Proliferation issues

It bodes well for the future of nuclear non-proliferation that India and Pakistan have pledged to stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction. These two new entrants to the atomic club, who attended a security conference in Munich over the weekend, have made their intent clear on this issue, even though they have reiterated that they will not sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Coming soon after the public disclosure of the role of Pakistan's key scientists in selling nuclear secrets to Iran, Libya and North Korea, the assurance not to proliferate will certainly be welcomed.

But given past experience - and not just in our own case - some scepticism is bound to be expressed. One hopes that India and Pakistan, the only two powers which are proclaimed nuclear states since 1998 will understand these concerns.

Since the arms race in South Asia, which now goes beyond conventional weapons and concentrates on nuclear defence as well, is basically between India and Pakistan, the two countries will have to cooperate actively to prevent nuclear non-proliferation and also take measures to cut down the arms build-up in the region.

Both of these go together because proliferation of weapons only occurs when countries are locked in an arms race in an effort to gain strategic and political superiority over one another.

Cooperation between them is possible as has been demonstrated by their efficiency in implementing their bilateral agreement on exchanging every year their lists of nuclear facilities. They have been doing this for over a decade, even in periods when their ties have been at a low ebb.

Moreover, the time has come for India and Pakistan to focus on the development of their human resources. This is possible only if they reduce their exorbitant defence expenditures and channel their financial resources towards socio-economic sectors.

Since they are now on the verge of entering a new phase in their relationship, one hopes that this will be determined within a proper political and security framework.

As for the NPT which the two sides have refused to sign, their approach can be explained. This treaty, which came into effect in 1970 and today has 186 signatories, is an anomalous instrument that does not treat all member states equitably.

It blatantly divides the world community into two - the five acknowledged nuclear powers in one camp and the non-nuclear weapon states in the other. The non-proliferation principle ensures that no one from the second camp can enter the privileged group.

Where would India and Pakistan, which are now professed nuclear weapon states, be placed if they were to sign the NPT? The inability of the NPT to address basic contradictions was highlighted by the North Korean decision to pull out of the treaty in January 2003.

Given the changes in the international system - especially the end of the Cold War and the new security context - there is need to change the terms of the NPT as well. The major nuclear weapon states should now be pondering the need to dismantle their own WMDs, especially nuclear weapons. The big powers who need killer weapons least should be the ones to make a start in the disarmament process.

Widening gap

The country's foreign trade deficit is reported to have risen to $974.17 million during the first seven months of the financial year 2003-04 over the corresponding period of the previous year.

While exports in this period rose by 13.5 per cent to $6.9 billion as compared to the previous year, it was the jump in imports by 16.2 per cent to $7.9 billion in the same period that widened the trade gap. The growth in exports is said to have been possible due to exploration of non-traditional markets, improvement in quality of goods exported and better utilization of quotas.

The increase in imports has offset some of these achievements, but the silver lining here is that dutiable imports would result in higher revenue generation. Higher imports, which comprise agriculture machinery, metals, chemicals, and edible oil, indicate a gaining of momentum of the national economy.

However, Pakistan should take care not make the mistakes it has made several times in the past of allowing unhindered imports at the cost of exports and the local industry.

The government has to look ahead and seriously chalk out a plan of action as there are two major developments in the offing that will have a direct impact on the balance of trade in the coming few years.

As the WTO regime goes into operation in about a year from now, the country's exports will be exposed to free market international competition. For Pakistan to be competitive in the international market, it needs to ensure that locally made products are internationally attractive.

Quality and price need to be kept under strict scrutiny because of this. Also, with deliberations taking place to reduce tariffs between member states under the South Asia Free Trade Agreement (Safta), regional trade is expected to increase.

Trade between India and Pakistan will rise as a consequence, and Pakistan has to be in a position to offer a wide variety of traditional and non-traditional items to India in return for what that country would offer. If this strategy is pursued, the country would be able to benefit from the changes in the trade regime in the coming years.

The German plan

Encouraged by its success in the prisoner swap between Hezbollah and Israel, Germany is pressing for a Middle East plan that has larger goals. As unveiled by German Foreign Minister Joshka Fischer, the plan invites Germany's European, Nato and G-8 allies to join in a new scheme in which socio-economic goals would be as important as security concerns.

Speaking at a security conference in Munich, Mr Fischer said security steps alone could not defeat the forces of religious extremism. The two-stage plan first seeks the cooperation of EU-Nato-Mid-East countries in security, economy, law and culture and civil society.

Later, it visualizes a free trade area by 2010. The area covered by the plan stretches from Morocco to Syria, and includes Iran in the second stage. This way the plan is ambitious in terms of both the countries covered and its aims and objects.

But one needs to guard against taking an optimistic view of the situation. The biggest source of instability in the Middle East is Israel. Ever since its creation, the Zionist state has exported violence, terrorism and war to its neighbours.

The German plan seeks neither to ignore nor block the Arab-Israeli conflict. But, at the same time, it has no specific strategy that could deal with the region's key issue.

As the Middle East's history since the Balfour Declaration (1917) shows, there can be no peace unless the injustices done to the Palestinian people are removed and they have a sovereign state of their own with Al Quds as its capital.

The peace process remains in limbo because Israel continues to violate the roadmap unveiled by President George Bush in April last year. This serves to strengthen the feeling in the Middle East that Israel can get away with any mischief because of the freedom to act it enjoys from the US and Nato states.

Unless the trans-Atlantic allies discard their prejudiced pro-Israeli stance, there is little possibility that schemes of the kind outlined by Germany can have any chance of success.