Decision on F-16s

FINALLY, after a delay of two decades, the US has decided to sell the latest version of F-16 fighter planes to Pakistan. The number of aircraft to be supplied is subject to negotiations, but the State Department spokesman made it clear on Friday that these would be new planes and not those manufactured for Pakistan in the 1980s. This is a welcome departure from past practice and is in sharp contrast with the American attitude towards the 32 F-16s Pakistan had paid for in the eighties. In the heyday of Pakistan’s involvement with the US-led anti-Soviet war in Afghanistan, Washington had agreed to sell these aircraft and looked away from Islamabad’s nuclear plans. However, after the Soviets withdrew, President George Bush Sr refused to issue the certificate required under the Pressler amendment, and the F-16s were held up. What followed was an unhappy chapter in US-Pakistan relations, for Washington not only held up the delivery of the planes, it also refused to return the money Pakistan had paid for them. A decade later, in the Clinton era, compensation was made in the form of the sale of some other items to Pakistan.

Like the decision to hold back the F-16s, the latest step too stems from a radical shift in America’s foreign policy priorities. If the decision not to sell the F-16s resulted from the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, followed by the collapse of the USSR and the end of the Cold War, this one has to do with America’s war on terror. The terrorist attack on New York and Washington in September 2001 and the US decision to attack Taliban-led Afghanistan turned Pakistan once again into a front-line state. The spin-off for Pakistan included loan write-offs, rescheduling of debts and a 3.1 billion dollar military and economic package decided at the Camp David summit in 2003. Since then military sales have been going on, but the deal on the F-16s took time to materialize because of several factors, including Indian opposition to it.

New Delhi has reacted negatively to the intended sale. It forgets that in all branches of the armed forces, it has a huge superiority over Pakistan. In air power especially, the disparity between the two is overwhelming, and the sale of a small number of F-16s to Islamabad will not alter the balance of air power. Besides, New Delhi has an ambitious plan to expand its air power. It has already contracted to buy the Phalcon surveillance system from Israel, the anti-missile Patriot network from the US, 126 planes from Russia and 66 Hawks from Britain. Besides, the US has come up with a plan for a “decisively broader strategic relationship” with India to help it become a major world power. The F-16s will thus pose no threat to India but help Pakistan plug serious gaps in its air defence.

The sale of F-16s and India’s continued arms purchases focus our attention once again on what looks like an unstoppable arms race in South Asia. Both Pakistan and India spend huge amounts of their resources on military purchases. This has served to keep their people impoverished and militated against the growth of Saarc into a vibrant regional grouping like Asean. They also possess nuclear weapons, and Friday’s American statement tacitly recognizes this fact. It would be ideal if South Asia is made a nuclear-free zone — an old Pakistani proposal. But in an imperfect world in which the recognized nuclear powers have huge arsenals, it is difficult to see how Pakistan and India will be willing to give up their nuclear weapons unilaterally.

Spotlight on violence

THE murder of Dr Saleem Chaudhry, principal of the Dawood College of Engineering and Technology (DCET), on Friday in Karachi highlights how common it has become to resort to violence to settle personal or group scores. The Sindh minister for education has cited “an internal dispute” as the reason behind the principal’s killing while Dr Chaudhry’s family has declined to comment beyond saying that negative reports in the media had led to his death. An inquiry into the incident has been initiated. It is safe to assume, however, that very little will come out of it and the truth may not be known. What is clear is that the city has lost an educationist of longstanding and in circumstances shrouded in mystery. According to media reports, since taking over as principal in 2001, Dr Chaudhry was not short on enemies. Many believe that since DCET’s disaffiliation with the NED university and the Pakistan Engineering Council, the college’s standard had declined and shortage of teachers was also causing problems. This led to student protests. One demonstration last year even resulted in clashes with law enforcement officials. Although the deployment of Rangers on various campuses in the country is a familiar sight, it is sad that their presence has not served as a deterrent and violence in educational institutions continues to be a cause for concern. One hopes that the government will deal with the problem of violence on other campuses with a firm hand. It is easy to purchase arms in the country and people’s willingness to use them at the slightest provocation is equally frightening.

Student issues need to be addressed in real earnest. A positive step can be the formation of student unions whose purpose should be to organize extracurricular activities and not serve vested political interests. Stricter control on purchasing arms is a must or we risk the fate of becoming a completely lawless society. If law enforcement agencies have to be deployed on campuses to curb violence there — an unpalatable development in principle — they must ensure safety for all on campuses, making it possible for authorities to maintain a trouble-free and congenial environment for the pursuit of education at colleges and universities.

Wrong priority

THE establishment of three monitoring stations in Karachi by the provincial environmental protection agency to check air pollution is a classic example of how not to tackle the problem of pollution in the country. The stations are being set up in Sindh as part of a nationwide scheme undertaken by the federal environment ministry to monitor air pollution in the country’s urban centres. Monitoring stations should be the least of our priorities in checking pollution in urban areas because they will only confirm what is sufficiently known about the causes and effects of air pollution in Pakistani cities. Instead, it would be far better to enhance the ability of the provincial EPAs to enforce existing laws on pollution control. The Pakistan Environmental Protection Act of 1997 has various provisions that allow the EPAs to take action against polluters who violate certain limits vis-a-vis air, water and even noise pollution. Regrettably, this law is seldom, if ever, enforced.

That this particular monitoring project is being funded with help from the Japanese government also underlines one other thing: that if the environment ministry is to receive aid, the priority should be for preventing and controlling pollution. Most people not even well versed in the intricacies of fighting pollution know that the main sources of pollution are factories and public transport vehicles. In cities like Lahore and Karachi the bulk of air pollution can be traced to rickshaws, buses, minibuses and industrial units. What the EPAs should do is to enforce the anti-pollution law stringently. Owners of vehicles that pollute air should be fined in accordance with the law and required to modify their vehicle’s exhaust so that the level of emissions goes down. As for industrial pollution, the 1997 law sanctions the establishment of environmental tribunals to allow affected citizens to take polluters to court. Punjab is the only province which has one such tribunal.