Whose war on terror?

ONE would not dispute President Pervez Musharraf’s claim that Pakistan has played a critical role in the fight against terrorism and has preempted many attacks in other countries by sharing intelligence with them. Since the 9/11 terror attacks and Pakistan’s famous U-turn in foreign policy, the country has adopted a clear-cut and unequivocal stance on terrorism. This is to be commended. Even at the risk of alienating the religious elements in the country and putting his own life in danger, the president has pursued an anti-terrorism strategy which has involved military and police action against armed groups resorting to violence. Religious groups, which proclaim their fealty to jihad and feel no qualms about killing innocent men, women and children in pursuit of their aim of spreading fear and panic, have been targeted in this campaign against terrorism. A number of them have been banned and their bank accounts frozen.

How successful has this strategy been? One must concede that it has created a visible impact and the incidence of terrorism in the country has perceptibly declined. Even internationally, the last major event of this nature was the suicide bombings in the London Underground and at Sharm el Sheikh in July last year. True, minor incidents of violence continue to occur. But their frequency has definitely gone down. As for some places such as Iraq and Palestine that are scenes of violence practically every day, they fall in a category of their own, given the constant presence of serious provocation in the form of American and Israeli military occupation. That doesn’t mean that terror has been rooted out or that there is reason for complacency for Pakistan. Any lowering of vigilance could be disastrous and the terrorists, who have taken sanctuary in places where local populations are sympathetic to their cause, could make a comeback.

The fact is that the war against terror can be conclusively won only by addressing the factors that feed it. Internationally, it has taken the form of a confrontation between the West along with its allies in the Third World on the one hand and the terrorists proclaiming allegiance to Islam on the other. The Islamists are reacting to the acute sense of injustice they suffer which they attribute to the policies of the West. Even when the injustice is inflicted by their own governments, the terrorists hold the western powers responsible for sustaining the tyrants in power. Thus, Palestine, Iraq and the policies of the undemocratic governments of the Third World provide the terrorists the motivation to unleash violence whenever and wherever they can. In Pakistan, terrorism also has domestic motivations that are full of contradictions. The terrorists perceive the government as an agent of the United States whose battle it is seen to be fighting. It is for the government to establish its credentials and be seen to be waging a war on terror in the interest of the country. Terrorism, if unchecked, could prove to be the undoing of Pakistan itself. It strikes at the very roots of society since the terrorists reject the integrity of the state. Hence the terrorists have to be reined in. But President Musharraf is hurting his own cause by projecting his war against terrorists as America’s war. He cannot barter away the sovereignty of the country and allow American forces to launch operations within Pakistani territory ostensibly to wipe out terrorists as happened in Bajaur recently.

Menace of fake drugs

PAKISTAN’S inclusion in a list of nations that figure amongst the world’s counterfeiting “hot spots” will inevitably cause more harm to its already tainted reputation. It also points to the government’s failure to curb the menace of spurious drugs widely available in the market. The matter was brought up in the British House of Commons on Friday when MP Charles Walker identified Pakistan as a country where counterfeit medicines were produced and warned that the funds generated by this trade could be used in money laundering or sponsoring terrorism. These are serious allegations with dangerous implications of which the government must take immediate notice. Not only do fake drugs cause problems to the country’s own people whose lives are put at risk as a result of taking these, but because of the huge global demand for certain medicines — especially on the Internet — it has become harder to monitor the manufacturing and distribution of fake drugs. Periodic clampdowns on illegal producers and traffickers have not produced the desired result for any nation. Consequently, according to the World Health Organization, eight to 10 per cent of the global medicine supply is counterfeit. Add to this a disturbing report that lists Pakistan as one of 13 countries where manufacturing of counterfeit drugs is on the rise, and the scenario becomes alarming.

The government can ill afford to pretend that this problem doesn’t exist. The health ministry will have to take some immediate steps to combat the menace, all of which should involve formulating stricter vigilance strategies. Its drug inspectors will have to play a far more effective role than they are doing at present. It will need to liaise with pharmaceutical companies and have proper drug testing laboratories. It will also have to educate consumers about the dangers of taking spurious medicines. Medical organizations too can work with law enforcement agencies to closely monitor drug manufacture, distribution and marketing. Ultimately those who break the law need to be duly punished so that others can realize that Pakistan is serious about winning the war on fake drugs.

