|
| July 19, 2008 | Saturday | Rajab 15, 1429 |
Taliban ultimatum
Black gold of Thar
OTHER VOICES - Indian Press
Europe waits for Obama
Iran: a crucial meeting
BRUSSELS: This column should really be about the decision by Yves Leterme, Belgium’s prime minister, to tender his resignation, thereby plunging his country into another political crisis.
WHAT will happen at Saturday’s (July 19) meeting? The EU foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, will head a delegation of diplomats from six countries to meet Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili, in Geneva. Jalili is supposed to present Iran’s final response to an offer of international economic and technical help in building a civilian nuclear industry, in return for suspending Iranian enrichment of uranium.
PAKISTAN’S stock market is in trouble and investors are angry. On Thursday, investors turned violent outside the Karachi, Lahore and Islamabad stock exchanges, which continued to nosedive. The numbers from the Karachi Stock Exchange alone are sobering: 15 straight trading sessions in which the KSE-100 index closed lower; 35 per cent of the index’s value lost since mid-April; and Rs1.6tr wiped off the exchange in that period. The crisis has been triggered by a combination of foreign and domestic factors. Floyd Norris, the chief financial correspondent of The New York Times, has noted the investor riots in Pakistan and has written: “It is more than a little odd that a crisis with roots in American home mortgage abuses has led to Pakistanis losing life savings…. Aren’t globally linked markets wonderful?” Pakistan’s stock exchange woes are similar to those faced by bourses in other developing countries. Liquidity-rich foreign investors poured cash into local markets which drew in small investors. But then, scared off by the stuttering economies of the developed world, foreign investors rapidly withdrew their money, triggering massive falls in local markets.
In Pakistan, the global bad news has been compounded by adverse local developments. On the economic front, the most urgent issue is the declining value of the rupee, one of the main reasons cited for the precipitous decline of the local stock market this week. Meanwhile, the political situation is dire: paralysis in Islamabad, militants rampaging across large swathes of the country, and Nato and American troops gathering on Pakistan’s border with Afghanistan. Such developments would cause anxiety amongst the hardiest of investors.
However, there is also no doubt that sudden changes in the rules governing the country’s stock exchanges have stoked the ire of investors. Late last June, the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan abruptly changed the ‘locks’ that prevent scripts from declining or rising beyond a certain percentage during a trading session. Reducing the lower locks from five per cent to one per cent for two weeks stabilised the KSE, but it was an artificial measure as evidenced by exceptionally low trading volumes. There is also the possibility that this week’s dramatic losses were exacerbated by the SECP’s intervention. Of paramount importance to financial markets is a clear set of rules which are known in advance and not amended in a panic. More often that not, such interventions only worsen the original problem. Moreover, there is a lingering suspicion among small investors that they are not on a level playing field with big investors, who are often accused of manipulating markets in their favour. In times of crisis, more transparency and fixed rules are the minimum that all investors have a right to expect.
EVEN though the NWFP government has rejected the ‘five-day ultimatum’ issued by Baitullah Mehsud, the Taliban chief’s tone and tenor show how emboldened he and his organisation have become. Asking an elected government to quit its own territory in five days or face ‘consequences’ highlights one basic tenet of the Taliban’s philosophy — they do not care a fig for democratic values and believe in terrorism to achieve their aim of imposing their minority version of Islam on the majority. Neither the provincial nor the federal government should waver in its resolve to confront the enemy head-on. The Taliban have killed innocent men, women and children and have literally slaughtered captured Pakistani soldiers — a sad commentary on their sense of values. What they are waging is a full-fledged rebellion against the State of Pakistan, and the provincial and federal governments would be failing in their duty if they do not accept the challenge.
