Rental power debacle
The Supreme Court (SC) has struck down all the Rental Power Projects (RPPs) as non-transparent, illegal and void ab initio, and ordered all those responsible to be taken to task according to the law. It may be recalled that the idea of RPPs as an immediate measure for electricity generation and supply was mooted in the last days of the Musharraf government, which otherwise failed to add even a single MW of electricity to the system in almost a decade of Musharraf’s rule. The concept was part of a three-tiered solution to the energy crisis: short, medium and long term. In the immediate or short term the increasing energy deficit was sought to be alleviated if not met by inducting RPPs that could start functioning in a matter of months as opposed to Independent Power Producers (IPPs) that often take years to come on line. The IPPs were considered part of the medium term tier, which included enhancement of hydel electricity through small dams and run-of-the-river projects. In the long term, large dams and an increase in renewable energy for local distribution were considered most feasible, although work on renewable energy could overlap the first two tiers. As it has turned out however, of the 19 RPP projects envisaged, only six were allowed to be set up by a review initiated with the Asian Development Bank (ADB) after the issue generated controversy. None of the RPPs, in the ADB view, were cost-effective, but if the government was determined to go ahead nevertheless, the number should be curtailed. Advances of first seven percent of the cost, later raised to 14 percent, were paid up front. No proper monitoring appears to have taken place after that, resulting in the anomalous situation that the country was getting merely 120 MW from all the RPPs put together, and none from some. Since the case has been in the SC, some money advanced has been recovered, while the court has now advised NAB to pursue the matter to ascertain civil and criminal liability of all those involved in approving and funding the RPPs.
While there is no quibbling with the SC’s judgement that the whole affair stinks of corruption and kickbacks as the explanation why the authorities were so ‘generous’ with the RPPs, there may be a danger that the SC’s verdict ends up throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Conceptually, the three-tier scheme outlined above makes eminent sense. However, the irreducible condition for it to be successful involved a transparent, competitive process of awarding such contracts, on terms mutually beneficial to both parties and not, as in the said instance, one-sided in favour of the RPPs, and proper monitoring to ensure the terms of the contract were being complied with, especially where agreed generation is concerned.
The SC is absolutely right in insisting that pilferage and the circular debt problem that bedevils the power sector be addressed since, on paper at least, installed capacity is sufficient if all the plants run at maximum capacity. In the ordinary course of things, that is seldom the case since breakdowns, maintenance shutdowns, etc, quite apart from the current conundrum of insufficient funds to run at full capacity because of the circular debt mean that installed capacity is seldom fully available on any given day. What is required is a cushion to take account of such shortfalls. Inadvertently, the SC verdict may now make investment in the power sector even more difficult since the cancellation of the RPP contracts will willy nilly send a negative message to potential investors. The verdict appears not only to have shut the door on any RPPs in future (even provided the conditions outlined above are met), it could also make IPPs difficult to set up. Wrongdoers who have played around irresponsibly or in a corrupt manner with public money must be brought to book of course. But the country may now face fresh problems in meeting growing energy demands in the future if the energy mix can no longer rely on fresh IPPs.
Saturday, March 31, 2012
Friday, March 30, 2012
Daily Times editorial March 31, 2012
The killing fields of Balochistan
Once again a sectarian attack has killed Shia Hazaras in Quetta. A van carrying members of the Hazara community was riddled with automatic arms fire in the Balochistan capital, killing five people, including a woman, and wounding six others. Riots broke out in the city after the incident, leading to more deaths and destruction. One policeman was killed and two protestors are reported to have been killed in an exchange of fire between protestors and the police while vehicles and buildings were torched. The Hazara Democratic Party and the Pakhtunkhwa Milli Awami Party separately called for a shutterdown strike on Friday, a call that was supported by the ANP, JWP, BNP and Anjuman Tajiran Balochistan. The Tahafuz-e-Azadaran Council and the Balochistan Shia Conference have also come out with their response. While the former announced three days of mourning, the latter proposed the formation of a grand jirga comprising the PPP’s alienated Lashkari Raisani and other leaders to stop the systematic killings of the Hazara community. One report says the Taliban’s Jundullah faction has claimed responsibility for the dastardly attack. As if all this was not bad enough, on the very same day two UN workers were killed and one wounded in an ambush on their car near Mastung. Although no one has accepted responsibility, it may be recalled that Mastung was the site of one of the most gruesome Shia massacres when people were taken off a bus and shot in cold blood. Whether the latter attack has a sectarian colour or not is not known at this time, but there is little doubt that the killings of Hazara Shias in Balochistan is beginning to take on a sinister pattern. One reason why this may be so is that the Hazara community is known as one of the most peaceful, law abiding and hard working communities in the province. Perhaps the sectarian terrorists see them as ‘easy pickings’. The latest victims of this dance macabre have been added to the thousands of victims of sectarian killings since Ziaul Haq’s unleashing of Sunni extremist groups in the 1980s. What is surprising in the whole episode is that after the pattern of sectarian attacks against the Hazara community cane to the surface in recent months, why have the law enforcement authorities fallen asleep instead of taking extraordinary measures to protect the vulnerable community?
