Homework on dams

PUBLIC feelings that were running high on the Kalabagh dam issue have mercifully calmed down. The president made a sensible move by announcing a change in the order of the dams to be built. Now that everyone appears to be in a more receptive frame of mind, the time is right for some serious homework on the mega dam projects the government still plans to undertake. One appreciates the government's concern for the water crisis that is inevitable if nothing is done about it. But this also calls for two measures if the government is not to stir up a hornets' nest again and if Pakistan is not to be reduced to wasteland in a few decades. First, it must work to create a political consensus in favour of the dams it wants to build. It can do that only if it takes the second step -- that is, to collect all the basic information needed to support the feasibility of the dams to be built.

One positive thing to have emerged from the debate that took place in the last several months is that a number of issues have been raised that must be looked into carefully. Many experts have suggested that Pakistan would be better off building a number of small dams as was the position adopted by the World Commission of Dams in its widely quoted report of 1990. Others, including several reports cited by the president in his speech of January 17 when he changed his dam building priorities, have questioned the quantum of water available in the River Indus for storage. The World Bank report released in September 2005 points out that "Pakistan is close to using all of its available water resources in most years". That leaves only the cyclic flood years when extra water is available. But that too is not considered to be sufficient for filling large dam reservoirs if water is to be released downstream from Kotri for passage to the sea for ecological reasons as recommended by an international panel of experts in its report of November 2005.

It is not very clear how the various bodies mentioned above have calculated the quantum of water available in the Indus. A.G.N. Abbasi categorically points out in his report of the TCWR that Wapda has not "made water availability computations as a regular feature of its activities since its inception". He attributes the difference of opinion to this failure of Wapda which has been "adopting different figures for water availability at different times" and creating confusion in the process. Whatever decision is taken vis-a-vis the building of dams, irrigation policy and so on, it is important that our water managers should know accurately how much water flows down the Indus every year, how much is diverted for irrigation and how much goes into the sea. This exercise should begin straight away. Meanwhile the government has itself said it will be building a number of small dams and reservoirs which are not so costly and which should be undertaken without any delay. There is also an urgent need for a national water conservation policy that should address the need for lining canals (work on which has begun), reorienting irrigation methods (drip irrigation must be encouraged) and desilting the existing dams and reservoirs. This needs to be done before the dam issue becomes the centre of controversy again.

A mega-victory

VICTORY is always sweet, sweeter still when it comes against India. Pakistan won against their arch cricket rivals by a record margin of 341 runs in Karachi on Wednesday with more than a day to spare. The first two games of the Test series were played to meaningless draws on shirt-front wickets in Lahore and Faisalabad with both sides scoring at will. Neither speed nor spin worked and curators at the two venues came in for a lot of criticism, forcing those in charge of the National Stadium wicket in Karachi to allow a tinge of grass on the strip. Accordingly, when Indian skipper Rahul Dravid won the toss for the first time in the series, he had no hesitation in putting Pakistan in to bat. Medium-pacer Irfan Pathan's first-over hat-trick had Pakistan on the mat and, with six down for 39, they were in danger of being bowled out for their lowest- ever score against India.

However, Pakistan found their man of the moment in Kamran Akmal who, ably supported first by Abdul Razzaq and then by Shoaib Akhter, gave a semblance of respectability to the Pakistani effort. Even so, a first innings' total of 245 was not expected to extend India to any great length. It surprised the pundits when against all odds Pakistan snatched a slender lead of seven runs. As Pakistan batted again, the wicket had eased out considerably and in a world-record performance, the first seven Pakistanis scored 50 or more to set India a mammoth target of 607 runs for victory. This was clearly beyond the visitors and they capitulated almost without a fight -- except for the brilliant left-hander Yuvraj Singh who played a lone hand. The main difference between the two sides was in their pace attack. While Irfan Pathan, R. P. Singh and Zaheer Khan were monotonously similar, Pakistan’s Shoaib Akhter, Muhammad Asif and Abdul Razzaq had variety both in speed and skill. Asif, especially, was a revelation. He ripped through the Indian upper order, giving them no opportunity to stage a fight back. This is not to say that all was hunky-dory for Pakistan right through the game. Their fielding, especially their catching, was bad and coach Bob Woolmer will have to pay extra attention to this vital aspect for the matches ahead. Pakistan today have the nucleus of a winning combination for next year's World Cup but for that they will have to concentrate on all departments of the game. The immediate task is the one-day series of five matches which begins on Monday. One-day internationals are a different ballgame and Pakistan cannot afford to rest on their laurels.

