Blair’s support for Palestine

TONY BLAIR’s support for the idea of a Palestinian state and his call for a revival of the peace process deserve to be welcomed. After talking to Yasser Arafat in London on Monday, the British prime minister said his objective was “a viable Palestinian state” that would also guarantee Israel’s security. Essentially, Blair is not endorsing something new, for the idea of a Palestinian state is contained in the UN’s partition plan. Any deviation from this idea or the outright denial of the Palestinians’ right to a state of their own goes against the UN resolution to which Britain was a party. Subsequent wars and the Zionists’ usurpation of entire Palestine might have blurred the idea of a Palestinian state. But the Oslo and Washington accords, signed in 1993, re-affirmed the world’s commitment to the Palestinian people’s right to a state of their own.

The big issue in the Middle East today is whether the leading western powers, especially the US and UK, have the will — and are ready to assert — to ensure a faithful implementation of the Oslo accords. Those accords categorically provided for the idea of a Palestinian state and the beginning, on April 13, 1996, of negotiations for a final settlement which was to be in place by April 13, 1999. The signing of the accords on the White House lawns was followed by a faithful implementation of the agreements in the initial stages. Even though there were problems here and there in regard to the Israeli withdrawal schedule, the two sides on the whole moved fairly steadily in the direction of the accords’ implementation. The turning point came with the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin by a Jewish fanatic. Since then, the three Israeli prime ministers who have followed Rabin in succession have dragged their feet on the question of implementation. Benjamin Netanyahu, Ehud Barak and Ariel Sharon are clearly guilty of a flagrant violation of the solemn international agreements to which their country was a party.

Things today have reached a dangerous stalemate. Ariel Sharon, who is fit to be tried for war crimes in Lebanon in 1983, has gone a step ahead of his predecessors and even refused to negotiate with Yasser Arafat. He has also raised the level of violence by ordering assassinations of individual Palestinian leaders and by authorizing local commanders to use force on their own. Thus emboldened, the Israel security forces have repeatedly intruded into areas exclusively under the control of the Palestinian Authority and killed civilians. Sharon has also refused to abide by the recommendations of the Mitchell Commission and continued the settlements activity in defiance of international law.

The international community today is engaged in a struggle against terrorism, and the Islamic world is a part of this process. However, American support for Israel in spite of the latter’s expansionist and genocidal policies against the Palestinians tends to generate intense and widespread anti-American feelings in the Arab-Islamic world. Here Britain can play a vital role by pointing out to its American ally the hazards of Washington’s unqualified and unprincipled support for Sharon’s murderous policies. Clearly, without America’s pressure on Israel, there is little possibility that the superhawk prime minister will mend his ways. One also hopes that Blair’s support for the unquestionable principle of a Palestinian state is not based on expediency but flows from a clear realization that no lasting peace and stability in the Middle East is possible unless it is based on the principle of coexistence between Palestine and Israel as two independent and sovereign entities.

Pak-Afghan border trade zone

THE dutiable imports in the NWFP registered a positive growth of over 281 per cent in September as compared to the imports during the same month last year. Official sources have attributed this dramatic development to a sharp decline in the volume of Afghan Transit Trade-related smuggling back across the Durand Line as this 2,500 km long porous border has been completely sealed off following the launching of the US-led coalition’s air and missile attacks on Afghanistan. The official explanation seems to be based on circumstantial evidence only as it is not even a month since the border was sealed — a period too short for its effect to be fully felt and measured. Also, essentials like food and other such items, whether under the ATT or exported from Pakistan directly, are still going into Afghanistan through various formal crossing points between the two countries. Of course, if the trend seen in September continues in the coming weeks and months and more and more dutiable imports flow into the NWFP, then perhaps one could accept the official explanation in this regard without much reservation.

The ATT-related smuggling has caused immense harm to Pakistan’s economy over the years. Under the UN charter a land-locked country has the right to demand transit trade facility from neighbours having outlets to the sea. The ATT is based on this right. Goods bound for Afghanistan are transported to that country through Pakistan by trains and trucks. However, over the years it has been seen that part of these goods are clandestinely held back in Pakistan at points of loading and unloading, part are pilfered and large quantities are also smuggled back after they have been delivered in Afghanistan. For this purpose the smugglers have set up huge storage facilities on the Afghanistan side of the Durand Line.

During the ten-year Afghan war when the Durand Line had virtually disappeared, smuggling through ATT increased manifold and as a result the so-called ‘bara’ markets sprouted all over the country selling everything from foreign-made luxury soap bars to hi-tech electronic gadgetry. This virtually destroyed the Pakistani manufacturing sector and investors shied away from investing in this sector, thereby increasing Pakistan’s dependence on imports for even consumer goods. During the civil war which followed the Afghan war the situation went from bad to worse as food and fuel were being smuggled from Pakistan as part of ATT, creating serious shortages in the country. This pushed the import bill further up, forcing the government to borrow on punishing terms from the commercial market to meet the growing trade gap.

Occasional attempts to seal the border with Afghanistan has not helped check smuggling because of the extremely porous nature of the long border and, secondly, the tribal belt that exists between the two countries continues to refuse to abide by Pakistan’s laws and regulations. Other countries have tried to overcome the problem of border smuggling by establishing trade-free zones with their neighbours. Pakistan could also examine the possibility of setting up such a zone on its border with Afghanistan. The change which appears to be in the offing in Afghanistan following the September 11 tragedy could perhaps provide an opportunity to test this idea. If all goes well, the UN and other agencies would start rehabilitation and reconstruction work in Afghanistan after the current crisis comes to an end. If at this opportune time, Pakistan takes the initiative to establish a free trade zone along its border with Afghanistan, perhaps it would be in keeping with the demands of a better governed and more peaceful and stable Afghanistan.