A fresh start?

IT is hoped that Thursday’s meeting between President Asif Zardari and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh will help undo the grave damage that bilateral relations have suffered in recent months. Among other agreements, a pledge has been made to revive the composite dialogue process which was dealt a severe blow in July this year when the Indian embassy in Kabul came under ferocious attack. New Delhi, possibly at the instigation of Kabul, was quick to accuse Pakistan of direct involvement in the bombing. The severity of the charge and the undiplomatic language used by Indian officials was shocking, and tensions were ratcheted up further by subsequent clashes across the LoC and a string of bombings in India. Hopefully New Delhi will show more tact in the future. Instead of being broadcast to the world, any and all terrorism-related concerns must be addressed discreetly and at the proper forum, which in this case would be the Joint Anti-Terror Mechanism.

Given this backdrop, it will take more than a photo-op meeting in New York to restore trust between the two neighbours but at least a fresh start seems to have been made. Prime Minister Singh has also vowed to resolve the ongoing dispute triggered by the Baglihar Dam project in Indian-held Kashmir. Pakistan has not been receiving anywhere near its share of water envisaged under the Indus Water Treaty, and agriculture this side of Wagah has suffered as a result. It was also announced that at least four trade routes are to be opened, one of them across the LoC. This is a welcome move and the plan’s materialisation clearly the need of the day. In this age of regionalism, both countries and their citizens will benefit from freer trade and cheaper goods. In this connection, attention must be given to breathing new life into the comatose South Asia Free Trade Area agreement. Under Safta, customs duties on most products traded between Pakistan, India and Sri Lanka were to be lifted by 2012. But there has been no movement on this count, to the detriment of the region.

There was also no mention in New York of the popular uprising that is gathering strength in Indian-held Kashmir or the brutality with which security forces there are trying to suppress it. Understandable, perhaps, given that an attempt was being made to ease tensions, not inflame passions. Still, what President Zardari recently called “the main hurdle in the way towards peace and full normalisation of relations between Pakistan and India” has to be discussed sooner than later. This is not to suggest that the two countries should put everything else on hold until the Kashmir issue is resolved to the satisfaction of all parties to the dispute. But the plight of the Kashmiri people cannot be ignored either.

US general’s warning

MANY Pakistanis will tend to agree with what one of America’s top generals said on Thursday — the extremists threaten the very existence of Pakistan. Gen David Petraeus, who is to take over next month as commander Centcom (US forces in the Middle East and South-West Asia), told the media in Paris that Pakistani and Ame-

rican forces would have to work together, because Pakistan faced “an existentialist threat”. The general identified what he called the “common enemy” as a syndicate that contained within its fold Al Qaeda, the Taliban “and in between different forms of extremist movements”. Talking about the situation in Afghanistan he emphasised the need for “absolute engagement” with Pakistan and said there had to be “coordination, cooperation and very constructive dialogue” for the success of the war on the common enemy. Again Afghanistan was on his mind when he spoke of the need for developing an infrastructure to cope with troop increase, and most welcome was his belief that the American and Nato forces must be seen as liberators, not occupiers. One wishes this was emphasised by other political and military leaders on the other side of the Durand Line.

There are two aspects to Gen Petraeus’s statement: one is his diagnosis of the disorder, the other his prescription. There is no doubt that the war on terror is Pakistan’s own war. The more civilians the Taliban kill, the more girls’ schools they bomb and the more they intensify their war on the state

of Pakistan, the more they unite the people of Pakistan in their common resolve to crush terrorism. If the Taliban had been a little circumspect about their targets, perhaps the people of Pakistan would not have united against them the way they have after the Taliban decided as a matter of policy to resort to reckless acts of terror, no matter how many innocent men, women and children get killed and maimed. This spirit of national unity against the Taliban needs to be sustained, and America and the Nato governments can do this by demonstrating a sense of responsibility and respecting Pakistan’s sovereignty.

The “skirmishes” between the two sides on Thursday show a lack of clarity on the rules of engagement. Let the Americans leave it to Pakistan to fight terrorism within its borders; what Islamabad needs is economic and military assistance that could strengthen the country’s own ability to take on the enemy. Its forces, for instance, need equipment specific to guerilla war in the mountains. Rash actions like the violation of Pakistan’s borders by American forces

not only do not help, they undermine the democratic government in Islamabad, and lend support to the Taliban propaganda that portrays America as a threat to Pakistan.

An insensitive gesture

WHY do our presidents always end up embarrassing us internationally by making sexist remarks? First it was Gen Musharraf who, in the wake of the Mukhtaran Mai gang-rape case, indicated that women got themselves raped as that was an easy route to getting a foreign visa. Now, it is President Asif Zardari who, apparently smitten by the charms of US vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, called the Alaskan governor “gorgeous” and was quite prepared to give her a hug for the camera. It is, of course, bad enough for women in Pakistan to be looked upon by men as no more than personal property or a sex object. But it is equally insulting when such attitudes are displayed in full force abroad and that too by heads of state who, whatever their personal views on the subject, should ideally be restrained in their affections and observe some level of decorum.

