Business Recorder Editorial August 28, 2020

Africa polio-free, and Pakistan?

 

In the midst of the unrelenting news about the coronavirus pandemic, one piece of good news on the global health front is the announcement by the World Health Organisation (WHO) that Africa is now polio-free. No cases have occurred on the continent for the last four years. The last case was in Nigeria in 2016, a country where eradication efforts had been hampered by the terrorist group Boko Haram. This is the second virus that has now been eliminated in Africa, the first being smallpox. The Africa Regional Certification Commission (ARCC) for Polio Eradication said since 1996, polio eradication efforts had prevented 1.8 million children from suffering the crippling lifelong paralysis caused by the disease and saved around 180,000 lives. Poliomyelitis, the proper medical term for the disease, is an acutely infectious and contagious virus that attacks the spinal cord and causes irreversible paralysis in children, and even death in some cases. The disease was endemic worldwide until a vaccine was developed in the 1950s. However, the vaccine remained out of reach for the poorer countries of Asia and Africa. In 1988, WHO, Unicef and Rotary launched a worldwide eradication campaign when there were some 350,000 cases globally. In 1996, there were over 70,000 cases in Africa alone. The global effort over 30 years, with financial backing of $ 19 billion, effectively wiped out the disease. The only exceptions remain Afghanistan and Pakistan, which between them recorded 87 cases this year. Poliomyelitis is typically spread in the faeces of an infected person and transmitted through contaminated water or food. There is no cure for the malady, but mass vaccination prevents infection, breaks the cycle of transmission, and eventually eliminates polio in the wild. In this massive global effort to save the world’s children from this crippling disease, some 20 odd workers lost their lives. Surely they are deserving of appropriate recognition.

While Africa and the world can justifiably celebrate the victory over polio, the troubling question remains why the virus is still active in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the last two countries still afflicted. In the case of Afghanistan, the long drawn out wars over decades in that country can be counted as the major factor in the health system being unable to carry out systematic mass vaccination. The influence of religious extremists who have crafted fanciful stories about the effects (e.g. sterility) and purposes (conspiracy to render Muslims sterile) of the vaccination efforts may also have played a part. But why is Pakistan still in this list of just two countries that have not been able to eliminate the virus? Despite the efforts of the authorities, in which 32 million children have been vaccinated in 130 districts throughout the country with the help of 225,000 trained vaccinators carrying out door-to-door campaigns, the task of the complete elimination of the virus remains unfinished. Celebrities, intellectuals and some religious leaders have supported the efforts. But there have also been persistent reports over the years of religious fanatics parroting the ‘conspiracy theories’ mentioned above and leaning on public opinion and parents in their areas of influence to refuse vaccinations. Where such counter-campaigns have found fertile soil, cases of refusal and even attacks on vaccinators have been reported. One can only tip one’s hat at the courage and bravery of these vulnerable health workers who have persisted despite such threats and discouragement. What remains therefore for the health authorities to now focus on is the number of children in the country who have missed vaccination, pockets of refusal, and reservoirs of polio circulation. Large-scale national and sub-national campaigns are planned in September-December 2020. While all this is encouraging, and the vaccination coverage must be ensured as total where children are concerned, perhaps the health authorities also need to focus on modern toilet facilities that if put on the ground could help eliminate the origin of the virus and the source from which it spreads, i.e. faeces. Open defecation and lack of toilet facilities in the rural areas and small towns need to be brought into the light of modern day systems of disposal of human waste to ensure from the other end of the vaccination effort that our children are safe from the dreadful disease.

Business Recorder Editorial August 27, 2020

Whistling in the wind

 

