What the veto means

THERE will be hardly any surprise at the US veto of a resolution in the United Nations Security Council meant to prevent Israel from carrying out its threat to kill or expel Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat. The Security Council’s records are littered with US vetoes in aid of Israel, and each veto has had the effect of encouraging Israeli state terrorism against Palestinians. It will be no different this time, and Israel will consider the US intervention in its favour as a green signal to go ahead with its plans to eliminate Mr Arafat from the scene. Washington has explained its decision to stifle the Arafat resolution by saying that the sponsor, Syria, did not agree to include sentences condemning militant groups like Hamas that have carried out suicide attacks against Israel.

The resolution was in response to the formally announced decision by the Israeli cabinet to expel Mr Arafat and then a statement by the Israeli deputy prime minister that the Palestinian leader should be killed. Mr Arafat is the legitimately elected president of the Palestinian Authority, and is recognized as such by the United Nations and the international community. His election was the result of a process that was universally acknowledged to be free and fair. Israel is in occupation of Palestinian land and has intruded right up to the gates of Mr Arafat’s compound. It has no legal or moral basis to arrogate to itself the right to remove the elected leader of another state or territory that it has forcibly occupied. There is no parallel between a government deciding to remove the head of another government and people under occupation seeking to resist the occupying power, although the resort to random violence by militants representing the latter, involving as it sometimes does killing of innocent civilians, has been repeatedly condemned. It is this problem of deliberately failing to distinguish between the fact of forcible occupation and resistance to occupation that has prevented any progress towards a just peace in the region and led to a warped approach to the Palestinian question.

The US has described the Syrian resolution as unbalanced and one-sided. The boot is on the other foot: it is America that is being one-sided and unbalanced by insisting on looking at the Middle East through the Israeli prism. Even when Washington feels obliged to criticize continuing Israeli settlement activity, it reduces occupation to a simple accounting matter. The State Department has just said that it will “penalize” Israel for supporting Jewish settlements in Palestinian areas by deducting the amount it has spent on such activity from promised loan guarantees. This is putting justice and fairness on their heads. Even if the Syrian resolution had been adopted by the Security Council, it would have had little influence on Israel, which has defied all previous UNSC calls. But at least for once America would have been seen as adopting a morally correct position.

Rude and uncalled for

PAKISTAN has taken exception to Indian External Affairs Minister Yashwant Sinha’s remarks in which he shot down a proposed visit by Foreign Minister Khurshid Kasuri to New Delhi. This latest spat should be seen in the context of the troubled course of the recently initiated peace process between the two countries. India’s desire to implicate Pakistan in the Mumbai blasts in August and its rather unrealistic demand to hand over suspects without providing any proof may be seen as the turning point in what was otherwise a slow but steady path towards resumption of links between the two neighbours. Since then, domestic compulsions may have forced the Indian government to take a hard line against Pakistan, even if that means waving aside the niceties of diplomacy. The remarks made by Indian officials in the past few days, including hints that the Indian prime minister will avoid meeting the Pakistan president later this month in New York, are uncalled for. And where the Saarc invitation episode is concerned, even if the Indian side had not received any formal intimation about Mr Kasuri’s intended visit to New Delhi, it would have been more appropriate to convey this fact through diplomatic channels. No other country in the region visited by the foreign minister in the past few days showed any such reservations; indeed all warmly welcomed Mr Kasuri.

The Indian government should realize that such tactics betray a certain arrogance that it would do well to avoid. India has to understand that owing to its size and the strength of its economy, it has to reach out to its smaller neighbours in a bid to build bridges of goodwill and understanding in South Asia rather than burn even the ones being built by peace advocates on both sides. It would make better sense for India to resume its confidence-building measures with Pakistan, which include resumption of air and rail links, so that a conducive atmosphere is created for the Saarc summit in Islamabad in January, about which high hopes are building up in the region.

Twin cities’ water famine

MANY areas of Islamabad-Rawalpindi suffered serious water shortages in the past few summers as a consequence of what is believed to be the El Nino factor and the resulting general scarcity of rains. This summer has seen more rain, yet complaints of water shortages and of impure water supply continue to be heard in the twin cities. In the beginning of this month, residents of two Islamabad sectors had no water in their taps for several days. During the past few days, the same problem has been reported from another sector. The chief beneficiary of all this has been those running the water tanker service, who are said to be charging up to Rs500 per tanker even though the official rate is Rs100. Some residents are beginning to feel that they are being intentionally denied regular water supply so that the tanker service people can benefit.

The authorities have resorted to water rationing, confiscating illegal water pumps, challaning residents found wasting water, and launching awareness campaigns such as the “Save Water Week”. But the fact remains that there exists a huge gap between demand and supply. This problem has persisted for years and is getting worse, yet it does not seem to be receiving the priority it deserves. The shortage problem is not only one of availability but also of leakage and wastage. The fact that five water pipelines in Rawalpindi had water gushing out because of damage and remained unrepaired for several months is evidence that the water authorities are not doing enough. According to one study, such leakages are responsible for as much as 40 per cent of the potable water in Islamabad going waste. Do the twin cities want water riots on the pattern of Karachi?