|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
   |
tax Newswatch Supply
side problems trade governance Regional
rhapsody firstperson End
of the world as we know it
By
Huzaima Bukhari & In the
wake of approval of the ten-year tax plan by General Musharraf on February
22, 2007 during his visit to Central Board of Revenue (CBR), M. Abdullah
Yousaf the Chairman CBR has promised the nation that in the next fiscal year
the revenue target will be Rs. one trillion. This will be an increase of
Rs.150 billion in the present years target of Rs. 850 billion. It has been
further claimed that tax-to-GDP ratio of 15% will be achieved in the next few
years. These targets are easily achievable. The
Chairman CBR, while briefing the Senate Standing Committee on Finance the
other day, on the performance of his organisation during the financial year
2006-07, admitted that only 1.6 million people filed their tax returns up to
December 2006. This is a dismally low figure for a country having population
of over 165 million . The Committee was informed that CBR collected Rs 513.6
billion in the first eight months (July-February) of the current financial
year as compared to Rs. 419.3 billion in the same period last year,
registering a growth of 22.5% [this collection is also Rs.19 billion more
than the target set for this period]. The CBR for this performance received
kudos from the Committee. However, the main point missed by the Senate
Standing Committee was to ascertain the composition of total collection. CBR
is collecting Rs. 42 as taxes for an imported item having landed cost of Rs.
100, hindering the pace of industrial growth by making inputs costlier. A close
examination of CBR's performance will show that it has shifted the burden of
collection of taxes to withholding agents, who are performing the essential
State function of the tax collector, without any reward, what to talk of
getting reimbursement of expenses incurred for performing this onerous task.
It is an undeniable fact that about 75% of taxes are being collected through
withholding tax mechanism, the burden of which is enormous on the people of
Pakistan and collecting agents have to meet heavy compliance cost. This
increases their cost of doing business. It is
sad to note that the government has enormously widened the scope of
collection/deduction of taxes through banks by making a number of amendments
in tax laws. The corporate houses in general and banks in particular have
virtually been converted into 'CBR Collection Houses'. The withholding agents
incur substantial cost on complying with tax collection provisions as
withholding agents on behalf of Government (man-hours, infra-structure use
and stationary, just to mention a few). There is no provision in tax laws of
any collection charges for rendering these services, making it 'forced labour',
which is unlawful under Article 11(3) of the Constitution.. On the
contrary, the Federal Government retains 2% as collection charges from all
the Provincial Governments on General Sales Tax on Services, which it
collects on their behalf [see para 9.6 at page 42 of Explanatory Memorandum
on Federal Receipts 2006-2007, published by Government of Pakistan, Finance
Division, Islamabad as part of Budget documents presented on June 5, 2006].
If Federal Government is justified to retain 2% as collection charges from
Provincial Governments on General Sales Tax on Services, which it collects on
their behalf, how can it deny the same to banks as withholding agents who
collect billions of rupees on behalf of CBR? In all the civilized societies,
withholding agents are allowed to retain a fixed amount (it is as high as 10%
in EEC) as collection charges for performing duties on behalf of the State.
In Pakistan, on the one hand this right of recovering cost is denied to all
the withholding agents and they are compelled to do 'forced labour', and on
the other, the Federal Government finds it fully justified to charge the same
when matters comes up with provinces. Needless to say, it is a case of
discrimination on the part of Federal Government. According to the latest
figures compiled by the State Bank of Pakistan, the total number of account
holders of all Pakistani and foreign banks operating here, who paid income
tax under section 151 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, for the period
ending 31 December 2006, was 18 million. According to National Saving
Directorate, the total number of persons who paid tax at source on different
schemes during the period 1 July 2005 to 30 June 2006 was 14 million.
It is worthwhile to note that in their case tax deducted at source is
full and final discharge under section 169 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.
They are merely required to file a simple statement u/s 115(4) of the Income
Tax Ordinance, 2001 i.e. if they do not have any other source of income. Had
the CBR allotted all of them National Tax Numbers (NTNs), it could proudly be
said that 18 million are registered taxpayers in Pakistan. This
huge population of taxpayers has been completely ignored by the CBR by saying
that only 1.6 million filed tax returns. Perhaps the greatest achievement of
CBR is not to count the people who are paying taxes through the mechanism of
deduction of tax at source and that too not in thousands but in millions. The
same is true for eight million commercial/industrial electricity users who
are regularly paying income tax along with their utility bills, but failed to
qualify in the counting criterion of the Chairman CBR [the total number of
industrial/commercial electricity consumers in Pakistan as on March 2006 was
over 8 million as per official Economic Survey 2005-2006.