In fact, given the remarkable political tenacity of the woman he was married to, it is even more surprising that President Zardari should exhibit such sentiments. For much of the world, Benazir Bhutto was a political leader who fought against two dictatorships and stood resolutely by the tenets of democracy. That she was a woman — and that too from a patriarchal national set-up — made her a symbol of hope for many of her sex. Perhaps our leaders need to recall the many contributions made by women here and abroad and that it has taken them centuries to break away from the mould of tradition. Much more remains to be done on that front, especially in conservative societies like ours where few women have the luxury of choice. Chauvinistic gestures by top leaders are not likely to help in that direction.

OTHER VOICES - Bangladesh Press

The stark realities

The News Today

ONLY investors know the worth of their hard-earned money. But sadly, the present caretaker government does not. That was why Bangladesh suffered a setback in receiving foreign direct investment (FDI) in the year 2007, registering $666m, which was 16 per cent lower than $793m of the previous year. The country’s FDI inflow went down at a time when the global FDI increased by around 30 per cent, according to a new World Investment Report (WIR) 2008 released in Dhaka on Wednesday. The Board of Investment (BoI) launched the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) report subtitled Transnational Corporations and the Infrastructure Challenge simultaneously from across the world. Foreign investors might have found investing profitable elsewhere than Bangladesh due to [the] problem of infrastructure, mainly the gas and electricity, BoI executive chairman Kamaluddin Ahmed told the launching ceremony at BoI….

It is no surprise that registration of foreign investment proposals in terms of dollar dropped by over 60 per cent in the last fiscal over that of the previous year. An economist attributed this to infrastructure and governance problems. Political instability too has appeared as the main deterrent to investment....

Our view of Bangladesh’s growth is that although it has been moderately good, it has been well below the economy’s potential. The key constraints on private sector-led growth in Bangladesh include the limited supply and unreliability of electricity, the inefficiency of Chittagong Port, Bangladesh’s lagging telecommunications development, high interest rates and the scarcity of credit in the banking system due to the high level of bad debt, and problems in dealing with the bureaucracy, including extortion and corruption. In the past the economy has demonstrated the capacity to increase the growth rate in response to policy and institutional reforms.

There has been considerable emphasis on the centrality of governance reforms in Bangladesh. All of the constraints on private sector development involve governance issues. In power, the main challenge is to reduce system loss. At Chittagong Port, there is a need to reduce dock workers’ and customs officials’ opportunities to extract rents to move consignments and reduce duties, although it should be recognised that recent improvements in customs administration have curtailed officials’ discretion and dramatically shortened clearance times. BTTB’s vested interest in restricting competition needs to be surmounted to enable expanded private sector participation in the ITC sector. — (Sept 26)

EU’s inadequate focus on Pakistan

THE fallout on Europe of the US banking and financial crisis and persistent tensions between Russia and Georgia continue to preoccupy most governments across the 27-nation European Union.

But last weekend’s tragic and deadly truck bomb blast at the Marriott hotel in Islamabad has finally thrust Pakistan on to the EU agenda, forcing the bloc’s key policymakers to take a closer look at the country’s security, political and economic challenges.

European policymakers readily admit that the US has a pivotal role to play in Pakistan and that despite their growing global ambitions, the 27 EU countries are and will remain little more than bit players in the country.

However, with troops from many key European countries now part of Nato forces confronting Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan — and the rising number of casualties among European soldiers — EU governments are under pressure to review their hitherto lacklustre and uninspiring relationship with Pakistan.

As the media hype around President Asif Ali Zardari’s recent meeting in New York with President George W. Bush illustrates, despite — or because of — growing anger at US military action inside Pakistani territory, America will continue to loom very large on Pakistan’s security and political landscape.

Significantly, however, although the meeting was less publicised than Mr Zardari’s talks with Mr Bush, the new Pakistani leader also met French President Nicolas Sarkozy, current president of the EU, as well as other EU leaders and senior officials.

The meetings have triggered hopes that the French government will work to put EU relations with Pakistan higher up on the bloc’s foreign policy agenda. Certainly after the death in August of French soldiers in Afghanistan, the French political class and the French public are more focused on the region than in the past.

However, for all their condemnation of the attack on the Marriott and other terrorist activity in Pakistan as well as the rising death toll of their troops in Afghanistan, too many European governments have still not focused their minds on how best to tackle extremism and terrorist violence in Pakistan.

EU leaders, for instance, have yet to have an indepth discussion of the situation in Pakistan — or even Afghanistan — at their regular summit meetings. The same is true for monthly gatherings of EU foreign ministers where deliberations traditionally tend to centre on the Balkans, Iran and the Middle East.

Many EU policymakers readily admit that such lack of interest in Pakistan is no longer tenable. But a change in EU attitudes and policy priorities will only come when European governments finally recognise three key realities.