One explanation for this lapse may be sought in the fact that the law enforcement agencies have their hands full in combating the Baloch nationalist insurgency, which by now has spread to virtually the whole province. While the military authorities and the hated FC seem to be concentrating on trying to eliminate all active nationalists, whether moderate or militant, through their ‘kill and dump’ policy, the disturbed conditions in Balochistan have left space for sectarian terrorists and even criminal gangs to freely indulge in kidnappings for ransom and other crimes without let or hindrance. In the context of the newfound interest by some US Congressmen in Balochistan’s plight, it is advisable that the civilian leadership in the province and the Centre wake up to their responsibilities, take control of the province’s affairs, stop Balochistan turning increasingly into a killing field, and open a channel of talks with the estranged Baloch nationalist leadership and all other stakeholders to bring peace back to the province through political means. If they fail the people of Balochistan in continuing to show their helplessness in the province’s affairs at the hands of the military, history may one day record how Balochistan was steadily driven out of the federation. If such a cataclysmic development were to actually transpire, what would be left of Pakistan?
Once again a sectarian attack has killed Shia Hazaras in Quetta. A van carrying members of the Hazara community was riddled with automatic arms fire in the Balochistan capital, killing five people, including a woman, and wounding six others. Riots broke out in the city after the incident, leading to more deaths and destruction. One policeman was killed and two protestors are reported to have been killed in an exchange of fire between protestors and the police while vehicles and buildings were torched. The Hazara Democratic Party and the Pakhtunkhwa Milli Awami Party separately called for a shutterdown strike on Friday, a call that was supported by the ANP, JWP, BNP and Anjuman Tajiran Balochistan. The Tahafuz-e-Azadaran Council and the Balochistan Shia Conference have also come out with their response. While the former announced three days of mourning, the latter proposed the formation of a grand jirga comprising the PPP’s alienated Lashkari Raisani and other leaders to stop the systematic killings of the Hazara community. One report says the Taliban’s Jundullah faction has claimed responsibility for the dastardly attack. As if all this was not bad enough, on the very same day two UN workers were killed and one wounded in an ambush on their car near Mastung. Although no one has accepted responsibility, it may be recalled that Mastung was the site of one of the most gruesome Shia massacres when people were taken off a bus and shot in cold blood. Whether the latter attack has a sectarian colour or not is not known at this time, but there is little doubt that the killings of Hazara Shias in Balochistan is beginning to take on a sinister pattern. One reason why this may be so is that the Hazara community is known as one of the most peaceful, law abiding and hard working communities in the province. Perhaps the sectarian terrorists see them as ‘easy pickings’. The latest victims of this dance macabre have been added to the thousands of victims of sectarian killings since Ziaul Haq’s unleashing of Sunni extremist groups in the 1980s. What is surprising in the whole episode is that after the pattern of sectarian attacks against the Hazara community cane to the surface in recent months, why have the law enforcement authorities fallen asleep instead of taking extraordinary measures to protect the vulnerable community?
One explanation for this lapse may be sought in the fact that the law enforcement agencies have their hands full in combating the Baloch nationalist insurgency, which by now has spread to virtually the whole province. While the military authorities and the hated FC seem to be concentrating on trying to eliminate all active nationalists, whether moderate or militant, through their ‘kill and dump’ policy, the disturbed conditions in Balochistan have left space for sectarian terrorists and even criminal gangs to freely indulge in kidnappings for ransom and other crimes without let or hindrance. In the context of the newfound interest by some US Congressmen in Balochistan’s plight, it is advisable that the civilian leadership in the province and the Centre wake up to their responsibilities, take control of the province’s affairs, stop Balochistan turning increasingly into a killing field, and open a channel of talks with the estranged Baloch nationalist leadership and all other stakeholders to bring peace back to the province through political means. If they fail the people of Balochistan in continuing to show their helplessness in the province’s affairs at the hands of the military, history may one day record how Balochistan was steadily driven out of the federation. If such a cataclysmic development were to actually transpire, what would be left of Pakistan?
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Daily Times Editorial March 30, 2012
Women in Afghanistan
Human Rights Watch (HRW) has released a report in Kabul called ‘I Had to Run Away’, which documents the plight of women in the deeply traditional society of Afghanistan. The report says hundreds of Afghan women are languishing in prison charged with moral crimes, which include running away from home and being accused of adultery. It goes on to point out that 10 years after the overthrow of the Taliban regime that brutally suppressed women, girls and women are still imprisoned for running away from domestic violence or forced marriage. HRW estimates there are at least 400 women in prison and girls in juvenile detention facilities accused or convicted of offences, including ‘running away’, which is not a crime under the Afghan penal code. The report goes on to bear witness that some women and girls have been convicted of zina – sex outside marriage – after being raped or forced into prostitution. Convictions are often obtained solely on the basis of ‘confessions’ extracted in the absence of lawyers and ‘signed’ without having been read to women who cannot read or write. Conviction routinely attracts long prison sentences, in some cases more than 10 years. In the deeply conservative Afghan society, the 58 women inmates interviewed for the report feared they could be murdered by their families after release for reasons of ‘honour’. Even women who have been raped by relatives or others are ironically happier inside prison where they feel safer for fear they will be killed when they are freed.