Karachi's options

HOWEVER rosy the outlook may be for the early completion of the K-III project that is meant to bring in an additional 100 MGD of water to Karachi, it is still uncertain whether the city will be able to plug the yawning gap between demand and supply. The city nazim announced recently that the project would be completed by March next year -- three months before schedule -- and once in operation it would be able to look after 95 per cent of the city's water needs. But considering that there is a sizable addition to Karachi's 12-million population each year, it may lessen the severity of the current situation, but not for long, especially as there has been a substantial reduction of supply from the Hub and Indus sources over the years.

As this situation is not likely to improve soon, city authorities should be concentrating on preserving the existing supply, 30 per cent of which is wasted owing to defective pipes and theft. This is not to say that projects like K-III and K-IV should not be undertaken, but there must be a greater effort at conservation, both at the government and public levels. Greater government investment in overhauling the supply system and ensuring its proper maintenance and the public's commitment to refrain from wasting water at home and at work would be instrumental in enhancing water availability. At the same time, options such as desalination and recycling of water also merit investigation if all inhabitants are to receive sufficient water for their needs.

Ups and downs in ties with the US

THERE has been a strong public reaction in Pakistan against the recent US missile attack in Bajaur which resulted in the killing of about 18 people, including women and children. The US military in Afghanistan seems to have acted on information that the No. 2 Al-Qaeda leader Ayman Al-Zawahiri was visiting a house in Bajaur at the time. This was evidently not correct and Al-Zawahiri was unharmed, but a number of innocent Pakistanis lost their lives.

The Bajaur incident is related to developments since September 11, 2001, when the unprecedented terrorist attacks by the Al-Qaeda in New York and Washington had induced the US to launch a “global war against terrorism” that has been mainly focused on the Al-Qaeda and Muslim extremists. Terrorism is seen as a menace by the world and the campaign against Al-Qaeda, in particular, has received backing from many countries, including Russia and China.

Al-Qaeda had been given sanctuary in Afghanistan by the Taliban regime which had seized power in 1994. To take revenge for the 9/11 outrage, the US decided to attack Afghanistan and consequently the Taliban regime was toppled in December 2001. Since then, the top leaders and other operatives of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban have been on the run. Some of them are believed to be hiding in the porous, mountainous border area between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

The Pakistani tribal areas in Bajaur and elsewhere have traditionally enjoyed a wide measure of autonomy and are not strictly policed like the rest of Pakistan. This allows cross-border movement and it is probable that Al-Qaeda leaders and the remnants of the Taliban have at times found sanctuary on the Pakistani side of the border. The suspicions and complaints of the US as also of the present Kabul regime in this context are not without some foundation.

However, Pakistan has valid reasons to be offended by the recent US missile attack in Bajaur. It was a flagrant violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty. Any punitive action on Pakistani soil against Al-Qaeda operatives should be taken by the Pakistani authorities. In this particular instance, the US could have shared its information with Pakistan but the actual operation should have been left to the Pakistani forces. Secondly, the US should have immediately apologized for the attack and offered compensation for the victims. This has evidently not been done and there are even suggestions that the US forces in Afghanistan might conduct a similar operation again if the situation warranted.

The response of the Pakistan government in this matter has been inadequate. While a formal protest was lodged with the US ambassador in Islamabad, the other issues were evidently not pressed. Pakistan ought to have insisted on an apology from the US and a promise that such an incident would not be repeated. Compensation for the victims should also have been insisted upon. While the prime minister was in the US earlier this week, he should have raised the matter with President Bush and other high officials in unambiguous terms.

It is erroneous to think that raising such a matter of principle in forceful terms would have harmed our important relationship with the US. On the contrary, by not doing so, we might have lowered our importance in Washington. Our subdued reaction could encourage the US to take us for granted which, in turn, would reduce our ability to get the maximum out of this relationship. In any event, there is public anger in Pakistan against both the US and the Musharraf government at this affront to our national dignity.

Having said that, one must also question the emotional reaction of some of the opposition parties in Pakistan to this incident. Their calls to expel the American ambassador and lodging a complaint with the UN accusing the US of committing aggression are unwarranted and betray a lack of understanding of the geostrategic realities. In fact, there is need to do some hard-headed thinking about the pros and cons of our relationship with the US.