It is true that Islamabad’s policy toward the militants has been characterised by vacillation for nearly half a decade. It trusted the militants and tribal elders in a hurry, and the results were disastrous. The agreement with the militants in September 2005 turned out to be a blunder, for it enabled the Taliban to turn parts of Fata into sanctuaries where they reorganised themselves. However, certain points deserve to be noted, for they show that the enemy is not all that strong as some people believe. The Taliban are quite capable of continuing their mischief — remote-controlled bomb blasts, suicide bombings and ambushes — for a long time but they are not capable of holding a given position for a long time. In Swat last year, they were on the run when the army launched its operation. In Fata, too, militancy has been relatively on the decline.
Islamabad must improve coordination with the authorities on the other side of the Durand Line. Kabul’s attitude has been unfortunate. The Karzai government must be told that its periodic diatribes against Pakistan help the Taliban and make things difficult for the allies in the war on terror. While Islamabad must continue to talk to those willing to live in peace, it must show no hesitation in coming down with a heavy hand on those who challenge its writ. The Taliban are a threat to Jinnah’s Pakistan and the PPP-led government, armed with the people’s mandate, must realise it is its duty to save the country from those who want to turn it into the kind of barbaric state that Afghanistan was under the Taliban.
THE recent abolition of the Sindh Coal Authority and its replacement with the Thar Coal Authority may have more to it than meets the eye. Though increasing power generation is the stated objective, the change is already stirring controversy. For one thing the composition of the body, which is dominated by federal government nominees, is creating ripples in the province. The voice being raised by relevant circles about the move being an effort to deny Sindh ownership of its black gold is not without weight. Coming from a government that has its political base in Sindh, the announcement has surprised many who are unable to voice their resentment publicly because of party affiliations. But those not hindered by such trappings are rightly pointing out the anomalies that seem to be the hallmark of the decision. A government that is known to have done little except boast about the supremacy of parliament should have thought twice, if not more, before doing away with a statutory body by way of a single piece of bureaucratic notification. Besides, the move also negates its stated stance on increased provincial autonomy.
Away from such political niceties, there are also some technical issues that deserve a clear policy direction from the government. Its sincerity about putting the Thar coal project on the fast track for increased power generation comes under serious questioning by the simple fact that its Jamshoro plant, based on Lakhra coal, is working at around 25 per cent of its capacity. Wapda finds it much less cost-effective than its earlier estimates and the private sector is interested in getting involved only if there is a guaranteed buyer for the power it would subsequently produce. As things stand today, coal extracted from the Lakhra mines — as well as that from Sonda near Thatta — is mostly sold to various industries instead of being used for power generation. If the government can first enhance power generation at Jamshoro to its optimum capacity, it will soothe many a nerve in Sindh. Otherwise, the debate will continue about Islamabad’s real intentions.
Entry barriers
Daily News & Analysis
IT’S tough being a high school student nowadays. The pressure of studies and exams, the expectations of parents and teachers and the general competitive atmosphere burden the student at a time when he/she ought to be enjoying the heady feeling of leaving behind school and entering college.
To that now add the entry barriers [to] good colleges that can only be described as unreal. Time was when a ‘first class’ was a sign of being a bright student…. [I]n a bid to make things easier for students, the examinations were simplified.
Now, a 90 per cent overall result will not let you get within sniffing distance of a ‘prestigious’ college. The state government further complicated matters by … its own system of standardisation of marks …
[O]nly a tiny group of the elite has been able to access the best institutions. Neither the government nor the private sector has been able to create more institutions of excellence thereby opening up more seats to a larger number of students.
Clearly, something is seriously wrong. Some of the blame must accrue to our general mindsets too. Everyone wants their child to get a general graduate degree, never mind if this is absolutely the wrong thing for the student. True, vocational institutions are few and far between, but the average parent would rather the child get a bachelor’s degree than study to become a chef or a graphic designer. This too puts inordinate pressure on the college system. — (July 16)
The skills deficit
The Hindu
BENEATH the glitter of impressive economic growth rates, India faces a … shortage of skills. The longstanding problem gained fresh relevance after the economy changed tack in the 1990s…. [A]s the latest Economic Survey makes clear, future … jobs for the masses will come not from agriculture but from the manufacturing and service sectors. This poses an immense challenge.