It is a
matter of great pity that the apex tax collection authority, CBR, itself does
not know how many people in Pakistan are paying income tax. The people of
this country are accused of not paying income tax; whereas the reality is
that even a petty shopkeeper in a village (whose total income is much below
the minimum taxable limit of Rs. 150,000) is paying as high a tax as Rs. 720
per annum along with electricity bills as a commercial user. The total
population of Pakistan, according to latest figures released officially, is
165 million. The percentage of rural population is about 67%. Out of total
population, 45% are below the age of 15 years (being minor the majority of
them cannot be taxpayers). The total labour force stands at 40 million, out
of which 26 million comprise rural labour force. Reading all these facts
together, the income tax paying population of Pakistan cannot be more than 20
million, out of which 18 million paid income tax u/s 151 of the Income Tax
Ordinance, 2001 during 2005-2006! Yet
the CBR is engaged in a vicious propaganda that people of Pakistan are not
paying taxes and our income tax base is narrow! The CBR in its Year Book for
2005-2006 admitted that this class of taxpayers alone paid over Rs. 8 billion
as income tax. CBR on the one hand is fleecing people through presumptive and
withholding taxes (irrespective of the fact whether they have taxable income
or not) and on the other has the audacity not to include them in the list of
taxpayers. This is adding insult to injury. Huge
claims are being made about documentation of economy and preparation of
taxpayers roll whereas the very basic counting methodology and conceptual
framework of the CBR about the number of taxpayers in the country is faulty. It is
painful to note that present structure of presumptive taxation has
complicated the poverty problem of Pakistan. According to a study of Asian
Development Bank, the tax system of Pakistan, which was progressive till
1990, was converted into regressive regime in 1991 with the introduction of
provisions like section 80B, 80C, 80CC and 80D in the repealed Income Tax
Orinance, 1979 and VAT-type tax in the Sales Tax Act, 1990. The various
presumptive taxes have not been retained since 1991, but their scope has been
enlarged manifold. The result is
that during the fifteen years period (1991-2006), tax burden on the poorest
households is estimated to have increased by 10.4%, while it declined by
15.9% for the richest households. This study of ADB is an eye-opener for the
target-oriented CBR's stalwarts, who are completely oblivious of impact of
their onerous tax policies. In their frenzy of showing higher figures they
have imposed extra burden of taxes on the poor of Pakistan, instead of taxing
the rich and mighty. The banks, WAPDA and the
PTCL are fully computerized and can compute the total number of people on
whose behalf these organisations collect and deposit income tax in the
government treasury. Their combined figure of such persons is nearly 18
million and yet CBR is claiming remarkable achievement by mentioning their
number at 1.6 million! It is a great tragedy of errors and perhaps one of the
ugliest jokes with the people of this country. The CBR owes an open apology
to the people of Pakistan for criminal negligence in reporting incorrect
figures regarding income taxpayers in Pakistan. The CBR's own efforts (sic)
in tax collection are only to the extent of 20-25% of total collection.
Taxpayers and withholding agents are victims of the high handedness of
government's unjust tax policies. It is high time that the CBR should put its
own house in order and stop malicious propaganda against the people in
general and business community in particular. Pakistan
(at federal and provincial level) can generate at least Rs. 2.5 trillion as
tax revenue in the fiscal year 2007-08 provided that : • Tax-base is shifted from
presumptive to real income. • Provinces are
given exclusive right to levy taxes on goods and
services within their respective physical boundaries. • Agricultural
income tax on actual profit basis (presently it is an
eye-wash levied on acreage basis) is collected from
rich absentee landlords sitting in the Parliament. • Section 111(4)
of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 giving amnesty
to tax evaders should be withdrawn. • Rate of sales tax should be
reduced to 5% and levied across the
board. • Provinces
should restore tax on gain of immovable property. • Profits generated through
speculative transactions in shares at
stock exchanges should be taxed and exemption given
under the garb of capital gain should be withdrawn. If
political will is shown, there is no reason why we cannot achieve double the
target of what the Chairman CBR is promising. If mighty sections of society
start paying their taxes and mammoth black economy is brought into tax net,
our tax-to-GDP ratio can jump to 25% in 2007-08 for which CBR want us to wait
for another ten years The
writers (lahorelaw@hotmail.com) are tax advisers and members of visiting
faculty of Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS)
By Kaleem
Omar Unlike US foreign
policy, which has often come in for much criticism ever since the United
States became a military superpower and started trying to impose its will on
the rest of the world, the US Constitution contains many highly admirable
features that other countries would do well to incorporate into their own
constitutions. The independence of the
judiciary is one of the most admirable of such features and central to the
concept of democracy. As the American writers
Larry Berman and Bruce Allen Murphy observe in their illuminating book
'Approaching Democracy', the extent of a court's power depends on its
independence, that is, to make decisions free of outside influences. The framers of the US
Constitution were aware of this and placed in the Constitution several
provisions to help keep the Supreme Court free of pressures from the people's
Congress and the President of the United States of America. First, justices are
appointed not elected, thus, they are not beholden to voters. Second, the power to
appoint justices is shared by the president and the US Senate, with the power
to nominate justices vesting in the president and the power to confirm or
reject such nominations vesting in the Senate: thus ensuring that the Court
is not beholden to any one person or political party. Third, the justices are
guaranteed their position for life; as long as they exhibit 'good behaviour'.