Environmental degradation

A WORKSHOP conducted by an NGO in Islamabad the other day pointed out that although it is mandatory to carry out an environment impact assessment (EIA) before undertaking a development project, this has rarely been the case, especially in the public sector. It is quite evident that haphazard and unplanned development is taking its toll on natural surroundings. This is especially so for congested urban areas where several major projects, completed without a preliminary study of potential environmental hazards and lacking effective pollution-control systems, have done serious harm to the environment. When an initial assessment of this sort, required by law, is not carried out, one can imagine that other environmental legislation, too, would be flouted. It is small wonder then that as the country moves down the path of development, air, water and soil pollution is growing as never before — despite the inclusion of the National Environmental Quality Standards regime in the law books — with disastrous implications for health and habitat.

It is regrettable that such an elaborate piece of legislation as the Pakistan Environmental Protection Act (PEPA) should have no effect on the reduction of factories, workshops and other sources of emission that have led air pollution levels in Karachi and Lahore to be 20 times higher than World Health Organization standards. Millions in the country are regularly treated for pollution-related sicknesses, and their numbers continue to grow. Meanwhile, untreated toxic effluents from industrial discharge are poisoning the country’s waterways and killing marine life. With this state of affairs, one wonders what the federal government or the provincial environmental bodies that it has set up are doing to monitor the situation. What is worse is that there are no citizens’ bodies to protest against environmental pollution. The government would do well to review the environment policy it formulated last year and, as empowered by PEPA, begin to implement it in right earnest.

Pakistan and a world in disorder

THE end of the Cold War generated hopes of a new world order based on justice and fair play, and guided by the principles of the UN Charter. Later events belied these hopes. Freed from the straitjacket of bipolarity, the certainties of the Cold War were replaced by an unstable and unpredictable global environment.

Basically the world is now groping for a new balance and equilibrium in international relations. The present era marked by the absence of the checks and balances of the Cold War and the domination of power over principles, can be accurately described as a World in Disorder.

The disintegration of the Soviet Union and the nature of the current global environment carry important implications for Pakistan. I intend to refer to some of them in the brief space of this article.

Undoubtedly, strategic overstretch was the main cause of the collapse of the Soviet Union and its defeat in the Cold War. In other words, the demands of the strategic commitments of the Soviet Union far outstripped its economic strength. Internally, the Soviet Union made the mistake of building a heavy military superstructure on weak economic foundations. Its collapse was, therefore, a matter of time in the face of the tough competition from the West and the demands of the Cold War. This development brought home the primacy of economic strength in any long-term contest between two nations or groups of nations.

The recognition of the primacy of economic strength would have required us to allocate a much higher proportion of our budgetary resources to economic and social development than to military. We did precisely the opposite during most of the 1990s and subsequently. Even as late as 2004-05, our defence expenditure exceeded the development expenditure.

It is hardly surprising, therefore, that our average economic growth rate since 1990 has been below that of India. According to the UN Human Development Report for 2005, Pakistan’s average GDP per capita growth rate was 1.1 per cent as against 4.0 per cent of India during the period 1990-2003. Even during the current financial year, while the Indian economy is likely to achieve a GDP growth rate of about eight per cent, we are now talking of a growth rate of about 6.5 per cent. Our policy-makers need to learn that in the contest of nations it is not enough to do well. We must do better than our competitors. Central to any discussion of economic growth is the role of human resource development, particularly of knowledge in imparting the element of dynamism to the process of economic development. The development of any nation depends on the quality of its people, especially on the education of its younger generation which holds the key to its future.

Unfortunately, instead of an increase in the allocation of resources to education, our expenditure on it declined from 2.5 per cent of GNP in 1996-97 to 1.7 per cent in 2002-03. According to the UN Human Development Report for 2005, while India spent 4.1 per cent of its GDP on education during the period 2000-02, the comparative figure for Pakistan was as low as 1.8 per cent.

The current international political scene is marked by the dominant position of the West which plays the most influential role in determining the international agenda as well as the rules of inter-state behaviour. It is not surprising, therefore, that the issues of terrorism and WMD proliferation have assumed the top priority on the international agenda, especially in the aftermath of 9/11. While we have rightly joined the war against terrorism, we must take note that the international community’s rejection of terrorism and the resort to violence by non-state actors has had a negative impact on freedom movements in Kashmir and Palestine.

At the ideological level, the 20th century ended with the victory of liberal democracy based on the principles of liberty and equality over totalitarianism, tyranny, fascism and dictatorships of various types. Therefore, the promotion of democracy, political pluralism, moderation and human rights has assumed a high priority in the international agenda and should have a high priority in our national agenda also.

