sources should be used skillfully as we already have witnessed a misadventure in Kargil. Not falling prey to any haste, we should enter the process of dialogue. — (Sept 14)

— Selected and translated by Sohail Sangi