The HRW report criticises President Hamid Karzai on at least two counts. One, although the president has regularly pardoned women convicted of ‘moral crimes’, this does not compensate for the injustice in the first place, nor does it change the danger of ‘honour’ killings of these unfortunate women. Second, this month Karzai endorsed an edict by the Ulema Council, the country’s highest Islamic authority, asserting that women are worth less than men. The edict said women should avoid mingling with male strangers in various social activities such as education, in bazaars, offices and other aspects of life, in effect preventing women from getting education or going out to work. Most worryingly, the Council has left the door open for domestic and other abuse by stating that “teasing, harassing and beating women” was prohibited “without a Sharia-compliant reason”. The statement implies that in some circumstances, domestic abuse was not only allowed, but also appropriate. HRW researcher Heather Barr expressed the apprehension that with the west preparing to scale down its presence in Afghanistan (if not withdraw altogether), Karzai was readjusting his stance to neutralise both the Taliban and powerful traditionalist Afghans in order to survive in power.
There is of course no denying that the position of women has improved impressively since the medievalist days of the Taliban, when women were not allowed to go out without a mehram (close male relative), effectively cutting them off physically and socially from education and work. While the post-Taliban Afghan constitution and other laws enshrine the rights of women, these are more often than not practiced in the breach. To add to this continuing sorry state of affairs rooted not just in Taliban ideology but also the backward patriarchal culture of Afghanistan, the women of Afghanistan are fearful that both the Americans and the Afghan government, in their efforts to make peace with the Taliban in a bid to end the war, are opening the door to compromising whatever rights women have achieved on paper or in real life. That would be a real travesty and negation of the human and other costs of this prolonged war for a more enlightened society that would have turned its back on the cruel medievalism of the Taliban. It goes without saying that the HRW report has helped highlight the plight of women accused of ‘moral crimes’ and increasingly apprehensive of the creeping shadows of a return of Taliban attitudes if not practices. Pakistan’s enlightened society, especially the Afghan women’s sisters here, must stand in support of the beleaguered women of Afghanistan, who certainly deserve a better fate and future than male politicians compromising with the Taliban and in any case informed by reactionary patriarchal attitudes are able to offer.
Human Rights Watch (HRW) has released a report in Kabul called ‘I Had to Run Away’, which documents the plight of women in the deeply traditional society of Afghanistan. The report says hundreds of Afghan women are languishing in prison charged with moral crimes, which include running away from home and being accused of adultery. It goes on to point out that 10 years after the overthrow of the Taliban regime that brutally suppressed women, girls and women are still imprisoned for running away from domestic violence or forced marriage. HRW estimates there are at least 400 women in prison and girls in juvenile detention facilities accused or convicted of offences, including ‘running away’, which is not a crime under the Afghan penal code. The report goes on to bear witness that some women and girls have been convicted of zina – sex outside marriage – after being raped or forced into prostitution. Convictions are often obtained solely on the basis of ‘confessions’ extracted in the absence of lawyers and ‘signed’ without having been read to women who cannot read or write. Conviction routinely attracts long prison sentences, in some cases more than 10 years. In the deeply conservative Afghan society, the 58 women inmates interviewed for the report feared they could be murdered by their families after release for reasons of ‘honour’. Even women who have been raped by relatives or others are ironically happier inside prison where they feel safer for fear they will be killed when they are freed.
The HRW report criticises President Hamid Karzai on at least two counts. One, although the president has regularly pardoned women convicted of ‘moral crimes’, this does not compensate for the injustice in the first place, nor does it change the danger of ‘honour’ killings of these unfortunate women. Second, this month Karzai endorsed an edict by the Ulema Council, the country’s highest Islamic authority, asserting that women are worth less than men. The edict said women should avoid mingling with male strangers in various social activities such as education, in bazaars, offices and other aspects of life, in effect preventing women from getting education or going out to work. Most worryingly, the Council has left the door open for domestic and other abuse by stating that “teasing, harassing and beating women” was prohibited “without a Sharia-compliant reason”. The statement implies that in some circumstances, domestic abuse was not only allowed, but also appropriate. HRW researcher Heather Barr expressed the apprehension that with the west preparing to scale down its presence in Afghanistan (if not withdraw altogether), Karzai was readjusting his stance to neutralise both the Taliban and powerful traditionalist Afghans in order to survive in power.
There is of course no denying that the position of women has improved impressively since the medievalist days of the Taliban, when women were not allowed to go out without a mehram (close male relative), effectively cutting them off physically and socially from education and work. While the post-Taliban Afghan constitution and other laws enshrine the rights of women, these are more often than not practiced in the breach. To add to this continuing sorry state of affairs rooted not just in Taliban ideology but also the backward patriarchal culture of Afghanistan, the women of Afghanistan are fearful that both the Americans and the Afghan government, in their efforts to make peace with the Taliban in a bid to end the war, are opening the door to compromising whatever rights women have achieved on paper or in real life. That would be a real travesty and negation of the human and other costs of this prolonged war for a more enlightened society that would have turned its back on the cruel medievalism of the Taliban. It goes without saying that the HRW report has helped highlight the plight of women accused of ‘moral crimes’ and increasingly apprehensive of the creeping shadows of a return of Taliban attitudes if not practices. Pakistan’s enlightened society, especially the Afghan women’s sisters here, must stand in support of the beleaguered women of Afghanistan, who certainly deserve a better fate and future than male politicians compromising with the Taliban and in any case informed by reactionary patriarchal attitudes are able to offer.