Lately, some federal and Punjab ministers have taken to clamouring to bring back Nawaz Sharif from London to face the courts as the whole episode of his going abroad reeks of fraud. They have been peddling the narrative that the medical reports on the basis of which the courts gave the former premier leave to get treatment abroad were falsified. This seems a recent afterthought, given that the medical board that came to the conclusion that Nawaz Sharif’s serious and complicated illness could not be treated here, not the least because certain scientific and medical techniques and equipment were not available, included senior doctors from Prime Minister (PM) Imran Khan’s own Shaukat Khanum Hospital. The latter could hardly be accused of bias or a soft spot for Nawaz Sharif. Further, on the basis of the findings of the medical board, the government, as Punjab Health Minister Yasmin Rashid has stated, allowed Nawaz Sharif’s treatment abroad on humanitarian grounds. The court order permitting the same carried the proviso that Nawaz Sharif should return to the country after the doctors abroad certify that he is well and can travel home. So far, the London doctors treating Nawaz Sharif have given no indication of having reached that ‘happy’ conclusion. This is being interpreted by the government as a breach of Nawaz Sharif’s bail conditions as no medical reports allegedly have been submitted by Nawaz Sharif from London as he was legally enjoined to do. Yasmin Rashid has also stated that the medical reports here were not ‘fudged’. In his usual display of irresponsible loose talk about his own government colleagues, including ministers, for which Fawad Chaudhry has reportedly been pulled up by the PM in a federal cabinet meeting some time ago, the redoubtable and irrepressible Minister for Science and Technology has now pooh-poohed Yasmin Rashid’s statements on the issue by underlining that as a gynecologist, she does not possess the requisite medical credentials to have an informed and credible view of Nawaz Sharif’s illness. In response, Yasmin Rashid has dismissed Fawad Chaudhry’s remarks by pointing out that he is not even a doctor and cannot understand the medical reports. As a ‘sideshow’, Yasmin Rashid embroiled the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) in the controversy by casting doubts on the medical reports they had accumulated while Nawaz Sharif was in jail here. NAB in turn has responded by pointing out that it does not hire doctors but relies on the expert opinions of those from the medical field. Over and above all this internal government squabbling and fray, PM Imran Khan has pronounced his government’s intent to use all legal means and options to bring Nawaz Sharif back.

Why has the government gone into overdrive on the issue? One explanation could be that Nawaz Sharif’s political activation of late in making contact with Maulana Fazlur Rehman and Bilawal Bhutto Zardari means he is returning to the political battlefield, albeit from abroad. Since the opposition has been demonstrating for months now just how much it is in disarray, including its inability to hold a multi-party conference to discuss the strategy against the government, Nawaz Sharif’s outreach to his opposition colleagues seems to have put the wind up the government’s trousers. Rhetorical assertion and flourishes aside, which may only serve to ‘preserve’ the image of the government as an implacable anti-corruption fighter, all these calls to bring Nawaz Sharif back appear to have little leg to stand on. For one, unless the doctors in London give Nawaz Sharif a clean bill of health, his return appears difficult if not impossible. Second, as pointed out by federal minister Sheikh Rashid and others, bringing Nawaz Sharif back from London is a tall ask, considering that successive governments, including the present one, have not succeeded in bringing Altaf Hussain, Ishaq Dar or Salman Shahbaz Sharif back from London. The reasons are in plain sight of those not wearing partisan blinkers. Pakistan and the UK have no mutual extradition treaty. The British courts, should they be approached, are unlikely to rule adversely on a matter of a person’s health and life, particularly at the prospect of such a person being lodged in a jail cell immediately after return. In principle, PM Imran Khan’s desire to use legal means for the purpose is laudable, but the obstacles to such a course may mean all the government’s huffing and puffing on the issue is merely whistling in the wind.

Business Recorder Editorial August 20, 2020

Intra-Afghan talks delayed again

 

The long, winding road to peace in Afghanistan seems even more of a maze whenever moves towards a peaceful solution seem to be finally yielding results. The agreement between the US and the Taliban signed in February 2020 in Doha was meant to be followed by intra-Afghan talks between the Afghan government and the Taliban. This leg of the process was arguably the most critical since the US had announced its decision to draw down its forces (which it is doing) in exchange for guarantees from the Taliban that they would not attack foreign forces or allow terrorists to use Afghan soil against the US or its allies. The exiting US has therefore extracted what it could from the Taliban and is arguably on its way home so that US President Donald Trump can use the withdrawal as an election card come November 2020. That still leaves the imbroglio of the continuing civil war in Afghanistan. The prisoner release agreed in Doha did not have the imprimatur of the Afghan government. Despite its objections, however, it had no choice but to go along with the agreed prisoner release. Out of the 5,000 prisoners to be released by Kabul, 400 were retained on the argument that they were the most dangerous terrorists and would go back to their ways as soon as they found their freedom. Finally, partly under US pressure, partly to find a face saving legitimacy for the release of the remaining 400, Kabul convened a Loya Jirga that pronounced earlier this month that the remaining 400 prisoners should be released in the interests of kicking off the intra-Afghan dialogue. As it transpired however, only 80 had been released when the French and Australian governments objected to the release of some Taliban responsible for killing their nationals and soldiers. Whether pretext or genuine concern regarding ties with these countries, the planned release of the remaining 320 prisoners has now been delayed again by the Afghan government in contravention of the Loya Jirga’s consensus.