Even in cases of bad behaviour, justices can be impeached only for "high
crimes and misdemeanours". Thus, the Court cannot be manipulated by the
political branches, that is, the president and Congress. Fourth, justices can be
removed only by impeachment, through a process involving both houses of
Congress -- the Senate and the House of Representatives. They cannot be
removed by executive fiat or by their peers in the Supreme Court. Finally, the US
Constitution specifies that justices "salaries shall not be diminished
during their Continuance in Office," meaning that Congress cannot lower
the Court's salary to punish it for its rulings. But how much
independence does the US Supreme Court really possess? "A great
deal," say Berman and Murphy, "although the Court is not completely
shielded from outside influences." As Berman and Murphy
note, US presidents can change the direction of the Court with new
appointments. Congress can attack the judiciary's independence through some
or all of the following measures: abolishing all the lower federal courts,
refusing to raise salaries, using its power to remove certain classes of
cases from the appellate docket (leaving the lower court rulings in force),
changing the number of justices on the nine-member Supreme Court, passing a
law to reverse a Court decision, and attacking the Court in speeches. Only in a few rare
instances. however, has Congress attempted to use any of these methods to
threaten the Supreme Court's independence. One effort came in 1957, when
Congress. displeased with judicial limits placed on its investigative powers,
considered the Jenner-Butler Bill, which would have removed certain classes
of cases from the Supreme Court docket. Only the efforts of the
powerful Senate majority leader Lyndon Johnson (later Vice-President of the
United States in John F Kennedy's administration and president after JFK's
assassination on November 22, 1963) prevented passage of the Jenner-Butler
Bill. As Berman and Murphy
observe, "At times, mere threats to judicial independence can have an
impact on Court decisions." They note that US
President Franklin D Roosevelt's failed plan to pack the Supreme Court with
his nominees still resulted in a change of direction among the justices in
favour of his "New Deal" programme. Although the Jenner-Butler Bill
failed, Supreme Court Justices Felix Frankfurter (a Roosevelt appointee who
served on the Court from 1939 to 1962) and John Marshall Harlan (who was
appointed by President Dwight D Eisenhower and served on the Court from 1955
to 1971) changed their positions and began to support Congress's power to
investigate. In the end, say Berman
and Murphy, the US Supreme Court's "greatest protection from political
threats to its independence comes from the people, as long as justices are
careful not to get too far ahead of public opinion in their decisions." Winston Churchill once
remarked, "The pressure of public opinion is like the pressure of the
atmosphere. You can't feel it, but it's there -- 14 pounds to the square
inch." That was his way of saying that public opinion cannot be ignored.
"An independent
judiciary that secures the rights and liberties of citizens is a cherished
part of the American political landscape in which the rule of law is
paramount. It is also one of the measures of true democracy," Berman and
Murphy observe. In recent years,
however, the US Supreme Court has come in for a lot of flak in America for
its stopping of the Florida vote recount in the US presidential election of
2000 through a highly controversial 5-4 split decision that gave the election
to Republican Party candidate George W Bush over his Democratic Party rival
Al Gore. Had the recounting of
votes in the State of Florida not been stopped by the Court, Gore would have
carried Florida, which would have given him enough Electoral College votes to
make him the winner. Under the American
presidential election system, the candidate who gets a majority of the
popular vote in a state gets all that state's Electoral College votes. The number of Electoral
College votes that a state has is based on the state's population.
