Americans for withdrawal

ACCORDING to a survey, most Americans are of the opinion that US troops should be withdrawn from Iraq. There are differences on the degree of the pull-out. While some would like a partial withdrawal, a record 33 per cent want to see all US troops withdrawn from Iraq. Taken together, those who believe some or all American troops should return home constitute a good 58 per cent of those polled. This rising chorus in favour of a pull-out is in sharp contrast to what President George Bush has been saying repeatedly — that he is not in a position to give a withdrawal schedule. His logic is that giving a pull-out timetable would encourage the insurgents to plan their strategy. The logic is queer and is being bandied about at the expense of American and Iraqi lives.

More than two years after the end of the war, there is still no sign that Iraq is anywhere near normality. The resistance is as strong as ever, in spite of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s views to the contrary. After the elections and the coming into being of an elected government, it appeared the resistance was weakening. However, of late, the insurgency has been gaining strength as is evident from the rising number of American casualties. Till last Sunday, 38 Americans were killed in ten days, with the insurgents using newer and more powerful weapons. In one attack, the resistance fighters were able to destroy an amphibious vehicle in which marines were travelling, killing 14 of them. On the whole, the number of American casualties has crossed the 1,800 figure while the Iraqi civilians killed has been estimated to be an unbelievably high 100,000.

It would be naive to expect the US to withdraw in haste. The elected Iraqi government is far from being in control of the situation. A constitution is not yet ready, because the wrangling over Sunni representation on the parliamentary committee has used up considerable time. It is doubtful now that the basic law will be ready by the August 15 deadline. Then there is the question of handing over the responsibility of maintaining law and order to the post-Saddam Iraqi police and army. At the moment, the new security force is not in a position to replace the US-led occupation forces and take on the resistance. Like the Iraqi government itself, the new security set-up, too, is considered a collaborator by the resistance forces. That is the reason why the resistance has directed attacks as much against the occupation troops as against the new Iraqi security forces’ recruitment and training centres.

The more Washington delays the withdrawal the more it will complicate the situation and suffer more casualties. A hurried pull-out would, of course, mean chaos that could endanger Iraq’s state structure. The best course would be to induct a UN peacekeeping force in phases to synchronize with the gradual withdrawal of the occupation forces. Once a UN force is in place it can organize an election. Only a government that comes into being through this process will enjoy the Iraqi people’s confidence and proceed toward the task of giving Iraq a new constitution and work for its re-construction. A US withdrawal will also help in the war on terror. As a former chief of Australian defence forces said in a radio interview, a pull-out of the occupation forces will remove one of the “focal points of terrorist motivation”.

Corruption & investment

The IMF’s reminder that corruption remains a major obstacle in the way of a greater flow of investment into the country is not entirely unexpected but what is surprising is the government’s failure to do much on this score. While in recent years some success may have been achieved in curbing corruption as shown by an annual survey of the problem, the improvement is only marginal and the ground realities remain more or less the same. A foreign corporate body wanting to invest in this country has to deal with considerable red-tape and a bureaucracy which is basically apathetic and specializes in placing hurdles in the way of those wishing to do business here. This is why much-publicized schemes like the introduction in recent years of a ‘one-window’ operation and other such measures to facilitate foreign investors and traders in the country have not yielded the expected results.

The result inevitably is that foreign investment inflows have not picked up on any significant scale with prospective investors feeling frustrated and taking their money elsewhere to countries where they do not have to face such bureaucratic hassles or demands for bribes from all manner of functionaries, especially in departments like customs. Besides, once a foreign investor manages to set up a production unit or a business house in Pakistan, the management has to face all the problems that those in the domestic private sector do. Much of this takes the form of dealing with corrupt officials in the excise, income tax and police departments who harass the company on the pretext of checking whether the rules are being followed or not. Corruption of this kind is so pervasive that many companies include bribes extracted by corrupt government officials as part of their operating costs. It is a pity that the government has been slow to act on this score. The result is that it faces a very tough time attracting foreign investment because the country has not only an image problem (which doesn’t seem to be going away any time soon) but also a reputation problem to worry about. At the very least, the government should act to reduce the level of graft and the extent of delays and red-tape that positively discourage foreign investors from doing business here. Increased foreign investment not only gives a boost to GDP by increasing output and generating local employment, it also frees up the pressure imports place on foreign exchange reserves.

Desalination plants

A RECENT presentation given by an American company to the Sindh governor on the installation of a desalination plant in Karachi draws attention to the scarcity of water in the city and the need to develop alternative sources for its supply. On completion, the plant would supply 20 MGD of water to Karachi’s SITE industrial area that is currently receiving only five MGD through the Karachi Water and Sewerage Board against a demand of 30 MGD. An agreement had also been signed with a US firm earlier in the year for the installation of two desalination plants in Korangi and Bin Qasim. Each would provide 25 MGD of water. Indeed, with existing water sources drying up and the demand increasing as a result of a high population growth rate, it is imperative that the government tap new sources of water, especially as the shortfall in the city exceeds 150 MGD. Considering that there is no let-up in the flow of migrant labour to the city and that the K-3 project will provide only an additional 100 MGD on completion, the government should seriously explore the possibilities of desalination.

This would, no doubt, be an expensive undertaking, and with the perennial shortage of funds that the KWSB faces, the water authorities can only take recourse to foreign funding, while studying how the desalination industry has worked in other countries. Nevertheless, it is important to introduce this technology on a wide scale and support it through the use of cost-effective methods such as renewable energy that is wind- or solar-powered. However, the installation of desalination plants should not be allowed to give rise to complacency and the extravagant use of water. Had there been water conservation strategies in place, the need for desalination plants would not have risen. Their absence makes it all the more important for us to refrain from wasting water.