The draft National Policy on Skills Development reflects national concern that this demographic dividend should not be wasted. The current thinking is to formulate a national policy that is comprehensive and equitable. The idea is ambitious but the challenges in putting it to work are enormous. The draft policy conceptualises widening the training framework to include school or institution-based training, training by industry, and lifelong learning. But its emphasis, which could be an overemphasis, on the vocational stream is evident. If the policy is to succeed, it must meet the needs of the private sector.
The proposed National Skills Development Agency has its task cut out to offer facilities that will quickly make millions employable. The planned investment of two per cent of gross domestic product for training in the Eleventh Plan, rising progressively to five per cent in the next two plans, is welcome. However, if the history of public investment shortfall in the social sector … repeats itself, plans to overcome the skills deficit will remain weak statements of intent. — (July 17)
After all, this correspondent is based in Brussels and the future of Belgium — its very survival — is, once again, at stake.
Or is it? Frankly, we’ve been there, done that. Another column about the infighting between Belgium’s French- and Dutch-speaking communities would be boring and repetitive. Belgian political crises have a tendency to go on and on. And this latest government resignation had been expected for several months. As a close Belgian friend warned me earlier this year, “It’s going to be hot, hot, hot this summer.”
Politically speaking, it’s proving to be a cold and rainy summer. July seems like autumn as fog and drizzle envelope most of Europe in their cold embrace. Most inhabitants of Brussels and other northern European capitals are rushing off to warmer and summer climes.
No, it’s not troubled little Belgium that is making the news. Instead, headlines across the European Union focus on the imminent arrival in Europe of Barack Obama, the charismatic Democratic senator from Illinois who could be the next US president and who for the last few exciting months has set European pulses racing.
Starved of star-quality leaders at home, a majority of ordinary Europeans are caught up in what newspapers describe as unbridled ‘Obamamania’. There’s no doubt, say specialists, that if Europeans could vote Obama’s election as the next US president would be a shoe-in. Polls reveal that if they could vote in the US, between 53 per cent and 72 per cent of the British, French and German public would pull the lever for Obama.
“If Britons elected American presidents, Barack Obama would have no worries,” said a recent editorial in Britain’s Guardian newspaper.
And small wonder why. Europe’s current crop of leaders is a sorry bunch. French President Nicolas Sarkozy is widely derided as a showman whose only claim to fame at the moment is his glamorous singer/model wife. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s public approval ratings remain low — despite his recent attempt to portray himself as a brooding Heathcliff. Italy’s Silvio Berlusconi continues to prompt exasperation across Europe. German Chancellor Angela Merkel is respected but not seen as inspiring as is Spain’s Jose Luis Zapatero.
Obama, in contrast, inspires and shines — and will get an enthusiastic reception in London, Berlin and Paris, the three capitals selected for his European tour. Hungry for glamour and glitz, Europeans admire Obama’s stand on combating global warming and his early opposition to the Iraq war. Many are also tired of the Bush administration’s hard-line policies and cannot wait for the young senator to take charge.
Obama will begin his visit to Europe in Berlin, a city rebuilt with American money after World War II, with its very unity a living symbol of shared US and European endeavour in the Cold War. His visit will draw comparisons to the fabled visit to Berlin in 1963 of President John F. Kennedy, to whom Obama is often compared by supporters who see him also as a leader at the intersection of hope and history.
The Berlin visit has already become controversial, however, after Obama’s team apparently looked into the possibility of speaking at the Brandenburg Gate, the backdrop for another famous presidential visit, Ronald Reagan’s in 1987. German Chancellor Angela Merkel reportedly baulked at the idea of a US campaign rally being staged at such a potent national symbol, considering it inappropriate.