Even if the impasse is resolved in some manner that satisfies the French and Australian governments, the whole slow, halting, cumbersome process of mutual prisoner releases simply reflects the level of distrust between the opposing sides of the Afghan civil war. Even during the Loya Jirga discussions, women and other groups that had been targeted by the Taliban in the past had protested against the prisoner release. Their concerns regarding a return of the Taliban to power, frightening as the thought is based on their stint at the reins in 1996-2001, were strengthened by the fact that despite the Doha agreement and the Taliban not attacking foreign troops, the development simply seemed to have freed the Taliban to escalate their attacks on Afghan forces and civilians. That portended the trouble that might lie ahead even if the much delayed intra-Afghan talks do finally get off the ground. First and foremost, it is not clear what the agenda of such talks would be. If the Taliban stick to their past position of describing the Afghan government as a US puppet, logically they may come to the table and demand its unconditional surrender. On the other hand, even if the Taliban take a more conciliatory position in the interests of not interrupting the momentum of US withdrawal by agreeing to some form of power sharing, where is the guarantee they will not roll over their Afghan government rivals as soon as the US and other foreign forces finally leave? The Afghan conundrum, despite the best efforts of all stakeholders to view the peace process as a glass half full, may well still turn to be a glass half empty or even worse.

Business Recorder Column August 18, 2020

Fresh betrayals of the Palestinian cause

 

Rashed Rahman

 

After the United Arab Emirates (UAE) accepted the US-sponsored deal to recognise Israel formally by and by, the existing state of informal relations that have existed between the Gulf state and Israel over many years, including visits by Israeli officials to the UAE for sporting events and international conferences, have been boosted by the new development. A phone service has been established between the two new ‘friends’, trade is on the table for expansion, and the expected meeting between the two sides in the coming weeks will see the signing of investment, tourism, flights and opening embassies agreements. While US President Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have been crowing about the ‘breakthrough’, a veritable stampede of recognition of Israel by other Arab countries is very much on the cards. Bahrain, Oman and other unnamed Gulf states (no prizes for guessing who) have been mentioned in this regard, while Israel has high hopes for Sudan to come on board. UAE’s informal cooperation and collaboration with the Zionist state over the years includes the use of the Israeli Pegasus spyware, and now joint corona virus research has been announced.

It is no surprise that most of the Arab and Muslim world, erstwhile champions of the Palestinian cause, have maintained a diplomatic silence. Only the Palestinians themselves, Turkey and Iran have roundly condemned the move. Pakistan’s foreign office has issued a mealy-mouthed statement that fails to do justice to the past of a country that hosted Yasser Arafat at the Lahore Islamic Summit in 1974. But those were braver, heady days. Today the zeitgeist appears to be genuflection towards the powerful and mighty, i.e. an admission of defeat and embrace of servility. One of the perennial myths that have kept our brains in a constant fog is the so-called unity of the Muslim world. In practice, and this is to be expected, national interest almost always inevitably trumps religious solidarity. The Palestinian struggle of course is a national liberation movement including Christian Palestinians (some quite prominent in the movement) and not just a Muslim one. However, the torchbearers of unity of the Muslim Ummah (if at all such a creature exists in any effective sense) should hold themselves accountable for the contradictions between their rhetoric and their practice.

It is another sign of the decline of progressive culture and politics that no Left organisation has uttered even a squeak in protest against the UAE’s betrayal. Only the religious right, in the shape of the Miili Yakjehti Council, held rallies of protest in the cities of Pakistan. The Pakistani Left has many sins of omission to its credit. Now one more of abandoning internationalist solidarity can be placed at its doorstep.

If the predicted stampede of states recognising Israel transpires, it will confirm that Saudi Arabia’s pregnant silence on the UAE’s decision is intended to hold the former’s breath until these unknown waters have been thoroughly tested. Of course the changed geopolitical context of the long standing Palestinian struggle indicates that the Arab monarchies are more than willing to follow in Egypt and Jordan’s footsteps and sign peace treaties with Israel. The consistent resistance to Israeli occupation of Palestine and aggressive territorial expansion since it was planted as a dagger in the heart of the Middle East came in the past from the Ba’athist regimes in Iraq and Syria. It should not surprise us then that both were ‘taken out’ by invasion and fanning civil war.

