Overcoming the energy squeeze
THE visit to Islamabad of the US Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman to discuss how his country can help Pakistan meet its energy needs has made one thing clear: that Washington is not going to supply any nuclear technology for civilian use. It has also made it clear that Pakistan, in addition to seeking US assistance, must look elsewhere for help as well. Though the Dr A Q Khan scandal would not have helped Islamabad’s case, it is quite obvious that America’s deal with India, which rests on it sharing with New Delhi its nuclear technology for civilian use, is discriminatory towards Pakistan. Islamabad’s argument for outside help in meeting its growing energy needs is compelling. The economy has been growing rapidly over the past couple of years and is expected to expand at around the same rate over the next few years. According to Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz, demand for energy is expected to rise at the rate of 10-12 per cent annually in the foreseeable future, which means that at if this rate of increase continues, demand for energy may well double before 2015.
Since the production of energy is not going to increase at a similar rate, and the bulk of energy in the country comes from non-renewable sources, Pakistan needs to find new sources of energy as well as further tap the existing ones. In the case of the US, although a working group has been formed to take negotiations to the next stage, it is still unclear as to what form of assistance the US will provide. One can assume that it will be both in the form of financing and technology. For instance, Pakistan has considerable untapped potential for generating hydropower but the main prohibitive factor is the cost. The mountains where the rivers run fast and hence are suited for generation of hydroelectricity are a fair distance from the main urban centres of consumption and the cost of transmission is high. Here, the US could perhaps help with providing low-interest loans to fund such projects. The second option is to develop and harness solar energy. In the past, foreign assistance was sought for exploring this alternative and generation equipment was procured and installed. However, once the foreign experts left, there was no follow-up or maintenance and the project was more or less abandoned. Given that Pakistan’s climate is ideally suited for exploiting this particular energy source and that several US firms have expertise in this, this option should be seriously pursued. The same is also true of wind power, which could be a financially viable option along the coastal areas.
Given the country’s burgeoning energy needs, the government must also pay equal attention to energy conservation. This means not only revamping the power generation, transmission and distribution networks to reduce the present high level of transmission and line losses, but also raising the level of awareness of the general public of the importance of conservation, preferably through regular media campaigns. For a nation that seems to have a perpetual water and energy shortage on its hands, Pakistanis by and large tend to be most wasteful. Even countries far better off than us, especially in the developed world, have all kinds of laws and policies, and a general public awareness of the issue, to encourage a culture of frugality in the use of energy. Unfortunately, most Pakistanis tend to use energy or water as if both were in abundance. This needs to change.
Deadlock on HR body
THE United Nations’ role as a human rights watchdog could be in jeopardy. On Monday the UN Human Rights Commission was suspended for a week because of a deadlock over the reform plan that seeks to create a 47-member Human Rights Council that is expected to be more effective than the existing 53-member commission. As it is, the proposals for the new body to be voted upon have compromised on many issues in an effort to win universal approval. But the US is not too happy with the ideas put forward. It wants the members of the council to be elected by two-thirds majority rather than a simple majority as has been agreed upon. The US also wants a smaller and more compact body of 30 members which should include the permanent members of the Security Council. The current plan fixes a three-year term for all members with re-election allowed for a second time only.
It would be a pity if the reform proposals are torpedoed. With an increasing emphasis on human rights which are now recognized as being beyond the domestic jurisdiction of sovereign states because of their repercussions on international relations, it is important that the UN’s human rights role is strengthened. True, the reform proposals had to be watered down to win universal approval. But they will still enhance the effectiveness of the council that will monitor the human rights situation the world over. Although not a permanent body continuously in session, the council would meet for ten weeks in a year — an improvement on the six weeks for which the present commission meets. The most significant provisions are for the suspension of members against whom human rights abuses have been proved. The provision for universal review could put any country — even the most powerful — in the dock on its human rights record. Given the scope of the functions and powers of the new Human Rights Council, it will be more effective than the existing commission. One hopes that when the commission reconvenes after the present suspension, the US, which has blocked the new reform, will be in a more amenable frame of mind and will accept the proposed reforms.