California, the US's most populous state, has the highest number of Electoral
College votes; New York State has the second-highest number; and Florida,
with 26 Electoral College votes, has the third-highest number. The stopping of the
vote recount in Florida gave Bush the state's 26 Electoral College votes,
which, added to the total he already had from other states, made him the
overall winner. All five of the Supreme Court justices who voted to stop the
recount were appointed to the Court by previous Republican Party
administrations. Then-President Bill
Clinton, a member of the Democratic Party, sarcastically remarked after
Bush's victory: "Bush won the election fair and square -- 5 to 4 in the
Supreme Court." To make matters worse,
the Governor of the State of Florida was Bush's younger brother, Jeb Bush --
reinforcing the suspicion in some Democratic Party circles, including the
Gore campaign organisation, that the voting in Florida had been rigged. Due to the Florida
imbroglio, the announcement of the official result of the 2000 presidential
election was delayed by more than a month -- making the US electoral process
the butt of jokes around the world, especially in those developing countries
where such shenanigans are common. All of which goes to
show that even the US Supreme Court -- for all the provisions in the American
Constitution to help keep the Court free of outside influences -- can
sometimes become embroiled in political controversies. The concept of judicial
independence means that judges are free to make decisions based on the law
and do not feel compelled to comply with the wishes of powerful political
leaders. But the degree of judicial independence varies from one nation to
another. In democratic countries
judges are usually chosen on the basis of merit rather than politics and
cannot be removed from office because of the nature of their decisions. In
contrast, in authoritarian regimes judges are more likely to follow the
dictates of political leaders and to be disciplined if they do not.
Supply side problems There is a lot that needs to be done before everyone in Pakistan has access to clean potable water By
Aleyha Ahmed One of
the most basic human rights, fundamental to our survival, is the right to
clean and potable water. What is then most alarming is that the
implementation of this right should be so neglected and disregarded in our
country on such a vast scale. It is widely known and also officially
recognised by What is
most central to the problem we face when implementing environmental efforts
is the lack of educational material available to both the masses and the
industrial sector. Although the sector is primarily responsible for the
pollutants that are continuously dumped in our water supplies, only one per
cent of manufacturers treat their wastewater before discharging it into
rivers and drains. The majority of these environmentally conscious
manufacturers, export to clients in countries that must abide by strict
international regulations for health and pollution and are therefore
obligated to maintain a strict, internationally approved level of commitment
to waste treatment. It is, however, the lack of information supplied by the
government to the population that exacerbates the dangers of water
contamination. Many are unaware of basic treatments such as boiling their
drinking water, which can dramatically reduce the risk of contracting
gastrological diseases such as diarrhoea, a disease that takes the greatest
amount of young lives per year in Pakistan. According to the Human Rights
Commission of Pakistan, "children account for 94 per cent of deaths from
diarrhoea". The
statistics are eye-opening to say the least. According to the WWF report,
over 250,000 children die in Pakistan of preventable, water-related diseases
every year. In 2005, "20-40 per cent of the hospital beds were occupied
by patients suffering from water related diseases" while "diseases
such as typhoid, cholera, dysentery and hepatitis, (were) responsible for 33
per cent of deaths". But very shockingly, only 0.8 per cent of total
government expenditure is spent on public health facilities. On the
plus side, Punjab has by far the best supply of water for rural areas in the
country, with only 7 per cent of the population depending on a dug well,
river, canal or stream, followed by Sindh, where these sources cater to 24
per cent of the population. Though there is a relatively abundant supply of
water in the Punjab, recent reports by the Pakistan Council for Research in
Water Resources (PCRWR), however, revealed that in 2004 over 2 million
Punjabis were drinking water containing unsafe levels of arsenic
concentration. Arsenic is most commonly known and used as a poison that, in
high quantities, is fatal. When ingested in comparatively small doses and
over a long period of time, it leads to chronic poisoning which is thought to
cause or aggravate certain diseases and is a known carcinogen. Its effects
include still births, heart disease, diabetes mellitus, nephrosis and
emphysema among others. Punjab is not the only area with severe water issues.