One of the obvious untruths being peddled to ‘sell’ the UAE deal is that Israel has agreed not to annex territories in the West Bank. That fib was soon exposed by none other than Netanyahu when he said the annexation had been ‘suspended’, meaning it will be revived at an appropriate moment. The Saudi-led Gulf States are jittery about the US’s withdrawal from direct intervention on their behalf in the Middle East. Their rivalry with Iran impels them to seek another security ally in the shape of Israel. Recognition of the Zionist state does not mean lip service to the Palestinian cause will cease. But that is probably all that will be available.

The negotiated peace settlement with Israel touted by the Palestinian leadership after their defeats and expulsion from Jordan (1970) and Lebanon (1991, finally), which spelt the end of armed resistance amid hopes of diplomacy persuading Israel through the good offices of its main backer, Washington, to agree to a two-state solution that would offer the Palestinians a truncated state under Israeli hegemony, is by now in tatters. The Oslo Accords and other agreements in this regard never went further than this. The Palestinian leadership felt it had no choice but to swallow this bitter pill since after it abandoned the armed struggle, it had few other cards to play. The rift between the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) and Hamas was precisely on this question of whether to abandon armed resistance in favour of peaceful protest (the intifada) and diplomacy. The latter has now run its course and left the Palestinians in worse straits than ever.

Unlikely as it seems, these best laid plans of Trump and Netanyahu could well prove the harbingers of greater trouble rather than the peace of the graveyard they wish to impose on the Palestinians with the help of their fickle Arab and Muslim friends. Given the conditions of daily life and the unremitting oppression of Palestinians peacefully protesting for their rights, Palestine today resembles a tinder box waiting to explode. If tomorrow brings a revival of the armed Palestinian resistance in new forms, the US and Israel and their new-found Arab (and Muslim) friends may well be in for one of those unpredictable surprises history springs every now and again.

 

 

 

 

 

rashed.rahman1@gmail.com

rashed-rahman.blogspot.com

Business Recorder Editorial August 18, 2020

GIDC judgement

 

A three-member bench of the Supreme Court (SC) has delivered a majority judgement, with one member dissenting, in the long running Gas Infrastructure Development Cess (GIDC) conundrum. It allows the government to collect the Rs 405 billion unpaid balance of the Rs 700 billion accrued between 2011 and 2015 from industry, with the concession that the outstanding amount can be paid over two years. To recount, the levy was imposed in 2011 to raise funds for three major gas pipelines, the North-South (in country), TAPI, and the Iran-Pakistan pipelines. Shortly after its introduction, most companies charged the levy moved the courts against it, many billed their customers fully or partially to recover the amount (e.g. CBG pumps), and others could not do so. Some companies fully or partially paid it, or took shelter behind stay orders issued by the courts. In 2019, Prime Minister Imran Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaaf (PTI) government attempted to cut through the Gordian knot by enacting an Ordinance that amended the GIDC law to the extent of allowing industries to pay half the outstanding amount, with the other half waived. Well intentioned as the effort may have been to overcome the impasse, there was a public outcry and petitions were moved in the SC against the Ordinance. The PTI government then decided to let the SC decide the matter.

What the SC has now held is that the government can recover the outstanding accrued amount of Rs 405 billion over two years but must link any future collections to the complete utilisation of the funds collected for the purpose they were intended for. In other words, the levy cannot be used for any other purpose than the three pipelines mentioned above. So far so good. But as the dissenting opinion states, is there a definite timeline for the utilisation of these funds? This point goes to the heart of the problem (after the collection issue has been resolved by the SC). For two of the three pipelines, no timeline can be confidently predicted. TAPI depends on the situation inside Afghanistan, which the pipeline traverses on its way from Turkmenistan to Pakistan. Unless peace is restored in Afghanistan, TAPI will remain stillborn. Despite the recent developments regarding the Doha agreement between the US and the Taliban and the hoped for intra-Afghan talks between the Taliban and the Afghan government, peace is still a precarious commodity in that country. The Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline, which the Iranians laid up to their side of the border in 2010, international US-led sanctions have tied successive governments’ hands on our side. So the fate of the Iran-Pakistan pipeline too is, like TAPI, not entirely in our hands. Given these realities, and assuming the SC’s directives will now be followed as far as the collection of the levy is concerned, how can any realistic or credible timeline or deadline for utilisation of the funds be predicted or guaranteed? This scenario suggests the North-South in country pipeline may well turn out to be the only one feasible in the near future. In that case, what would be the fate of the funds left over? Would they then, if it is determined that TAPI and the Iran-Pakistan pipelines may not be constructed in any realistic timeframe, be returned to the contributors, i.e. industry? The GIDC conundrum may seemingly have been settled by the SC judgement, but these important and unanswered considerations throw a considerable shadow across its horizon.