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Daily Times Editorial March 29, 2012
Obama-Gilani meeting
As often happens in international diplomacy, world leaders take advantage of multilateral forums to conduct bilateral business on the sidelines of the main menu. That is what the meeting of US President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani on the sidelines of the Seoul Nuclear Summit represents. It goes without saying that any meeting between Pakistani and US officials these days evokes great interest. Even cancelled meetings are cause for comment. How much more importance then does this encounter at the highest level since the Abbottabad raid that killed Osama bi laden acquire does not require explication. In the media interaction after the one-on-one discussion, it was obvious from the words and body language of both leaders that a concerted mutual effort was being made to find a mutually acceptable formulation that would assist both sides to grope their way towards a restoration of their seriously fraught relationship. It is by now well known what were the developments over the last year or so that brought things to this pass. Briefly, the steady downward spiral in relations can be marked from the Raymond Davis affair, through the Abbottabad raid to the Salala check post killing of 24 Pakistani soldiers. Since the Pakistan government decided to review the ties with the US to put them on a more equal footing that recognises and respects Pakistan’s concerns regarding its sovereignty and other issues, and that review is currently before a joint session of parliament, President Obama expressed the hope that the parliamentary review would be balanced and respect the US’s security needs vis-à-vis terrorism. In his remarks Obama also underlined respect for Pakistan’s sovereignty, which has become a real bone of contention since the Abbottabad raid since in the Pakistani perspective, it violated Pakistan’s air and territorial sovereignty. Gilani therefore was appreciative of Obama’s references to Pakistan’s sovereignty. So while much ‘respect’ was on offer from both sides, and the usual ritual formulations about a stable Pakistan and Afghanistan being in everyone’s interests were reiterated, the lingering tension between the two ostensible allies was obvious. At best the meeting can be described as putting a measured (not best) public face on a severely damaged diplomatic relationship.
The White House could not be drawn on whether the contentious issue of drone strikes was discussed. Nevertheless, a report in the media has revealed that Pakistan rejected a US offer of concessions on drone attacks such as advance notice of attacks and limits on the types of targets. The issue has become a hot potato in Pakistani politics, with many political parties and forces agitating against drone strikes, seen by many as again violative of Pakistani sovereignty and counter-productive because of collateral civilian casualties. Whether the report is true or not, it may not be beyond the realm of possibility, given that the drones issue has been inserting itself into the US-Pakistan equation from time to time. It has even found an echo in the debate currently underway in a joint session of parliament in which the recommendations of the Parliamentary Committee on National Security (PCNS) are being examined. Whereas the report on the drones concessions argues that the actual level and nature of the interaction between Washington and Islamabad is more positive than it appears at first glance, and this may be strengthened by the report that Generals Allen and Kayani have met, the mood of the opposition in Pakistan is anything but sanguine. Their strong resistance during the session has caused delay and their detailed objections to the recommendations have forced the head of the PCNS, Senator Raza Rabbani, to state in the house that in line with the government’s approach of seeking consensus on the 18th, 19th and 20th Amendments, they would not attempt to railroad these recommendations through parliament. He also pointed out that the recommendations were the result of the PCNS’s confabulations in which all parties, and not just the treasury benches, were represented. The recommendations therefore, Senator Rabbani argued, could not be seen as a purely government set of proposals. They represented the broad sense of the PCNS. If US-Pakistani engagement is difficult enough, the debate in parliament offers little prospect of an early conclusion, and quite possibly the end result will not be consensual.
As often happens in international diplomacy, world leaders take advantage of multilateral forums to conduct bilateral business on the sidelines of the main menu. That is what the meeting of US President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani on the sidelines of the Seoul Nuclear Summit represents. It goes without saying that any meeting between Pakistani and US officials these days evokes great interest. Even cancelled meetings are cause for comment. How much more importance then does this encounter at the highest level since the Abbottabad raid that killed Osama bi laden acquire does not require explication. In the media interaction after the one-on-one discussion, it was obvious from the words and body language of both leaders that a concerted mutual effort was being made to find a mutually acceptable formulation that would assist both sides to grope their way towards a restoration of their seriously fraught relationship. It is by now well known what were the developments over the last year or so that brought things to this pass. Briefly, the steady downward spiral in relations can be marked from the Raymond Davis affair, through the Abbottabad raid to the Salala check post killing of 24 Pakistani soldiers. Since the Pakistan government decided to review the ties with the US to put them on a more equal footing that recognises and respects Pakistan’s concerns regarding its sovereignty and other issues, and that review is currently before a joint session of parliament, President Obama expressed the hope that the parliamentary review would be balanced and respect the US’s security needs vis-à-vis terrorism. In his remarks Obama also underlined respect for Pakistan’s sovereignty, which has become a real bone of contention since the Abbottabad raid since in the Pakistani perspective, it violated Pakistan’s air and territorial sovereignty. Gilani therefore was appreciative of Obama’s references to Pakistan’s sovereignty. So while much ‘respect’ was on offer from both sides, and the usual ritual formulations about a stable Pakistan and Afghanistan being in everyone’s interests were reiterated, the lingering tension between the two ostensible allies was obvious. At best the meeting can be described as putting a measured (not best) public face on a severely damaged diplomatic relationship.