Unfortunately, whereas the historical trend is in favour of democracy, we moved once again in the reverse direction just a few years ago. It is nothing less than tragic that in the 21st century, we are still experimenting with variations of authoritarianism rather than practising democracy in its true form. The need of the hour is to restore fullfledged democracy in the country so that the elected representatives have the final say in running the affairs of the state. Only a fully democratic government committed to the rule of law and accountability and the building up of institutions and enjoying popular support can ensure long-term stability of the country and deal effectively with the serious political problems of terrorism, religious extremism and provincial disharmony confronting it.

It is true international law and the UN become the first line of defence for a small or a medium-sized country. Pakistan, therefore, must continue to strive for strengthening both in its own interest. However, in view of the domination of power over principles in the current international environment and the consequent undermining of international law and the authority of the UN, it would be a mistake to rely on UN resolutions alone for the settlement of the Kashmir dispute.

A better strategy would be to hold fast to the UN resolutions on Kashmir which provide the legal basis for our case on the issue while taking well-calculated steps to turn the strategic situation in our favour as part of a long-term policy. Instead of rushing into a hasty settlement which we might regret later, we should work for an interim solution of the Kashmir dispute focusing on autonomy for the people of Kashmir, demilitarization combined with the end of militancy, improvement of the human rights situation in held Kashmir and facilitation of cross-LOC trade and people-to-people contacts. We may postpone the final settlement of the dispute to a later date when parties to the dispute are able to deal with the issue in a rational manner.

Globalization in the form of instantaneous communications, the global reach of the mass media and the multinational corporations, fast means of transportation and the decline in trade restrictive practices are gradually tearing down cultural and national barriers, and turning the world into a global village. These developments require us to increase investment in the economic sector to make it more productive and competitive. It is regrettable, therefore, that our national investment rate declined from 20 per cent of GDP in 1992-93 to only 16.8 per cent in 2004-05, according to the Economic Survey of Pakistan for 2004-05.

Simultaneously with globalization, there is also a growing trend towards the emergence of regional economic groupings to take advantage of a more efficient allocation of resources and economies of large-scale production through free intra-regional trade. Our long-term national interest would require us to strengthen regional cooperation within the framework of, say, the Economic Cooperation Organization for reasons of economic complementarities, absence of serious disputes, cultural affinities and geographical proximity.

At the strategic level, the US, which emerged as the sole superpower after the fall of the Soviet Union, is vigorously pursuing an imperial agenda for the maintenance of its global hegemony in disregard of the principles of the UN Charter as shown by the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the Bush administration’s doctrine of unilateral and preemptive military intervention to counter an emerging threat to its national security.

However, the long-term global trend is towards multipolarity with the US, EU, China, Japan, Russia, India and possibly the Asean are likely to play the predominant role in international politics. There is also no doubt that the 21st century would be the Asian century because of the continent’s fast growing economic and military strength and its vast population. The need of the hour for us is to engage especially closely with the fast growing economies of East Asia besides Japan and the EU.

In view of the likelihood of the challenge that China may pose to the US, on the Asian continent later in the 21st century, the US with the objective of containing China on its southern periphery, has entered into a strategic partnership with India as exemplified by the Indo-US defence and nuclear agreements of the last year and the declared US intention to help India become a “major world power in the 21st century”. The fast developing Indo-US strategic relationship neatly dovetails the strategic objectives of a global hegemon and a regional hegemon and may pose serious problems for Pakistan in view of its opposition to Indian hegemony in South Asia.

We do need to have friendly relations with the US but not in the service of the US imperial agenda and certainly not at the cost of our national dignity and honour. The US must be told firmly and unambiguously that while we will continue to fight terrorism as a matter of national conviction, any repetition of the cross-border raid recently conducted by the US forces in Bajaur will be totally unacceptable to us.

Our friendship with the US is marked by uncertainties and limitations regarding its future course, because the current Pakistan-US relationship, unlike the Indo-US relations, is not part of any grand US strategic design. We, therefore, need to broaden our options in the management of our regional affairs by developing self-reliance and strengthening our friendship with China, Iran, a peaceful and stable Afghanistan, Arab countries of the Gulf and Central Asian republics, developing tension-free and good-neighbourly relations with India and building up bridges of understanding with Russia.

The writer is a former ambassador