The politics of gas pipelines

THE Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI) gas pipeline project has received a shot in the arm with the Russian president’s offer to participate in the venture. President Putin, who met the Pakistani and Iranian leaders at the summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation this week, has said that the Russian agency Gazprom is willing to help the other IPI partners in what he has described as a “completely realisable” scheme. Russia’s backing for this project is of significance not just from the technological and economic points of view. It has wider political and strategic implications for international relations, especially in Central and South Asia. The IPI, which envisages a 2,600 kilometre gas pipeline linking Iran’s south Pars gas fields with Pakistan and then extends to India, is of vital importance to both Pakistan and India given their growing need for energy for their rapidly growing economies. The seven billion-dollar pipeline is expected to meet their needs quite substantially. But it is not clear what will be the source of financing the project which is to be constructed in three stages with each country being responsible for the pipeline passing through its own territory. Since Mr Putin did not elaborate on Gazprom’s role, it is not possible to comment on that aspect.

But Russia’s interest in the IPI carries unmistakable political significance, especially if it is remembered that the Bush administration has been strongly opposed to this project. The basic cause of America’s displeasure is the dismal state of its relations with Iran which has not changed since 1979 when the Iranian revolution, with its anti-imperialist orientation and the hostage incident, led to a serious breach between the two countries. More recently, the Iranian nuclear programme, which provides for uranium enrichment, has drawn a hostile reaction from the US. If it had its way, America would have had more sanctions imposed on Tehran. Not surprisingly, Washington has brought pressure to bear on India and Pakistan to abandon the project which has far-reaching geostrategic implications for this region. Along with other gas pipeline projects, the IPI will create an energy network that will link a number of countries together. As experience has shown, this kind of grouping of nations for economic cooperation leads to political bonding of them as well. This is what worries American because it will then find it hard to browbeat such powerful groupings.

Russia’s entry into the energy network in the region that is being created will send a strong message to the United States. The days when it could act unilaterally in a unipolar world with its own limitations are now drawing to a close. With other powers - in this case Russia, Iran, Pakistan, India and China - closing ranks it is inevitable that they will resist the US hegemony to protect their own interests if the need arises. History is known to proceed in cycles and a shift in the post-cold war pattern of international relations was inevitable. But the Bush administration, with its hamhanded and unilateralist methods, has expedited the process of change. The IPI is a manifestation of a reaction setting in. Countries that have been bulldozed by the world’s only superpower are now regrouping to mount a resistance. This countervailing process has already begun to be seen and felt in the Iranian nuclear crisis - mercifully, in the interest of world peace. As Russia and China assert themselves and prop up the regional countries, the United States will be compelled to rethink its approach to world affairs.

Why not open to debate?

THE new federal budget came under sharp criticism from the parliamentary opposition on Friday when the allocation for ‘charged expenditure’ was presented before the National Assembly. According to the Constitution, parliament cannot vote on the acceptability or otherwise of expenses under this head, and as such their submission before the Assembly is but a formal requirement as approval must be granted regardless of reservations. Debate, however, is not barred. As is perhaps to be expected given the current parameters of political discourse, the opposition was quick to focus on the hefty amount earmarked for the president’s miscellaneous household-related allowances. The bone of contention was not the sum itself —Rs290,224,000 to be precise — but an apparent duplication of expenses. Members of the opposition pointed out that this expenditure is “unjustified” considering that the president’s primary abode is the Army House in Rawalpindi, which receives its own allocation under the defence budget. It ought to be kept in mind, however, that the sum total of the costs incurred on account of Aiwan-e-Sadr and Army House would remain roughly the same even if a civilian occupied in the former.

Seen against this background, it is evident that the ‘charged expenditure’ debate has less to do with fiscal propriety and more with the fact that the president continues to hold two offices. In a country beset by poverty, the need of the hour is administrative belt-tightening across the board, from drastically streamlining the military and civil bureaucracies to rationalising the perks and privileges for ministers and elected representatives. A fleet of bullet-proof luxury cars for government officials and frequent overseas junkets are simply not what a poor country like Pakistan can afford. For a president who has extracted maximum mileage from any opportunity, real or contrived, to condemn the profligate practices of past civilian governments, Mr Musharraf has done nothing to set a better example of frugality himself. That is the real issue. It also needs to be asked why certain expenditures remain outside the purview of parliament and whether or not change is in order.

Who killed Hayatullah Khan?