The same report by the PCRWR also confirmed that "almost 95 per cent of
(Sindh's) shallow water supplies are bacteriologically contaminated". Apart
from health problems caused by the unsanitary water supply, a pattern of
economic and social consequences is also becoming apparent. All branches of
society are connected to the water supply, be it through drinking or for
hygiene purposes. Therefore, if as many as one in three patients are in
hospital because of a water-related disease and not at work, then this figure
not only affects the patient's family, but directly impacts the country's
Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Apart from humans, the water supply also
affects crops and fish on an immense scale. In Pakistan, irrigation takes up
93 per cent of all water consumed. Not only can this percentage of water
usage be dramatically decreased, allowing for a greater availability of water
for the population, but its decontamination would also result in a healthier
crop yield. Water pollution has also severely depleted the amount of fish
that are harvested in water supplies, directly diminishing the economic
capacity of the industry. Positive impacts of a water clean up would be vast
and far-reaching. It would create positive international attention and, as a
result, would invite foreign investment into the country. There
are no official drinking water quality standards in Pakistan and so both
piped water and the surface groundwater that are available in our country go
equally unmonitored. Although this in itself is deplorable, there are still
over 40 million Pakistani residents that depend on irrigation water for
drinking or surface water as their regular source of potable water. This
irrigation water is not only highly unsafe when ingested but also often
exceeds the level of contamination set even for irrigation water. Pakistan
has maintained a legal approach when addressing environmental issues.
Legislation has long been enacted and includes the Canal and Drainage Act
(1873), the Punjab Minor Canals Act (1905), Sindh Fisheries Ordinance (1980)
and The Greater Lahore Supply Sewerage and Drainage Ordinance (1967). Though
these laws have been in place since long, little has been done to convert
these laws into practice. The
Human Rights Commission Pakistan has continuously championed the clean
drinking water cause and last July staged a demonstration outside the Lahore
Press Club protesting the increasing health problems caused by the supply of
contaminated water to the population. Although changes are slowly being made,
there remains, in our country, an apathetic attitude when the issues involved
affect the masses as opposed to the elite. World
Water Day is being observed on March 22.
By
Pradeep S Mehta New
Delhi recently witnessed an unusual international seminar on 'Saving the Doha
Round' organised by the government of India in association with leading
non-governmental organisations from both rich and poor countries. These
included Oxfam International from the United Kingdom, Carnegie Endowment from
the United States and CUTS International from India. It was unusual because The
multilateral trading system under the aegis of the World Trade Organisation (WTO)
has come a long way since this organisation was established in 1995,
following the conclusion of the Uruguay Round of talks under the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). One of the striking features of the
WTO in its first decade of existence is its remarkable ability to attract
attention from NGOs. According to WTO's definition, any entity other than a
government is a non-governmental organisation. This means that WTO considers
organisations representing business interest and those representing public
interest at par. It's another matter that business interest often receives
more attention as far as international trade is concerned. From barely a few
NGOs (that too mostly from the rich world) participating in WTO's first
ministerial conference in Singapore in 1996, hundreds of NGOs have
participated in the sixth one held in Hong Kong in 2005. They represent a
variety of interests: business (including small business), consumers,
environment and social issues. There
are several reasons for this growing interest among the NGO community on
matters related to the WTO. Till the Uruguay Round negotiations on
international trade issues under the GATT system were mostly confined to
those issues, which were mainly of interest to rich countries. Even rich
country NGOs were not interested in such issues. For the first time, in the
Uruguay Round, issues such as agriculture, textiles & clothing, services,
investment, intellectual property rights were brought under the ambit of the
multilateral trading system. These issues concern the lives of the common
people, and thus NGOs started taking interest in the multilateral trading
system. Even then it was a few NGOs in rich countries, which were active in
the field. I remember taking part in the Hong Kong Congress of the then
International Organisation of Consumer Unions (now Consumers International)
in 1991 where the famous Dunkel Draft on the Uruguay Round was discussed
heatedly. Unfortunately many like me from the South were at a loss to
understand what was going on. Interest
of developing country NGOs on WTO issues has started growing following the
Singapore ministerial conference of the WTO. In 1996, the International
Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD) was established in
Geneva. It was a joint initiative of Northern and Southern NGOs. Its main
mandate was to inform the larger civil society on what was happening in
Geneva with regard to the WTO and for more than a decade it has been doing
this in a most professional manner. For a large number of NGOs from poor
countries, and governments, ICTSD's weekly and monthly bulletins are the
major sources of getting information on WTO matters and thus getting
gradually empowered. Even
though NGO interest in WTO matters has grown over the years, there are yet
certain myths with regard to their positions. This is not to say that NGO
positions are homogenous on all or majority of issues (in fact, on many
occasions they are different), but often it is perceived that all NGOs are
opposed to the WTO. This is a myth. There are a large number of NGOs, which
are centrist in their philosophy and do understand the virtues of a
rules-based system, which the WTO is. It's another matter that on many
occasions several countries have violated WTO rules and in some cases, they
were rectified through the WTO's dispute settlement mechanism. Many NGOs have
taken active part in many of these disputes by voicing their concerns and in
some cases by submitting amicus briefs. It is
another myth that the Seattle ministerial conference of the WTO collapsed due
to NGOs marching in the streets. The reality was that Seattle was abandoned
due to two reasons: irreconcilable differences between the European Union and
the United States on further opening up of agricultural trade (which continue
to dominate the debate even today) and US insistence on bringing in
contentious issues such as labour standards into the WTO, which was resisted
by the poor countries. A second
myth is that developing countries, like India, look at NGOs (even the
domestic ones) suspiciously, because international agencies and governments
of rich countries mostly support them. There is little truth in this
allegation. A look at the composition of official delegations of developing
countries to the Hong Kong ministerial conference shows that NGOs were
represented in the official delegation of almost all such countries,
including India. It is
true that developing country NGOs are mostly supported by donors from the
Western world, but there is no way that they tow the positions of the rich
countries on WTO matters. In many cases, their positions differ substantially
from those of rich countries (even from those of the NGOs of the rich world).