Business Recorder Editorial August 16, 2020

Lebanon’s agony

 

Lebanon’s capital Beirut was known in better times as the Paris of the East. That description beggars belief today when the devastation wrought by the huge explosion of some 3,000 tons of ammonium nitrate in the port area on August 4, 2020 that killed 171 people, injured 6,000 and wrecked homes and businesses worth $ 15 billion is taken into account. The saga of how the highly dangerous chemical used in making explosives and fertiliser came to be stored at the port for seven years without any safeguards is worthy of the raciest international crisis thriller. Reportedly, in 2013 the cargo was on board a ship captained by a Russian citizen on its way to deliver the ammonium nitrate when it was diverted to Beirut to pick up some other goods. A dispute over port fees led to the confiscation of the ship and its cargo. The ammonium nitrate was stored in a warehouse and all but forgotten. The ship, old and leaking, sank in the harbour. Since then, with the exception of a warning to the US some four years ago about the risks entailed in storing the chemical without adequate safeguards, which too was ignored, the volatile cargo was all but forgotten. Reportedly, a fire unleashed the explosion that in videos appeared to resemble the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima, an anniversary that ironically fell around the same time. International humanitarian aid of some $ 300 million has been pledged, with the proviso that the corrupt ruling elite and government of Lebanon will not be able to get their dirty, grubby fingers on it. Instead, it will be routed through the UN, development agencies and NGOs. This insult after injury reflects the poor opinion about the Lebanese ruling elite both within the country and without.

Lebanon’s period of peace and prosperity in the past was predicated on a delicate but awkward power sharing arrangement on denominational-sectarian lines. The main power sharers were Shia and Sunni Muslims, the Druze, and Maronite Christians, reflecting the makeup of a religiously fractured society. The top political posts, i.e. president, prime minister and speaker of the Assembly, were distributed amongst these factions. The real turning point for this cosy power sharing arrangement that encouraged the country’s living beyond its means for years and in the process enriched the ruling elite came when the Palestinian resistance movement’s presence in the country, both refugees and fighters, swelled after Jordan expelled them by force in 1970 into neighbouring countries, particularly Lebanon. This enhanced Palestinian presence became the tinder that lit the fuse of the Lebanese civil war, which only ended after 17 years in 1990, along the way suffering an Israeli invasion in 1982 that allowed the massacre of Palestinian refugees in the Shatila and Sabra camps and the occupation of southern Lebanon. Had it not been for the Iranian and Syrian backed Hezbollah militia’s determined resistance, Israel might well have still had a foothold in Lebanon. The end of the civil war saw the Palestinian leadership evacuated to Tunisia. Lebanon once more became the receiver of foreign flow of funds that once again made the rich richer. But all good (and some bad) things must come to an end. In 2019, Lebanon’s profligate economic ways finally produced a crisis. The country’s credibility was so low that even the international financial institutions refused to bail out the country. The economic crunch produced mass protests. Attempts to enhance taxation further fuelled the protests that morphed into demands for the corrupt ruling elite to be stripped of power, a demand bordering on a revolutionary change. The Beirut explosion has proved the icing on the cake. In its aftermath, and amidst continuing protests, the government has resigned. But the protestors have now escalated their demands to include the president’s resignation. The inherited from the past freewheeling and corrupt system of a denominationally sectarian ruling elite appears to be all but over. The risk is that as the previous system crumbles, unless a democratic solution is soon found, the religious-sectarian divide could easily rear its ugly head and lead to even worse outcomes.

The August 2020 issue of Pakistan Monthly Review is out

 The August 2020 issue of Pakistan Monthly Review is out.

Contents:

1. Javed Masud: Can Pakistan overcome the existential challenge?

2. Professor Dr Maqsudul Hasan Nuri: Pedagogy through e-learning in Pakistani Universities.

3. Vijay Prashad: Each heartbreak must be our song; the redness of blood, our banner.

Rashed Rahman

Editor, Pakistan Monthly Review (link: pakistanmonthlyreview.com)

Director, Research and Publication Centre