DESPITE being assured by the government and intelligence agencies that the family of the missing journalist Hayatullah Khan would hear something about his whereabouts by June 15, the discovery of his bullet-riddled body on Friday is staggering. Mr Khan “disappeared” in Waziristan in December last year but his family has always maintained that he was picked up by intelligence agencies after he released pictures of remnants of US missiles used in an operation that killed Al-Qaeda leader Hamza Rabia last year. Mr Khan’s photographs clearly refuted the Pakistan army’s claims that Mr Rabia was killed in a blast inside his home. The local Taliban, who were first thought to have been behind Mr Khan’s disappearance, denied that they had any hand in it. Since Mr Khan’s photographs corroborated what the Taliban believed —that US forces were behind Mr Rabia’s death — there is no reason to suspect that local militants would have anything to gain from holding Mr Khan. This is not to say that militants have not posed a threat to journalists covering the situation in tribal areas since the war on terror first began. In February this year, two journalists were killed in an ambush by masked men in Wana — an act many journalists believed was meant to intimidate the press.

Since February’s incident, Reporters Sans Frontier has noted that journalists in the tribal areas have felt increasingly insecure about their safety as they were routinely harassed and threatened. Now with Mr Khan’s gruesome murder, they are likely to feel even more threatened. This makes it all the more imperative for the government to pay heed to international calls for an impartial inquiry into his murder. This is particularly necessary if it wants to disprove the belief that intelligence agencies are behind Mr Khan’s murder — a claim shared not just by the deceased’s family.

Facing up to the Indian challenge

COPING with the challenge of India on several fronts — strategic, economic, cultural, psychological and more recently technological — has been Pakistan’s principal concern since independence in 1947. Evidence that India is becoming the ascendant power in South Asia, that the gap between the two neighbours is widening, does not alter the fact that India remains for us a vital pace-setter.

Pakistan’s quest for parity with India has generated beneficial as well as detrimental outcomes. The downside of the Pakistan-India rivalry has been that for many decades Pakistan’s economy has borne a chronic burden while the body politic has endured unending stress.

Pakistan had to fight three major wars and several smaller wars with its neighbour. True to the classical theory of challenge and response, the post-1971 phase of the India-Pakistan drama saw Pakistan recouping its military strength and international standing after the debacle in East Pakistan. Dr A.Q. Khan’s return to Pakistan at Bhutto’s behest opened the door to de facto membership of the nuclear club within a decade. Nuclear capability partly offset India’s conventional military superiority, freeing Pakistan to pursue a more forward policy in Kashmir during the 1990s. That, however, proved to be a mixed blessing for Pakistan and the Kashmiri people.

Five decades after independence, the notional parity between India and Pakistan finally unravelled. Jawaharlal Nehru’s far-sighted commitment to higher education began to pay dividends when, after the fall of the Berlin Wall, India distanced itself from his socialistic legacy and became part of the globalisation process. India’s growth rate averaged around six per cent per annum over 15 years and increased to seven to eight per cent recently. Backed by an army of engineers and software programmers, Indian entrepreneurs have made their country a work-engine for the American economy.

India’s brisk entry into the hi-tech arena has strengthened its credentials as a potential great power. President George Bush’s recent visit to South Asia put a stamp on the new power equation in which India is put in a different league from Pakistan.

President Pervez Musharraf now needs to find out what is so special about India that the United States, leading EU members and Russia are eager to boost its status to that of a world power in the 21st century.

Apart from its sheer size, India’s growing eligibility for great power status owes in part to its success in practising parliamentary democracy for 59 years, in contrast to Pakistan’s lacklustre performance. Over decades, the Indian judiciary served as a bulwark against autocracy while in Pakistan the so-called doctrine of necessity superceded democratic norms. Pakistan’s image in the West has suffered as a result.

Unlike India, Pakistan could not break the shackles of feudalism. Subjected repeatedly to military rule, from 1980s onwards Pakistan drifted to jihadi culture. For much of our history, it is not the knowledge that one can impart but the harm that can be inflicted that has determined a person’s value in society.

As during the Mughal period, the person held in highest esteem has been the soldier, the gendarme and the tax collector. Such a scale of values is at variance with current global trends.

Across the Wagah border the same values prevailed in 1947, but the Indian government intervened to dismantle its feudal system. India’s viable educational system produced hundreds of thousands of scientists, engineers and technical people, apart from captains of industry.

