Welcome change in tone
THERE is a distinct change in the tone in Kabul, and for the better. Even though they still want Pakistan “to do more”, the sentiments expressed by President Hamid Karzai and his Foreign Minister Abdullah Abdullah do not seem couched in hostility. Speaking at a press conference along with visiting Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper on Tuesday, Mr Karzai said that without Islamabad’s help the world would never be a safe place, because his country and Pakistan had a pivotal role to play in the war on terror. This required “intense” efforts from all sides. The same day in Kuala Lumpur, Mr Abdullah Abdullah had, surprisingly, some kind words to say about Pakistan, acknowledging that Pakistan had arrested many Al Qaeda operatives. If not arrested, they would have been a problem, he said, for the two countries, and this meant that “we need to continue to work together”. The plain fact is that there is a belated realization in Kabul that it is not Pakistan’s responsibility alone to combat terrorism along the Durand Line and that what can yield results is cooperation between the two countries. On his part, Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz said in Islamabad that his country was committed to a “strong, stable and vibrant” Afghanistan.
Mr Karzai’s unfriendly remarks during President George Bush’s stay in Kabul had created bitterness in Pakistan and raised doubts about the success of a joint war on terror. Instead of being allies against the common enemy, the two appeared to be at loggerheads. While Kabul found fault with Pakistan, Islamabad had its own grievances. These included unstable conditions throughout Afghanistan, the presence of elements hostile to this country within Mr Karzai’s defence ministry, the support which they were giving to acts of terrorism in this country and the anti-Pakistan tilt of Northern Alliance leaders who dominate the Afghan government. While Islamabad is doing its part of the job in the war on terror, it expects Kabul to do the same. However, the Kabul government’s writ does not run in the greater part of Afghanistan and this has helped the Taliban reorganize themselves. Last year, nearly 1,500 people, including 84 Americans, were killed: this is the highest figure since 2001. In the south especially, militants and opium smugglers operate with impunity and cross over into Pakistan without being checked by the Afghan authorities. In a TV interview Balochistan Governor Owais Ahmad Ghani said that arms recently discovered by Pakistani security agencies had come from Afghanistan. There are reports now of the Taliban preparing for a ‘spring offensive’.
The menace of terrorism along the Durand Line cannot be eliminated by Pakistan alone. For this not only should the two countries cooperate, the Karzai administration must also put greater efforts into bringing a semblance of normality to Afghanistan. At the same time, the two sides should stop their bickering which serves no purpose other than providing comfort to their enemies. If they discern any operational problems, they should try to sort these out instead of blaming one another in public. Pakistan has suffered so much for the sake of Afghanistan and served as host to over four million Afghan refugees. Given the porous nature of their border and the historical links between the two peoples, it is in Pakistan’s interest to have a peaceful Afghanistan as its neighbour. Anarchy in Afghanistan does not suit this country, because sooner or later it spills over into Pakistan.
The storming of Jericho
TUESDAY’S Israeli raid on Jericho’s prison will go down in the torturous history of the Middle East as another throbbing wound inflicted by Tel Aviv. It was an atrocious move in many ways and its repercussions will be felt far and wide, while it bodes ill for the peace and security of the region. Israel’s action smacks of lack of respect for international borders and betrays its contempt for international law and morality. Ahmad Saadat, the secretary-general of the PFLP, had been accused of having masterminded the murder of an Israeli minister in 2001 and was held in Jericho prison under an arrangement whereby the British and the Americans had posted monitors to ensure that Mr Saadat was not released from confinement. The Israelis justify their action on the plea that the Palestinian Authority had been recently talking about releasing the PFLP leader. It is indeed intriguing why the American and British monitors were withdrawn from Jericho just before the raid. This vindicates the popular belief that the raid was a planned move in which Israel, America and Britain were involved.
The outburst of violence in Palestinian territories in reaction to Israel’s atrocity is not at all surprising. The Palestinians have learnt over the decades that Israel only understands the language of force. Small wonder that the Palestinians are being radicalised so fast that the prospects of a negotiated settlement have become bleak. If Hamas had indicated after its electoral victory that it would release Saadat, it was hardly anything to worry Israel. It had already retaliated by warning that the PFLP leader would be captured or killed as soon as he walked out of prison. Could the decision to snatch the initiative in the matter from Hamas be the Israeli acting prime minister’s electioneering tactic? One should not forget that Israelis go to the polls less than a fortnight later. What should cause serious concern is the state of law and order in the region in the aftermath of the storming of Jericho jail. The spate of kidnappings, protest and violence that followed the Israeli action will only exacerbate the conflict in Palestine. Israel will find it hard to escape its fallout.