Obama is expected also to make a short trip to Paris on July 25, for talks with Nicolas Sarkozy, and will wrap up his swing by meeting Britain’s Gordon Brown.
The trip is being hailed in Europe as proof that the young senator is committed to upgrading the battered transatlantic relationship. However, while they are clearly hoping that some of Obama’s charisma will rub off on them, Brown, Merkel and perhaps even the less cautious Sarkozy will be careful not to seem to be promoting Obama’s candidacy.
After all, the elections are still almost four months away, and although the polls show Obama ahead Europe’s top leaders do not want to be seen to be putting their eggs in one basket.
Obama too will be eager to prove that he will not be ‘soft’ on Europe. The would-be US president will demand that Europeans boost forces in Afghanistan to defeat the Taliban, thereby matching his own plan to send two more brigades (10,000 troops) to Afghanistan. He will also insist that Europeans send their soldiers to Afghanistan’s volatile east and south, a message that Germans in particular are unlikely to view with favour.
The senator’s tough talking on free trade has also worried many in Europe who fear that the US may be turning protectionist and is losing interest in concluding the floundering Doha round of trade talks.
On other issues the visit should prove more pleasant, however. Obama is more fully committed than President Bush to curtailing America’s greenhouse gas emissions, a subject close to Europeans’ hearts.
Obama also has to be wary of not being seen as too pro-European. “To be seen as Europe’s pet is the last thing a presidential candidate needs — especially one who wants to shed his elitist image with white working-class American voters,” the Guardian warned.
While enthusiastic about Obama and the prospect of a more harmonious relationship with the US, EU policymakers note with regret that the senator’s European tour does not include a visit to Brussels and a tête-à-tête with key EU leaders, including European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso and EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana.
By excluding Brussels from his itinerary, many fear that Obama may be signalling that he prefers to deal with national European capitals rather than the EU itself — a move that is out of step with the EU’s increasing power and clout in both European and international affairs.
Or perhaps the Democratic presidential hopeful was merely advised by wary aides to steer clear of any controversial involvement in Belgium’s tedious French and Flemish dispute.
The writer is Dawn’s correspondent in Brussels.
The talks have been going on for years. What is different about Saturday?
Iran has been under pressure to give up uranium enrichment since its secret programme was exposed in 2002. Three UN sanctions resolutions have been imposed to no avail. But Saturday will nevertheless mark an important moment. The US is breaking a three-decade policy of isolation by sending a senior official, William Burns, to the talks to sit shoulder-to-shoulder with his counterparts from Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China, as the US embarks on a final push to force a deal.
What is expected to come out of it?
Tehran has so far not given a straight answer to the bargain it is being offered, presumably because a debate is raging within the Iranian government. Saturday is supposed to be the absolute deadline for a yes or no. One possibility is that Iran will try to buy time by agreeing to one part of the offer — a “freeze for freeze” formula in which it stops expanding its enrichment programme while the security council stops deepening its sanctions.
That would provide a six-week breathing space during which preliminary talks could take place, establishing mutual confidence. A full suspension of uranium enrichment would require a further leap by Tehran, one it has so far shown no readiness to make.
What are the stakes?
They are extremely high for the region. Israel and Iran have been making increasingly warlike noises and gestures. Israeli officials insist they will not stand by while Iran perfects the capacity to enrich uranium, and thus the potential for making a bomb. Some say the point of no return will come in the next year or 18 months.
A definitive no from the Iranians would also strengthen Dick Cheney, the US vice-president, and the hawks in the Bush administration, and perhaps resurrect the idea of US military intervention. At the least there would be a push for new UN sanctions in the autumn. A positive result would open the way for intensive negotiations, strengthening moderates in the US and Iran. It would almost certainly pave the way for the opening of a US interests section in Tehran, with US diplomats returning to the Iranian capital for the irst time in nearly 30 years.
—The Guardian, London