But it is also true that NGOs often provide a vehicle through which the rich
and the poor countries reconcile their positions on specific issues, of which
the TRIPs and public health accord is one. And
since the Singapore ministerial conference, many governments have started
engaging NGOs in their activities on WTO matters. Immediately after
Singapore, an advisory committee was formed by the government of India to
help trade negotiators on WTO matters, which included two NGO
representatives. Similarly, many other developing country governments, such
as Kenya, Pakistan, Zambia, South Africa have been consulting their NGOs
through structured platforms, and have portrayed their positions
(particularly on agriculture) based on such consultations. In some cases this
practice is being followed religiously. Many of these countries have also
nominated NGOs in their official delegations to the Hong Kong ministerial.
The truth is that developing countries have understood the importance of an
'inclusive process' while taking positions on WTO matters and this is one way
of mainstreaming international trade into their development strategies. The author is the Secretary General of CUTS
International and can be reached at psm@cuts.org Farms of
trade Some of
the measures that the developing countries are pushing for in WTO talks to
protect their agriculture are essential for ensuring food security and saving
farmers' lives and livelihood By Qasim
Shah Agriculture
negotiations at the World Trade Organization (WTO) have made no progress so
far. Several deadlines have been missed due to undue stubbornness of the
European Union and the United States. Both the rich blocs do not seem willing
to understand that Doha round was declared a 'development round' and not a
market access round. They are also unable to comprehend the importance of
agriculture for poor countries. While
the European Union and the United States are reluctant to reduce their farm
subsidies and the level of protection to their farm sector, they have been
united in pushing poor countries to open up their markets. This time,
however, the situation is different from the Uruguay Round of negotiations.
Developing countries are well prepared and they have organised themselves in
various groupings to safeguard their interests. The two important blocs of
developing countries are 'G 20' and 'G 33'. The G 20 is very active on
domestic subsidies and tariff issues, and G 33 has equally stood united by
pushing forward developing countries' right to protect agriculture through
protective proposals, known as Special Products (SP) and Special Safeguard
Mechanism (SSM). Pakistan is a member of both the groups. In fact
the idea of SSM was first introduced by Pakistan while SPs were launched by
Indonesia. Though the idea of SPs and SSM is actually a departure from the
market access commitments to be made during this round but this is not new in
trade deals. In GATT 1947, the United States took special steps to protect
its agriculture sector and in the Uruguay Round of Agreement on Agriculture
many countries were having the right to defend their agriculture sector by
using special safeguard available under article 5.1. The developed countries
specially benefited from Peace Clause which exempted them from having their
cheap exports challenged legally at the WTO. In present round of
negotiations, concept of sensitive products is also one such escape route
which will benefit developed countries. As part
of the Doha Round of the WTO negotiations on agriculture it has been agreed
-- while final modalities and measures are yet to be decided -- that
developing countries would have a category of agricultural products
classified as Special Products, which would be have lower tariff reductions
from the general formula cuts. Similarly a Special Safeguard Mechanism allows
developing countries to increase their import tariff levels in case of an
import surge. The objective of these measures is to ensure food and
livelihood security and rural development in developing countries by
protecting small farmers against the volatility of the world prices. The July
2004 Framework of the Doha talks provided developing countries flexibility to
designate certain agricultural products as Special Products based on the
criteria of food security, livelihood concerns and rural development. The
Hong Kong ministerial conference reaffirmed the developing countries' right
to self-designate an appropriate number of tariff lines (agricultural
products) as Special Products and to develop Special Safeguard Mechanism to
protect poor small farmers from import surges. However since the inception of
the concept, it is facing strong criticism from many countries and institutes
who want increased market access for farm goods at any price. Contrary
to the resistance from rich countries and international financial
institutions, national governments of poor countries cannot leave hundred and
thousand of farmers on the mercy of global market forces. Agriculture in
developing world not only feeds whole rural and urban population, it's also a
major source of employment and foreign exchange earnings. Already
liberalisation of agriculture sector under structural adjustment programme
and Uruguay round commitments has devastated millions of farmers throughout
the developing world. The losses are immeasurable. The rural unemployment has
increased as the growth in imports of subsidised cheap agricultural products
has flooded the developing countries. Local production has declined and
countries which once had a comparative advantage in agriculture have lost it
to the giant global corporations that have become even more powerful on the
back of Western farm subsidies. Therefore,
in order to protect employment in farming sector and protect our food
sovereignty, Pakistan should take an offensive position in negotiations on
SPs designation and SSM modelling. By no means should we surrender on this
count to the pressure from the Western countries or international financial
institutions. Finally,
to restructure future discourse on trade negotiations and making them
favourable to the needs of developing countries, we urge our trade minister
to participate in G 33 meeting in Jakarta on March 20, 2007 to strengthen the
case of poor small farmers. This way not only we would win the support of
farming community in Pakistan but also homage of the marginalised communities
around the globe.