Ticket prices at planetarium
CONSIDERING that the number of people visiting the PIA planetarium in Karachi has dropped substantially over a period of time, the management has not taken a wise step by enhancing the entrance fee. Following this move, there is bound to be even greater reluctance on the part of the public to visit the planetarium because of the high cost of entrance raised from Rs 40 to Rs 60 for adults and Rs 30 to Rs 45 for children. The fear is that a further drop in the number of visitors may provide an excuse to close down the loss-making enterprise. That would be a pity, for not only would it deprive children and adults of an exciting learning experience but also mean the loss of a recreational facility in a city that already has few entertainment spots.
It is unfortunate that there has hardly been any serious effort to upgrade and improve the planetarium or to encourage the people to visit it. In the West as well as in many developing countries, academic learning is supplemented by shows and exhibitions at recreational-cum-educational facilities including planetariums, museums, libraries, botanical gardens, etc. No wonder the hands-on experience of students living in such stimulating environments gives them an edge over their counterparts in countries where learning is not valued, much less given a boost by knowledge-enhancing facilities that are open to all. Instead of encouraging consumerism and patronising the vast number of eateries, boutiques and similar other commercial ventures that are mushrooming around our cities, the authorities should be looking at what the people are missing out in the realm of scientific and cultural knowledge. They should know that our children are not likely to realise the full potential of their intelligence and creativity in a sterile environment.
Negative fallout of Bush’s visit
THE government and the people of India are jubilant over the visit of the US President George W. Bush to New Delhi to seal a “new relationship” between the United States and India. India has certainly secured a stunning diplomatic success by concluding the nuclear cooperation agreement with the United States. The people of Pakistan, who are the main loser of this agreement, are dismayed at the discriminatory American attitude towards them. Their lament is justified.
Under the agreement in question, the United States would end decades-long moratorium on sales of nuclear fuel and reactor components to India. In return, India has agreed to classify 14 of its 22 nuclear power reactors as civilian facilities. These reactors will be subject to international inspections or safeguards. However, the remaining eight reactors will remain as military facilities and will not be subject to inspections. India will also retain the right to develop future fast-breeder reactors for its military programme.
The Indo-US civil nuclear deal has stirred a controversy all over the world, including the United States itself. The main thrust of the criticism is that the deal has given India complete freedom not only to continue but also expand its fissile material for weapons which amounts to virtually accepting it as a nuclear weapons state. Robert Einhorn, senior analyst at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies and an expert on nuclear proliferation, has said that as the deal does not restrict India’s ability to produce weapons-grade materials at its military reactors, it could make six to eight bombs a year.
Senator Edward Markey has termed the deal a “historic disaster” that undermines the security not only of the United States but of the rest of the world by setting one standard for India and another for any other nation that seeks to acquire nuclear weapons. He also said that “with one simple move President Bush has blown a hole in the nuclear rules that the entire world has been playing by”.
While criticizing the deal, China has said that New Delhi first renounce nuclear weapons and sign the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) before being allowed to acquire fuel for its reactors and nuclear technology.
One should not, however, be surprised at Washington’s present nuclear deal with New Delhi. It may be recalled that in 1961 the United States had contemplated assisting India in the field of nuclear energy with a view to promoting it as a counterweight to China, However, the idea of making India an “atomic ally” had to be shelved because of some problems in its implementation. China’s growing military might and its emergence as an economic giant is perceived by Washington and New Delhi as a potential threat to their long-term interest in the region and beyond.
The idea of a “strategic relationship” between the United States and India was thus motivated by this consideration. The current US law does not allow nuclear trade with countries, like India, that have not signed the NPT. It remains to be seen if President Bush with his dwindling popularity rating in his country would be able to get this law amended that would not only run counter to the US policy on non-proliferation but also weaken its credibility as one of the major exponents of the NPT.
Being a close ally of the US in its war on terrorism and also a de facto nuclear weapons state, Pakistan expected to receive the same treatment that was accorded to India. However, the US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, recently said that Pakistan could not expect the same treatment as was accorded to India. It is not in the place as India. President Bush also said the same thing in polite in these words: “Pakistan and India are different countries with different needs and different histories. So as we proceed forward, our strategy will take in effect those well known differences”.