MMA’s mediation offer
THE Muttahida Majlis-i-Amal’s offer to the government to mediate in the Balochistan situation deserves to be considered. Speaking at the Quetta Press Club, Hafiz Hussain Ahmad, the MMA’s deputy parliamentary leader in the National Assembly, said on Monday that his party could help in the Balochistan crisis if the government and the Baloch leaders concerned accepted its mediation offer. The two sides, he said, were blaming each other for the landmine blast that killed 28 innocent people instead of trying to come to a settlement. The MMA may be in the opposition in the National Assembly, but it is in power in the NWFP and is a coalition partner in the Balochistan government. For that reason it has a stake in peaceful conditions without which the development projects now underway in the province cannot be implemented. He is not wide of the mark when he points out that the blame game in which the federal government and some Baloch leaders have been engaged for more than a year has perpetuated the crisis instead of solving it.
As a coalition partner in the Balochistan government and as a six-party grouping which is playing a main role in national affairs, the MMA is in a position to bring the two sides together. Since it is in the opposition at the federal level, it cannot be accused of taking sides with the government. For that reason, the Baloch leaders too should be able to accept its mediation offer. For quite some time, the MMA has shown a proclivity for street agitation, and its detractors have often accused it of following policies that show little of substance and more of rhetoric and negativism. If the two sides accept the MMA’s mediatory role and it succeeds in defusing the Balochistan crisis, it will have a feather in its cap at a time when a general election is due next year.
Death of a mass murderer
THE death of Slobodan Milosevic, in his cell at the Hague, where he was undergoing a trial at an International Criminal Court since 2001, for crimes against humanity, including genocide, has left incomplete a process that would have delivered the verdict on a leader who kept alive in Europe a communist regime 10 years longer anywhere else.
Though some of those who sullied the image of Europe, and exposed its dark side, still remain to be caught, there are a few hardliners in Serbia who would probably still view him as a Serbian nationalist who continued to question the legality of the International Court created to bring him to justice.
This writer was ambassador to Yugoslavia, from 1978 to 1980, a period that witnessed the passing away of Tito, who built up the multi-ethnic Federative Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia into a significant player between the two competing blocs, and virtually made it the headquarters of the non-aligned movement. Slobodan Milosevic, a minor figure then, started his slow rise, first by abolishing the practice of rotating the presidency among the six constituent republics, making Serbia more equal than others, by manipulating his position as the leader of the communist party.
When in 1989 nationalist agitation rose up in Kosovo, a component of the Serbian Republic, 90 per cent of whose population consisted of Muslims of Albanian origin, he declared himself the champion of Serbian nationalism, committed to maintaining their rights and historical supremacy.
As Milosevic, backed by a well-armed Serb-dominated army, did away with many safeguards introduced by Tito, himself a Croat, to keep the multi-ethnic federation together, it began to unravel. The small but relatively advanced Republic of Slovenia declared its independence in 1990. Federal troops were sent but there was hardly any sizable Serb presence in the republic, and so the conflict barely lasted 10 days after which Slovenian independence was conceded.
The next two republics to proclaim their independence in 1992, were Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, both with large Serb communities. The war in Croatia lasted eight months, the areas with largely Serb population offering prolonged resistance. As the Serb army encountered resistance, it became increasingly cruel, with an element of sectarianism creeping in. The Croats were largely Catholic while the Serbs were Orthodox Christians, the same as most Russians, and as the conflicts were referred to the UN, Russia tended to back the Serbs.
The republic where the worst bloodshed took place was Bosnia Herzegovina, where 44 per cent of the population was Muslim, 31 per cent Serb, and 25 per cent Croat. The Muslims were not very faint-conscious, many having intermarried with Serbs and Croats. However, the Serbs now embarked on a policy of “ethnic cleansing”, namely killing or expelling other communities from areas where Serbs had a strong presence, and in this practice, even the Croats cooperated with them, both being Christian. In hundreds of cases, Muslims became aware of their faith only when Christian spouses turned on them.
The Serbs also set up their own Serb republic in Bosnia, with the support of the army, and the blessings of Milosevic. Indeed, while not openly endorsing the ethnic cleansing that often turned into genocide, Milosevic was supportive of the Serbs in the conflicts that broke out with Croats or Muslims, the main support being provided by the Serb-dominated army.
The Muslims suffered the highest loss of life, owing to ethnic cleansing, and hostile fedings arising from history and the 500-year history of Turkish occupation of most of Yugoslavia, during which there were some major battles in which Serbs suffered heavy loss of life. The Serbs, therefore, had developed a deep hatred for Muslims that was reflected during the period Milosevic was heading Serbia. There was a one-year siege of Sarajevo during which major western powers, especially France and Britain, supported the Serbs.