The outcry on the Bajaur incident is but the latest episode in a continuing campaign of vilification of the US that has been gathering momentum in Pakistan in recent years. It is not only the religious extremists but also even sections of the more responsible news media that now seem to be engaged in a campaign to whip up public sentiments against our alliance with the US. This could have important long-term implications for Pakistan’s security and welfare.

Of course, the religious parties in Pakistan have been carrying on relentless anti-US propaganda for several years. They were writing “Hate America” slogans in Pakistani streets even before 9/11. The subsequent US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq have brought this “Hate America” campaign to a high pitch. The religious parties had openly supported the Taliban regime and, even after its ouster, their sympathy evidently continues. They also barely conceal their admiration for the Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. The religious parties have never forgiven Gen Musharraf for making a U-turn in Pakistan’s policy towards the Taliban regime after 9/11.

After the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the US, it was crystal clear that an American attack on the Taliban regime was imminent. Under the circumstances, had the Pakistan government not reversed its policy of support for the Taliban, Pakistan’s vital national interests would have been jeopardized. Pakistan could have been ostracized and declared a terrorist state. Its aid could have been cut off and trade curtailed. The Kashmiri resistance too could have been equated with terrorism. This could have set the stage for attempts to destroy Pakistan’s nuclear assets.

Of course, all of this would have worked entirely to India’s advantage. One can imagine that many circles in India must have been dreaming of this scenario, which would have been far worse than the isolation of Pakistan during the 1971 crisis, when we had handed over to India on a silver platter a “once-in-a-century opportunity” (in the words of Subramaniam).

On the other hand, by switching our policy away from the Taliban, in the nick of time, Pakistan has been able to secure tangible advantages in the diplomatic, political and economic fields. Pakistan has since then occupied a key position on the centre stage of world politics. Most world leaders have visited Pakistan since 9/11 and Pakistani leaders are honoured wherever they go. President Musharraf has received unprecedented media coverage in the West. Alarmed by the phenomenon of growing extremism in Muslim societies, the West is keen to encourage Muslim leaders like Musharraf who are seen as following moderate and progressive policies.

Similarly, very substantial economic aid has been received by Pakistan in the last four years from the US and others. The world response to help Pakistan following the recent earthquake went beyond all expectations, primarily because of the appreciation not only by the West but also by most other countries in the world, including Russia, China, and Japan of the policies followed by Pakistan since 9/11.

No doubt, Pakistani and Muslim opinion worldwide is outraged by the US support for Israel which carries out daily acts of state terrorism against the Palestinian people. The US invasion of Iraq has also received condemnation from Muslim public opinion (though not by Muslim governments). But the Muslim world should also not forget that it was the US which helped liberate Muslim peoples in Bosnia and Kosovo in the last decade. Six independent Muslim states have emerged in Central Asia after 1991 following the end of the Soviet Union which too was directly attributable to US opposition to Communism.

In the context of Pakistan, the fact is that since our independence, the largest amount of economic and military aid received by Pakistan has come from the US. During the 1950s and even later, it helped us develop the military machine that held India at bay in the 1965 War. After Pakistan’s defeat in the 1971 War, historical records suggest that it was the US pressure on the Soviet Union and India which prevented India from pushing the war against West Pakistan that could have led to serious consequences even for the remnant of Pakistan.

The Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in 1979 was seen by Pakistan as a mortal threat to its own security. There was a convergence of interests with the US which, for its own geopolitical reasons, helped Pakistan and the Afghan Mujahideen to expel the Soviets from Afghanistan. The subsequent collapse of the Soviet Union removed an important threat to Pakistan’s security.

In 1999 and 2002, when India seemed to be itching to launch a military invasion of Pakistan, it was the US which played the main role in preventing the worst. All of this goes to show how the US connection has been of vital importance for Pakistan in several instances.

International relations pivot around the pursuit of national interests. If we seek friendship with the US, it is because it serves our national interest. Similarly, when the US develops close relations with Pakistan, it too is following its national interests. When the national interests of any two countries converge, they become friends and even allies. When these interests diverge, they drift apart and become adversaries.

The main security problem of Pakistan since independence has been an adversarial relationship with India which is several times bigger than our country. This has prompted us to seek equalizers in the nature of alliances (formal or informal) with countries like US and China. Of course, if Pakistan resolves its dispute with India, the need to seek equalizers would be much less. Until that happy situation develops, the worst security scenario for Pakistan would be if the US joins India in an anti-Pakistan front. It would be unwise on our part to create the kind of anti-US hysteria in Pakistan and/or adopt inimical policies which might force Washington to adopt a hostile posture towards Pakistan.

The writer is a former ambassador.