The Indian economic revolution has been powered by knowledge, a self-renewing resource. As India’s growing army of qualified technical graduates flocked to the wealth-generating professions at home and abroad, India became a mainstay of the global economy.

In 2005-2006, India’s IT exports of around $23 billion exceeded Pakistan’s total exports. Even if Pakistan’s estimated IT exports reflect under-reporting, the ratio between the two countries is at least 1: 20.

The strategic implications of this widening gap are enormous. India’s galloping hi-tech IT capability could enhance its offensive military capability exponentially, by enabling it to build anti-missile batteries, new generation jetfighters, space rockets, thermonuclear weapons, overwhelming ECM capability, AWACS and nuclear submarines.

Pakistan’s decision makers, therefore, need to take prompt and effective measures to bridge the hi-tech gap with India, not only to safeguard national security, but also to provide a decent life for our people.

Pakistan requires its leadership to show the combined vision of a defence strategist, the president of a cutting-edge university, a captain of industry and a progressive farmer all rolled into one.

The United States is providing Pakistan substantial economic and military assistance as part of the global war on terror. But under the proposed nuclear deal with India the United States will be transferring to that country nuclear technology, equipment and fuel that could have adverse strategic implications for Pakistan. Very rightly, Pakistan has protested against the discriminatory treatment, although the chances of a favourable American response may be slim for now. Another source of concern is the growing India-Israel axis.

The new security environment that is emerging after Bush’s visit to South Asia requires Pakistan to mobilise its internal resources and forge closer relations with our traditional friends, especially our time-tested neighbour the People’s Republic of China. This makes sense as the proposed US-India nuclear deal is predicated on building up India as a counterweight to China.

We need to tap into China’s remarkable progress in the field of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, including recent advances in reactor design. By 2020 China is expected to have 30 nuclear plants compared to nine at present.

Like India and China, Pakistan could benefit greatly from the removal of trade barriers between nations. But globalisation could promote extreme inequality, destroy traditional agriculture and spread rural and urban poverty unless timely steps are taken in advance to safeguard the livelihood of the people.

Access to adequate supplies of food, clothing and other essentials at affordable prices are essential for political stability. Building on our traditional strengths in agriculture, horticulture, livestock breeding, food processing, textiles, and light industry must be made an integral part of globalisation.

The chronic water shortage requires a shift away from water intensive crops such as sugarcane and Irri-rice. Crop yields should be computed in terms of cubic metres of water consumed rather than simple acreage.

It is a well kept secret that Pakistan has some of the most wholesome agricultural produce in the world. Wealthy Arabs frequently carry home gift hampers of our organic mutton. Indian traders market our long grain basmati rice under their brand names. Our tangerines, navel oranges, honey melons, mangoes, persimmons, grapes, raisins, plums and apricots are simply world class. US help with tissue culture technology, disease and pest control, scientific grading, modern packing and refrigeration technology, and in forging linkages with the world’s supermarkets chains could be most rewarding.

In the field of IT, the Pakistan Software Export Board is promoting appropriate strategies to enable our decision makers and entrepreneurs to make up for lost time. PSEB is addressing four major requirements to ensure the rapid development of the IT industry: marketing and PR, human resource development, provision of office space, and sufficient Telecom bandwidth. In addition the government needs to take appropriate measures in the field of public policy, finance, certifications and facilitation.

According to the PSEB, Pakistan’s IT industry will require a quality workforce of around 250,000 within four years. At present, only 90,000 IT personnel are working in the country with around 20,000 being added annually. The key challenge is to make up the quality deficit, not just the quantity deficit. This is because the number of engineers, computer scientists and information technology specialists graduating from recognised institutions who are fit for jobs in the global outsourcing arena number only 3000 annually, but in India, according to a Duke University study the number is estimated at close to 35,000, out of a graduating class of around 112,000 in 2004.

The PSEB has referred to marketing and public-relations as one of the core requirements for a successful IT industry. But marketing and public relations work only if conditions within the country are conducive to attracting foreign direct investment. Domestic and foreign investors will remain shy of investing in Pakistan without adequate infrastructure, good governance, law and order and security, and most important, political stability.

No doubt, the forthcoming national parliamentary and presidential elections in 2007 will be crucial. We all realise that the elections must be entirely fair and transparent. Opposition challenges apart, it is vital the Pakistani public and the international community should accept the next government’s legitimacy. Otherwise, the ensuing turmoil and uncertainty would make it all the more difficult to meet the challenge of India.

The writer is a former ambassador.