The White House could not be drawn on whether the contentious issue of drone strikes was discussed. Nevertheless, a report in the media has revealed that Pakistan rejected a US offer of concessions on drone attacks such as advance notice of attacks and limits on the types of targets. The issue has become a hot potato in Pakistani politics, with many political parties and forces agitating against drone strikes, seen by many as again violative of Pakistani sovereignty and counter-productive because of collateral civilian casualties. Whether the report is true or not, it may not be beyond the realm of possibility, given that the drones issue has been inserting itself into the US-Pakistan equation from time to time. It has even found an echo in the debate currently underway in a joint session of parliament in which the recommendations of the Parliamentary Committee on National Security (PCNS) are being examined. Whereas the report on the drones concessions argues that the actual level and nature of the interaction between Washington and Islamabad is more positive than it appears at first glance, and this may be strengthened by the report that Generals Allen and Kayani have met, the mood of the opposition in Pakistan is anything but sanguine. Their strong resistance during the session has caused delay and their detailed objections to the recommendations have forced the head of the PCNS, Senator Raza Rabbani, to state in the house that in line with the government’s approach of seeking consensus on the 18th, 19th and 20th Amendments, they would not attempt to railroad these recommendations through parliament. He also pointed out that the recommendations were the result of the PCNS’s confabulations in which all parties, and not just the treasury benches, were represented. The recommendations therefore, Senator Rabbani argued, could not be seen as a purely government set of proposals. They represented the broad sense of the PCNS. If US-Pakistani engagement is difficult enough, the debate in parliament offers little prospect of an early conclusion, and quite possibly the end result will not be consensual.
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Daily Times Editorial March 28, 2012
Seoul Security Summit
At the two-day international Nuclear Security Summit in Seoul, South Korea, Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani has been making his pitch for Pakistan to be given access to nuclear technology for peaceful purposes on a non-discriminatory basis. He argued that nuclear technology was required to meet Pakistan’s growing energy needs. The National Command Authority, Gilani revealed, had approved a Nuclear Power Programme for 2050 to increase energy production from nuclear sources. Pakistan, he went on, had taken effective measures to enhance nuclear security. Underlining the importance of the second Nuclear Security Summit being held in Seoul, the prime minister expressed the hope that the Summit will lead to breaking new ground on the evolving global nuclear security architecture, the role of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and protection of nuclear materials and radioactive sources. He pointed to the IAEA’s approval of the safeguards agreements of the two civil nuclear power plants (supplied by China) as reflective of the world’s continued confidence in the safety and security standards of the country. The agenda the Summit has set itself is reducing the threat of nuclear terrorism through curbing trafficking and improving the security of nuclear installations.
Pakistan is vying to be accepted internationally as a responsible nuclear state, one deserving membership of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG). This is not an easy task, given the bad track record of the country vis-à-vis nuclear proliferation. It may be recalled that Pakistan stands accused of passing on nuclear know-how to North Korea, Iran, and Libya under Gaddafi. After Musharraf persuaded Dr A Q Khan to fall on his own sword and accept responsibility solely, Pakistan has been trying to regain its lost reputation in this regard. Some water has flowed down the rivers since that ignominious episode, but the world will still need persistent persuading that Pakistan has turned a corner and should no longer be looked at with suspicion or reservations. Gilani even offered to train nuclear experts in Pakistan, another effort to indicate that Pakistan had nothing to hide (unlike in the past). Pakistan’s track record and its recent coming closer to Iran on the gas pipeline, purchase of electricity from Iran and enhanced trade and economic cooperation could negatively impact its diplomatic efforts on the civilian nuclear use issue. It should not be forgotten that the most powerful country in the world, the US, frowns upon Pakistan’s closeness with its neighbour, accused as Tehran is of pursuing nuclear weapons. The US has refused to commit on whether it will treat Pakistan’s request for nuclear technology sympathetically or not if and when Islamabad applies for it.
Nuclear power has of late become even more controversial after the Fukushima disaster in Japan. Many states, including developed ones, are backing away from or not as vigorously pursuing nuclear power. Safety standards may have improved in the nuclear industry, but the immensely powerful elemental forces of nature mankind is trying to tame have the potential at any given moment to cause immense damage and loss of life. Then the problem of disposal of nuclear waste (an inevitable by-product of the nuclear fuel cycle) has yet to find satisfactory resolution, given that such waste decays over thousands of years. There is no doubt that Pakistan is facing a critical energy crisis that is causing immense losses to the economy. Pakistan cannot therefore put all its eggs in one basket. With the caveats outlined above regarding safety, if Pakistan pursues its nuclear power goals, it must not shut its eyes to the need for a diverse energy mix to overcome the country’s energy deficit. We tend to resent India’s success in getting a civilian nuclear deal from Bush. But we must pursue friendly countries like Turkey to help us in the conventional energy field while continuing to engage the world on nuclear energy issues.
At the two-day international Nuclear Security Summit in Seoul, South Korea, Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani has been making his pitch for Pakistan to be given access to nuclear technology for peaceful purposes on a non-discriminatory basis. He argued that nuclear technology was required to meet Pakistan’s growing energy needs. The National Command Authority, Gilani revealed, had approved a Nuclear Power Programme for 2050 to increase energy production from nuclear sources. Pakistan, he went on, had taken effective measures to enhance nuclear security. Underlining the importance of the second Nuclear Security Summit being held in Seoul, the prime minister expressed the hope that the Summit will lead to breaking new ground on the evolving global nuclear security architecture, the role of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and protection of nuclear materials and radioactive sources. He pointed to the IAEA’s approval of the safeguards agreements of the two civil nuclear power plants (supplied by China) as reflective of the world’s continued confidence in the safety and security standards of the country. The agenda the Summit has set itself is reducing the threat of nuclear terrorism through curbing trafficking and improving the security of nuclear installations.