The Under Secretary of State, Nicholas Burns, however, pointed out that there had been no proliferation problems with India. He also noted that while India developed its nuclear programme indigenously, Pakistan built its arsenal with western technology obtained through dubious means. These misperceptions about India’s strict adherence to nuclear non-proliferation and Pakistan’s involvement in the sordid proliferation activities need to be placed in perspective.
It is inconceivable that the United States, with its most advanced intelligence network around the world, was not aware that in July 1978, India had entered into an agreement with Libya to help it in acquiring nuclear capability. This agreement was terminated by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi in August 1984. Subsequently, Libya concluded similar agreements, at different times, with the Soviet Union, Belgium, Argentina and Brazil.
As for Pakistan’s involvement in transferring nuclear technology to Libya, Iran and North Korea, it may be mentioned that during the 1970s when Libya evinced an interest in acquiring nuclear capability and approached Pakistan for that purpose, it expressed its inability to do so and the matter ended there. Similarly, following the fall of Shah Mohammad Raza Pehalvi of Iran in 1979, there was considerable uncertainty about the state of relationship between Pakistan and Iran.
As a matter of fact, the relations between them not only remained lukewarm all these years but also reached a new low after the withdrawal of the Soviet Union from Afghanistan in 1989. It does not, therefore, stand to reason that in these circumstances Pakistan would have cooperated with Iran in the pursuit of its nuclear ambition. As for North Korea, owing to the peculiar nature of its nuclear infrastructure it does not seek external nuclear assistance.
It may also be pertinent to point out that a report by the United States prime anti-proliferation organization, the Institute for Science and International Security, published in the spring of 2005 edition of Washington Quarterly, has endorsed Islamabad’s claim that Dr. A. Q. Khan’s network that sold nuclear technology in the black market was a transnational organization and not a Pakistan set-up. This should also help in quelling the doubts about Pakistan’s alleged involvement in proliferation activities. One hardly needs to remind the Americans that the technology and material needed to manufacture nuclear weapons are freely available in the black market and can be acquired by the emerging nuclear states through the middlemen based in Western Europe and America.
Regrettably, the United States has the propensity for unilateral actions with little regard for consequences. Its nuclear deal with India, based on political expediency, is a case in point. Washington should not, however, blink the fact that its partisan policy in favour of India may not only have adverse implications for Pakistan but also its strategic interests in the region may also be adversely affected.
After the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, and a standoff over Iran’s nuclear programme, the United States has already made itself very unpopular in the Muslim world. Its nuclear deal with India ignoring Pakistan’s security and energy concerns may further alienate the Muslim countries from America. The US policy-makers should, therefore, take a longer view and rectify the situation before the prevailing disillusionment in Pakistan becomes more acute.
President Pervez Musharraf’s advice to avoid an India-centric attitude in Pakistan does not fit into the country’s peculiar circumstances. It is not a cliche but a confirmed reality that, since its establishment in 1947, Pakistan’s main concern remains to safeguard its security and national integrity. A continuing conflict with India, which imposed three wars on Pakistan and played a crucial role in its dismemberment in 1971, necessitates that it should not lower its guard or preparedness counter the threat to its security. Needless to say, the nuclear deal between India and America has emerged as a serious threat to the country’s economy and security which it cannot simply overlook, or underrate.
The writer is a former ambassador.
Progress in the smoking war
THE numbers are dramatic — and encouraging. Americans smoked fewer cigarettes last year than any time since 1951, when the population was half what it is today. Cigarette sales dropped 4.2 percent in 2005 alone and 20 percent since 1998, according to data based on cigarette sales tax figures and compiled by the National Association of Attorneys General.
The state attorneys-general have an interest in proclaiming progress in the war on smoking — they attribute much of the decline to the effects of the $246 billion settlement the states reached with the tobacco industry in 1998 — and it’s possible that the study didn’t capture some cigarette sales, such as those conducted over the Internet or through the black market.
But the group’s optimistic findings are reinforced by other studies concluding that fewer Americans are smoking and that the ones who do are smoking less. The Centres for Disease Control and Prevention reported in November that the smoking rate among adults has been falling steadily, from 25 per cent in 1993 to 20.9 per cent in 2004.
—The Washington Post