By
Dr Khalil Ahmad "The
clearest way to show what the rule of law means to us in everyday life is to
recall what has happened when there is no rule of law." [Dwight
David Eisenhower, 1890-1969] "I
would have government defend the life and property of all citizens equally;
protect all willing exchange; suppress and penalize all fraud, all
misrepresentation, all violence, all predatory practices; invoke a common
justice under law; and keep the records incidental to these functions. Even
this is a bigger assignment than governments, generally, have proven capable
of. Let governments do these things and do them well. Leave all else to men
in free and creative effort." [Leonard
E Read] The
greatest affliction that can happen to a nation is that its institutions
brazenly indulge in activities other than they are supposed to be involved in
by general consensus or assigned to them by law or constitution. Thus, they
defy their own raison detre. Government, one of the most important
institutions that make a nation, is like all other institutions quite
vulnerable to move away from the constitutional, legal or consensual norms. All
governments on earth unmindfully do many such things which they are not
formed for or which they are incapable of doing by their very nature. They
leave their original purpose/s far behind and run after so many pseudo goals
that can never be achieved. These pseudo goals only prolong their lies and
unjust rule. But, as a rule, they fail in performing the very duties they are
meant for. Differences
abound what a government should do and what it should not. For instance:
whether a government should involve itself in economic activity or not, or if
it should, to what extent. Or, whether a government should adopt the role of
a re-distributor of income or not. Or whether it should regulate economic
activity or not; and if it should, to what extent. All this is a matter of
great controversy. However apart from these controversies, there is one value
on which universal agreement exists: it is the rule of law. A government
ought to establish the writ of law and maintain it. The
greatest achievement of human civilization is that we have come to treat all
of us as equal as regards rules and laws. Indeed, everybody is born unequal
-- he is unequal from others, physically, mentally, and in so many ways. So,
had there been no rule of law, there would have been stark inequality. And,
in that case, the mighty and powerful must have been ruling the roost. Actually,
all types of power or might or force subsume under the concept of authority.
This power or might or force may be of two types -- one is with which people
are born with by birth and other is one that is acquired. The former is like
the might of a lion, elephant, rhinoceros or a powerful person. The might or
power may be acquired by effort as well. Wrestling techniques, judo karate,
tae kwan do, kung fu, etc -- all these make one powerful. This power is part
and parcel of human body; it cannot be separated from the person until and
unless he suffers any physical damage. But,
there is another power that can be separated from the body of the person who
has got it. This power consists of all those things or instruments which can
be used in an attack on another person or in defence of one's own self.
However, the expertise or dexterity of using these 'weapons' can be learned
and separated from one's person by inflicting damage to the body or the mind
of the person who possesses them. The firearms are like that. Their use with
or without dexterity can lessen or enhance the possibility of one's success
and survival. All this
power, might or force has something to do with physical bodies of human
beings or with material things. However, in addition to these, there is
another type of power which characterises human society and human progress.