Pakistan is vying to be accepted internationally as a responsible nuclear state, one deserving membership of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG). This is not an easy task, given the bad track record of the country vis-à-vis nuclear proliferation. It may be recalled that Pakistan stands accused of passing on nuclear know-how to North Korea, Iran, and Libya under Gaddafi. After Musharraf persuaded Dr A Q Khan to fall on his own sword and accept responsibility solely, Pakistan has been trying to regain its lost reputation in this regard. Some water has flowed down the rivers since that ignominious episode, but the world will still need persistent persuading that Pakistan has turned a corner and should no longer be looked at with suspicion or reservations. Gilani even offered to train nuclear experts in Pakistan, another effort to indicate that Pakistan had nothing to hide (unlike in the past). Pakistan’s track record and its recent coming closer to Iran on the gas pipeline, purchase of electricity from Iran and enhanced trade and economic cooperation could negatively impact its diplomatic efforts on the civilian nuclear use issue. It should not be forgotten that the most powerful country in the world, the US, frowns upon Pakistan’s closeness with its neighbour, accused as Tehran is of pursuing nuclear weapons. The US has refused to commit on whether it will treat Pakistan’s request for nuclear technology sympathetically or not if and when Islamabad applies for it.
Nuclear power has of late become even more controversial after the Fukushima disaster in Japan. Many states, including developed ones, are backing away from or not as vigorously pursuing nuclear power. Safety standards may have improved in the nuclear industry, but the immensely powerful elemental forces of nature mankind is trying to tame have the potential at any given moment to cause immense damage and loss of life. Then the problem of disposal of nuclear waste (an inevitable by-product of the nuclear fuel cycle) has yet to find satisfactory resolution, given that such waste decays over thousands of years. There is no doubt that Pakistan is facing a critical energy crisis that is causing immense losses to the economy. Pakistan cannot therefore put all its eggs in one basket. With the caveats outlined above regarding safety, if Pakistan pursues its nuclear power goals, it must not shut its eyes to the need for a diverse energy mix to overcome the country’s energy deficit. We tend to resent India’s success in getting a civilian nuclear deal from Bush. But we must pursue friendly countries like Turkey to help us in the conventional energy field while continuing to engage the world on nuclear energy issues.
Monday, March 26, 2012
Daily Times Editorial March 27, 2012
Dushanbe summit
Quadrilateral talks between the presidents of Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and host Tajikistan took place in Dushanbe on the occasion of Nauroz, which reiterated the regional countries’ desire to promote mutual trade, economic cooperation, coordinate the struggle against terrorism, militancy and drug-trafficking for what was described as a “win-win situation”. In the context of regional energy cooperation, President Asif Ali Zardari once again expressed Pakistan’s commitment to the Iran-Pakistan (IP) and Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) gas pipeline projects. On Afghanistan, President Zardari said non-state actors wanted to destabilise that country but Pakistan was committed to peace in the region. He went on to assert that a stable Afghanistan is in the interests of Pakistan. Further, he underlined the greater significance of closer cooperation amongst the four countries in all fields, particularly defence, security and intelligence sharing. The message all four presidents put out at the end of their summit was that terrorism and militancy posed a serious threat to peace, security and socio-economic development of the region and needed to be tackled jointly through a regional approach and solutions. Stronger bonds needed to be created amongst them through trade, communications, transportation, energy and infrastructure. The presidents agreed that the joyous occasion of Nauroz on which they were meeting represents peace, tolerance and friendship among all civilisations of the world. Afghan President Karzai and Iranian President Ahmedinejad called for unity and solidarity among the regional countries. Similar sentiments were voiced by the host, Tajik President Emomali Rahmon.
The context in which this regional summit should be seen is the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan, the impending withdrawal of US/NATO forces from that country, and the fraught relationship at present between Pakistan and the US. On the sidelines of the summit, President Zardari met the US Special Representative on Afghanistan and Pakistan, Marc Grossman, in which Zardari stressed the need for greater transparency in the relationship with the US. Both sides said they respected and would wait for the parliamentary review of ties that has started in a joint session of parliament in Islamabad. President Zardari explained that the energy crunch Pakistan faces necessitates the construction of the IP gas pipeline. Unfortunately, whatever diplomatic fence-mending was attempted in this meeting was washed away by the release of the US military’s second report on the NATO strike that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers in the Salala check post on the Afghan-Pakistan border on November 26, 2011. The report exonerates the US military of responsibility for the deaths of these soldiers, arguing they fired back in self-defence after coming under attack from two check posts in the area. This whitewash is likely to make the task of putting US-Pakistan relations on an even keel even more difficult. The central issue of that relationship at present is whether or not to reopen the US/NATO supply route for their forces in Afghanistan, which Pakistan shut down after the Salala incident. While the US military’s report will work against the desire for reopening the supply route, to add to the kerfuffle, the Pakistani Taliban have threatened to target MPs who support the reopening.