The tenth anniversary of the genocide in Srebrenica, that had been declared a safe city under UN protection, was marked recently. The Dutch military contingent present on behalf the UN did nothing when Serb forces under General Ratko Mladic massacred 8,000 Muslim men and boys. Mladic is still at large.
The fourth war he fought was over Kosovo, which he attacked in 1999 in order to establish Serbian control over a province populated overwhelmingly by Muslims of Albanian origin who wanted independence. Nato under US leadership took him on and bombed Serbia to the point of virtual destruction of its industrial infrastructure. Though the present government in Belgrade claims it as a historical part of Serbia, any democratic dispensation cannot ignore the wishes of 90 per cent of its population.
Overall, from 1992 to 1996, around 250,000 Muslims were killed in Bosnia, and it was only after President Clinton intervened that the savagery by the Serbs under the patronage of Milosevic stopped. Europe’s role in the first crisis of this type in modern times was truly shameful. The anti-Muslim bias has been reinforced since the events of 9/11.
Milosevic had not fully cooperated with the UN tribunal in The Hague, and that became a factor in the prolongation of his trial. Some of his supporters even allege that he was poisoned, or that he was not given proper treatment in The Hague. He had a heart problem that must have been aggravated by the imprisonment and the cross-questioning during the lengthy and often acrimonious proceedings. The official announcement of the news of his death ascribe it to natural causes. It is doubtful if history will judge him kindly. He was a man who based his political power on the negative aspects of nationalism. Having served in Yugoslavia in Tito’s time, the writer had been saddened by the chaos and brutality let loose by Milosevic, whose path proved to be that of misguided nationalism, that led to bloodshed and suffering. The worst crimes again humanity in Europe since the Second World War took place because of his role. Even the Serbs cannot applaud his leadership that brought them senseless violence and mindless destruction. Seen against the four decades of Tito, his role has prompted a reaction among many of his countrymen that he should have been tried not in The Hague but in Belgrade.
Some changes in European attitudes could also be partly attributed to passions aroused by the wars and the violence aroused by his role during the last decade of the 20th Century. One can also conclude that the manner and method of peacekeeping by the UN must have benefited from the lessons from its experience during his regime in Yugoslavia.
The writer is a former ambassador.
America’s democracy project
THE “democracy backlash” is in full swing, largely because of the carnage in Iraq and the electoral success of Hamas in the Palestinian Authority. In the past week our op-ed writers have expressed doubts about, or opposition to, the Bush administration’s project of encouraging democracy in the Middle East.
From their and others’ arguments, three principles tend to emerge: You can’t impose democracy by force. You shouldn’t push for elections, or expect a democracy to develop, until a mature “civil society” is in place. We are better off with dictators like Mubarak, Musharraf and the rest than with the alternative, which is anarchy, terrorism and religious fundamentalism.
These are serious arguments, and those of us who supported the war in Iraq in particular have a responsibility to consider them seriously. It would be comfortable for us to blame the Bush administration for everything that’s gone wrong there: After all, it failed to anticipate a Baathist underground resistance, failed to prepare for postwar nation-building, failed to commit enough troops.
All true. But even war planners far more diligent and serious than this administration’s will get things wrong — an assumption that should be built into any prewar calculation. And even if President Bush had gotten a lot more right than he did, Iraq still might not be at peace today.
There are and will be many lessons to be drawn from that, but “democracy cannot be imposed by force” is not one of them. For one thing, democracies do sometimes emerge from wars (Japan and Germany). More to the point, the United States never has gone to war, and is unlikely ever to go to war, with the dominant purpose of imposing democracy.
We did not fight imperial Japan because we were offended by its system of internal governance. We hoped eventually to bring democracy to Korea and Vietnam, but we fought because we saw communism as a threat. We believed that unyoking the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein would be a great benefit to them, but Congress authorized war in Iraq not primarily for that reason but because we believed that Saddam Hussein represented a threat to US national security interests — in the weapons he was thought to possess and to crave, his flouting of international norms, his totalitarian example and his ambition to dominate the Middle East.
The second notion — that it is foolish to press for democracy in unready societies — also is less useful than it appears at first blush. Of course elections don’t make for a democracy; the Soviet Union conducted them for years. And it’s true that many of the countries that have developed democratically in the past two decades began with advantages that not everyone shares, such as (in parts of Central and Eastern Europe) memories of a democratic past between the world wars.
— The Washington Post