First, that the struggle to stabilise Afghanistan and win the war against insurgents cannot be successful without the help of Pakistan. Second that, even if one day western coalition forces do manage to defeat the Afghan insurgency, the so-called war against terror is moving inexorably into Pakistan, with terrorist groups, foreign and local, stepping up the battle against the people and the government of the country.

And third, that instability and violence in Pakistan will inevitably spill over into Europe, via Britain, home to thousands of British-Asians of Pakistani origin.

While a focus on its neighbourhood and the Middle East is important, the EU cannot claim to be a global power committed to worldwide peace and security while continuing to pay little attention to the political, economic and social plight of Pakistan.So far, however, while the message is clearly understood by Britain, the European Commission and EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana, many EU states, including heavyweight Germany, continue to view Pakistan as a sideshow to the wider conflict underway in Afghanistan.

The onus is also on the new Pakistani government to prove that such neglect is wrong, dangerous and short-sighted.

Former President Pervez Musharraf tried to do just that earlier this year when he met key EU senior officials and highlighted Pakistan’s role in fighting terrorism in an address to the European Parliament. Musharraf’s pleas for help, however, were drowned out by Euro MPs demanding a return to democracy and rule of law in Pakistan.

In any case, Musharraf, as a military ruler, had few friends in Europe. Pakistan’s new democratically-elected government, on the other hand, has more credibility. True, President Zardari’s reputation is far from perfect, with many in Europe sceptical of his unabashed pro-American leanings, his shaky and untested political credentials and his ability to steer the country through the current political and economic storm.

Whatever their doubts about Mr Zardari, however, EU diplomats recognise that the Pakistani leader faces a tough balancing act between, on the one hand, growing demands from Washington for more sustained and decisive action against the extremists and on the other widespread opposition at home to Pakistan’s involvement in the ‘war on terror’.

The key challenge facing Islamabad’s new leaders, say EU officials, is to convince Pakistanis that they are not fighting ‘America’s war’ but are engaged in a national struggle against terrorists determined to destabilise their country.

Europeans do have some cards up their sleeve. If the reports are correct and there is going to be a version of a Marshall Plan for the northern areas of Pakistan, then EU funding will be essential. The EU can also offer expertise on the reform of political and legal institutions, education and vocational training. A small but influential group of European parliamentarians are lobbying for more attention and assistance for Pakistan. “An unstable Pakistan is in no one’s interest,” said Euro MP Sajjad Karim this week, adding: “What happens there is important for Europe’s security.”

Seeking to widen the EU debate on Pakistan, Karim recently hosted Pakistani politician Imran Khan at the EU assembly. Khan’s message that the current government strategy against terrorism was not working and that indiscriminate army action in Fata was helping Al Qaeda’s recruitment drive, was listened to very carefully by Euro MPs.

Not everyone in Europe agrees with Khan’s thesis that Islamabad must engage in dialogue with the Taliban, fearing this will lead to more, not fewer, terrorist attacks.

But other Pakistani politicians need to follow Khan’s example and brief EU policymakers on the complexities of the country’s politics. The new men and women running the show in Islamabad must think beyond the US — and Britain — and like other Asian countries including India and China, try to engage in an intelligent conversation with the EU and its member countries.

Reforming monarchy

THE UK government has drawn up plans to end the 300-year-old exclusion of Catholics from the British throne. The requirement that the succession automatically pass to a male would also be reformed, making it possible for a first born daughter of Prince William to become his heir.

The proposals also include limiting the powers of the privy council, in particular its role as arbiter in disputes between Scotland or Wales and the UK government.

The plans were drafted by Chris Bryant, the MP who was charged by the British prime minister Gordon Brown with reviewing the constitution. It is understood the Brown administration would like the legislation to be passed quickly following Labour winning a fourth term in government at the next UK general election. Bryant briefed constitutional pressure groups on the plans at a private seminar in Manchester during the Labour Party conference there this week.

Government ministers have long thought it anomalous that it is unlawful for a Catholic to be monarch but have not had the political will to risk reforming the law.

The 1688 Bill of Rights , the Act of Settlement in 1701 and Act of Union in 1707 — reinforced by the provisions of the Coronation Oath Act 1688 — effectively excluded Catholics or their spouses from the succession and provided for the Protestant succession. Neither Catholics nor those who marry them nor those born to them out of wedlock may be in the line of succession.

The law also requires the monarch on accession to make before parliament a declaration rejecting Catholicism.

Though the Act of Settlement remains a cornerstone of the British constitution, critics have long argued about its relevance in the 21st century, saying it institutionalises religious discrimination and male primogeniture.

Eight years ago, the Guardian launched a campaign for a change in the law. Geoffrey Robertson QC, the constitutional lawyer who has represented the paper in challenges to the constitutional restrictions, said on Wednesday: “The Act of Settlement determined that the crown shall descend only on Protestant heads and that anyone ‘who holds communion with the church of Rome or marries a Papist’ — not to mention a Muslim, Hindu, Jew or Rastafarian — is excluded by force of law.”

— The Guardian, London