These differences and contradictions between ostensible allies Pakistan and the US point once again to the gulf between regional powers and a distant, powerful, but increasingly seen as arrogant and bullying imperial power. However this conundrum pans out, there is no denying the enormous advantages geography and history have blessed Pakistan with. Its potential as a trade and energy corridor for the region is by now accepted wisdom. But for that potential to translate into reality, Pakistan and the region need to be at peace so that development can proceed apace and without obstruction. Peace cannot be established without the defeat of the Taliban and other such jihadi forces throughout the region, which feels threatened as a whole by the medieval ideology espoused by the extremists and terrorists. As the moment for the western powers to withdraw from Afghanistan approaches, the signs of a realisation among and shift to regional countries taking responsibility for the welfare and future of the area is by now unmistakeable. This should have happened earlier, but better late than never.
Quadrilateral talks between the presidents of Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and host Tajikistan took place in Dushanbe on the occasion of Nauroz, which reiterated the regional countries’ desire to promote mutual trade, economic cooperation, coordinate the struggle against terrorism, militancy and drug-trafficking for what was described as a “win-win situation”. In the context of regional energy cooperation, President Asif Ali Zardari once again expressed Pakistan’s commitment to the Iran-Pakistan (IP) and Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) gas pipeline projects. On Afghanistan, President Zardari said non-state actors wanted to destabilise that country but Pakistan was committed to peace in the region. He went on to assert that a stable Afghanistan is in the interests of Pakistan. Further, he underlined the greater significance of closer cooperation amongst the four countries in all fields, particularly defence, security and intelligence sharing. The message all four presidents put out at the end of their summit was that terrorism and militancy posed a serious threat to peace, security and socio-economic development of the region and needed to be tackled jointly through a regional approach and solutions. Stronger bonds needed to be created amongst them through trade, communications, transportation, energy and infrastructure. The presidents agreed that the joyous occasion of Nauroz on which they were meeting represents peace, tolerance and friendship among all civilisations of the world. Afghan President Karzai and Iranian President Ahmedinejad called for unity and solidarity among the regional countries. Similar sentiments were voiced by the host, Tajik President Emomali Rahmon.
The context in which this regional summit should be seen is the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan, the impending withdrawal of US/NATO forces from that country, and the fraught relationship at present between Pakistan and the US. On the sidelines of the summit, President Zardari met the US Special Representative on Afghanistan and Pakistan, Marc Grossman, in which Zardari stressed the need for greater transparency in the relationship with the US. Both sides said they respected and would wait for the parliamentary review of ties that has started in a joint session of parliament in Islamabad. President Zardari explained that the energy crunch Pakistan faces necessitates the construction of the IP gas pipeline. Unfortunately, whatever diplomatic fence-mending was attempted in this meeting was washed away by the release of the US military’s second report on the NATO strike that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers in the Salala check post on the Afghan-Pakistan border on November 26, 2011. The report exonerates the US military of responsibility for the deaths of these soldiers, arguing they fired back in self-defence after coming under attack from two check posts in the area. This whitewash is likely to make the task of putting US-Pakistan relations on an even keel even more difficult. The central issue of that relationship at present is whether or not to reopen the US/NATO supply route for their forces in Afghanistan, which Pakistan shut down after the Salala incident. While the US military’s report will work against the desire for reopening the supply route, to add to the kerfuffle, the Pakistani Taliban have threatened to target MPs who support the reopening.
These differences and contradictions between ostensible allies Pakistan and the US point once again to the gulf between regional powers and a distant, powerful, but increasingly seen as arrogant and bullying imperial power. However this conundrum pans out, there is no denying the enormous advantages geography and history have blessed Pakistan with. Its potential as a trade and energy corridor for the region is by now accepted wisdom. But for that potential to translate into reality, Pakistan and the region need to be at peace so that development can proceed apace and without obstruction. Peace cannot be established without the defeat of the Taliban and other such jihadi forces throughout the region, which feels threatened as a whole by the medieval ideology espoused by the extremists and terrorists. As the moment for the western powers to withdraw from Afghanistan approaches, the signs of a realisation among and shift to regional countries taking responsibility for the welfare and future of the area is by now unmistakeable. This should have happened earlier, but better late than never.
Saturday, March 24, 2012
Daily Times Editorial March 25, 2012
Battlefield Lyari
The fourth day of protests and clashes with the police and other law enforcement agencies in Lyari, Karachi, on Friday virtually turned the area into a battlefield. Shops and businesses were closed, and the clashes turned more and more violent, with gunshots punctuating the atmosphere and petrol bombs fast becoming the weapon of choice for the protestors. The operation to arrest gangsters and criminals accused of extortionist activity amongst other crimes launched by the police on Thursday evoked a violent reaction from local residents, led by the banned People’s Amn Committee (PAC). The PAC’s grouse centres round the claim that innocent people are being targeted in the operation, with some of their leaders being unnecessarily involved in the killing of a local leader, Abdul Rasheed Kutchi of the Kutchi Rabita Committee in Kalri locality of Karachi on Sunday night. Police have arrested about 12-20 protestors and shifted them to an unknown location, presumably for interrogation, which could raise concerns about their treatment in custody.
The interesting aspect of the Lyari operation is that it was launched almost immediately after the MQM’s agitation against ‘extortionists’ in Karachi. MQM, the party that gave Karachi’s lexicon the word ‘bhatta’ (extortion) seemed peeved at the entry of ‘new’ extortionists in the field, perhaps causing disruption in the smooth operations of the MQM. In their usual style, when MQM put pressure on the PPP, President Asif Ali Zardari despatched Federal Interior Minister Rehman Malik to mollify the MQM and take steps that would satisfy their ardour against extortion (new). The choice of Lyari to begin the operation raised complaints by local residents of the area that while they were not against the operation against criminals, extortionist and other criminal activity was going on all over the city, and a comprehensive operation should have been launched instead of singling out Lyari.
While MQM may be pleased with the choice of Lyari as the first target of the operation since it was from Lyari that, with the support of the PAC, former Sindh Home Minister Zulfiqar Mirza had launched his diatribe against MQM. Mirza may have gone into hibernation after his party leadership decided his violent outbursts and theatrics were not conducive to maintaining the coalition with the MQM in Sindh (and thereby in the Centre), but to say that anti-MQM sentiment does not persist in the ranks of the PPP, especially its members from Lyari, is to simply shut one’s eyes to the truth and ground realities. Nabil Gabol, one of the longstanding and prominent leaders of the PPP from Lyari, is perceived to be also distant from the PPP leadership because of his anti-MQM stance. His take on the situation in Lyari throws an interesting sidelight on exactly what is going on there. He says the PPP is very concerned it may lose its traditional support base in Lyari if the criminal gangs that seem to dominate the area are not taken out. In the run up to the general elections later this year or early next, PPP can hardly afford to miss out in its strongest and oldest constituency in Karachi, from which the party desires its young Chairman Bilawal Bhutto Zardari to stand for a seat in the next elections. However, while the operation may bring smiles of satisfaction to the MQM, there is a risk that if the operation is badly handled, the apprehension of loss of support in the area may become a self-fulfilling prophecy for the PPP. Crime must of course be uprooted, but there should ne no deviation from offering all those arrested due process under the laws of the land so that no innocents suffer (the very claim leading to the protests led by the PAC). Also, to mollify the angry people of Lyari, the operation against criminals must be extended to the whole city, without fear or discrimination. That may help to calm the anger at perceived singling out of the people of Lyari.
The fourth day of protests and clashes with the police and other law enforcement agencies in Lyari, Karachi, on Friday virtually turned the area into a battlefield. Shops and businesses were closed, and the clashes turned more and more violent, with gunshots punctuating the atmosphere and petrol bombs fast becoming the weapon of choice for the protestors. The operation to arrest gangsters and criminals accused of extortionist activity amongst other crimes launched by the police on Thursday evoked a violent reaction from local residents, led by the banned People’s Amn Committee (PAC). The PAC’s grouse centres round the claim that innocent people are being targeted in the operation, with some of their leaders being unnecessarily involved in the killing of a local leader, Abdul Rasheed Kutchi of the Kutchi Rabita Committee in Kalri locality of Karachi on Sunday night. Police have arrested about 12-20 protestors and shifted them to an unknown location, presumably for interrogation, which could raise concerns about their treatment in custody.
The interesting aspect of the Lyari operation is that it was launched almost immediately after the MQM’s agitation against ‘extortionists’ in Karachi. MQM, the party that gave Karachi’s lexicon the word ‘bhatta’ (extortion) seemed peeved at the entry of ‘new’ extortionists in the field, perhaps causing disruption in the smooth operations of the MQM. In their usual style, when MQM put pressure on the PPP, President Asif Ali Zardari despatched Federal Interior Minister Rehman Malik to mollify the MQM and take steps that would satisfy their ardour against extortion (new). The choice of Lyari to begin the operation raised complaints by local residents of the area that while they were not against the operation against criminals, extortionist and other criminal activity was going on all over the city, and a comprehensive operation should have been launched instead of singling out Lyari.
While MQM may be pleased with the choice of Lyari as the first target of the operation since it was from Lyari that, with the support of the PAC, former Sindh Home Minister Zulfiqar Mirza had launched his diatribe against MQM. Mirza may have gone into hibernation after his party leadership decided his violent outbursts and theatrics were not conducive to maintaining the coalition with the MQM in Sindh (and thereby in the Centre), but to say that anti-MQM sentiment does not persist in the ranks of the PPP, especially its members from Lyari, is to simply shut one’s eyes to the truth and ground realities. Nabil Gabol, one of the longstanding and prominent leaders of the PPP from Lyari, is perceived to be also distant from the PPP leadership because of his anti-MQM stance. His take on the situation in Lyari throws an interesting sidelight on exactly what is going on there. He says the PPP is very concerned it may lose its traditional support base in Lyari if the criminal gangs that seem to dominate the area are not taken out. In the run up to the general elections later this year or early next, PPP can hardly afford to miss out in its strongest and oldest constituency in Karachi, from which the party desires its young Chairman Bilawal Bhutto Zardari to stand for a seat in the next elections. However, while the operation may bring smiles of satisfaction to the MQM, there is a risk that if the operation is badly handled, the apprehension of loss of support in the area may become a self-fulfilling prophecy for the PPP. Crime must of course be uprooted, but there should ne no deviation from offering all those arrested due process under the laws of the land so that no innocents suffer (the very claim leading to the protests led by the PAC). Also, to mollify the angry people of Lyari, the operation against criminals must be extended to the whole city, without fear or discrimination. That may help to calm the anger at perceived singling out of the people of Lyari.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)