This is 'authority' per se. Authority also endows one with power or might or
force. A person who is invested with certain authority comes to be powerful
regardless of the fact that he is physically weak or armless. Likewise, if a
person is divested of such authority, no matter how mighty, powerful and
armed he is he comes to be powerless. It is
this authority that initially was a symbol of democratic development and
later came to be known as legal authority. In other words, this authority
used to be derived from law. With the advent of this authority, individuals
and groups lost their source of authority, that is, their power or might or
force, natural or acquired. Now law became the source of power and might. With
time, it was this legal authority that developed into constitutional
authority. In order to manage communities and countries, constitutions were
devised. Constitutional duties and responsibilities were fixed. All power or
might or force was brought under law and constitution. This helped societies
move forward from the law of jungle to the law of humanity. This was a great
leap forward in the history of human civilization. But
perhaps factually it is not like that! There are many societies that still
oscillate between older and modern concepts of authority. Most of their
people are still infatuated by power and might. They are still a victim of
worshipping the rule of the powerful, and consider power and might as panacea
to all ills. In such circumstances, forces opposed to rule of law easily get
rooted and strengthened. They show no regard for the legal and constitutional
authority, and the law of the land. They violate that very law which invests
them with authority. This is no human condition. No
doubt, Pakistan is one such country. We are steadily sliding down on the
scale of rule of law -- a sine qua non for the smooth running of social and
economic life of a country. Take up newspapers, magazines, etc, of, say last
six months, and there is recurring warning of worsening law and order
situation. The editorials, opinion-articles, reports, news, news-features,
letters to editors, all point to the same thing: that the government is not
fulfilling its fundamental duty of protecting life, property and freedom of
its individual citizens, and as a result, life for the common and general
public is becoming a nightmare -- nobody feels safe any more even in their
homes. Not only is this the general perception, it is a fact also. As to
the factuality of this state of affairs, ruling leaders and government
functionaries would differ by calling it impressionistic. As an argument, we
have another source to validate our thesis: that Pakistani people are
experiencing what is not the rule of the law but what is a grave law and
order situation! The
business of life depends on a healthy life of business. A healthy life of
business requires an environment conducive to its establishment, smooth
running and flourishing, and protection of its income and property. It is
because of this that many indices that measure in fact various business
factors place rule of law at the top. We shall navigate only one such index
and see how Pakistan fared on the scale of rule of law for the last 10 years.
The
Economic Freedom of the World Report is prepared and published by the Fraser
Institute, Canada. It is "the best measure of economic freedom
available." It uses the data collected and processed by
"third-party international sources such as the IMF, World Bank, World
Economic Forum. Much of its data is of the "objective" statistical
sort, and much is also "subjective," coming from surveys, case
analyses, or expert panels." This
report does not measure rule of law specifically and independently. It,
however, takes into account the factors related with the state of the rule of
law which affect economic freedom. Out of its five main areas, the second one
is concerned with legal structure and security of property rights. By this
area, the report seeks to assess and establish the following: "Security
of property rights, protected by the rule of law, is essential to economic
freedom. Freedom to exchange, for example, is meaningless if individuals do
not have secure rights to property, including the fruits of their labor.
Failure of a country's legal system to provide for the security of property
rights, enforcement of contracts, and the mutually agreeable settlement of
disputes will undermine the operation of a market-exchange system. If
individuals and businesses lack confidence that contracts will be enforced
and the fruits of their productive efforts protected, their incentive to
engage in productive activity will be eroded. Furthermore, poor performance
in this area is sure to deter investment. Therefore, it is highly unlikely
that countries with low ratings in this area will be able to achieve and
sustain high rates of growth." Finally:
"Protection of persons and their rightfully acquired property is a
central element of both economic freedom and a civil society. Indeed, it is
the most important function of government. The key ingredients of a legal
system consistent with economic freedom are rule of law, security of property
rights, an independent judiciary, and an impartial court system."
(Economic Freedom of the World 2006 Annual Report) Here is
the score assigned to Pakistan in this area for the last 10 years. The score
is allotted from 1 to 10. The higher the score, the higher the rating and the
better the performance and prospects. As to
the overall score in the area, it has been steadily declining from 1995
onward. The same is the case with other components of the area with little
differences: on the whole they too are decreasing. The two components, D and
E, require our special attention. In the D component, the last four reports
have assigned zero score. Why they did not do so prior to 2001? Didn't the
present spell of military government start in 1999? Also, in E, though the
score declined from 7.0 to 5.0, but from 2000 onward it has remained static.
How so? Has the integrity of the legal system in Pakistan come of age? Why is
it at a standstill? This may be explained as an illusion of quantification
since practically the integrity of our legal system is in complete disarray.
Also, if read in conjunction with other components of this area, this score
is unintelligible: when there is little judicial independence, almost
non-existing impartial courts, and absolute military interference in the rule
of law and political process, how the integrity of legal system can remain
intact? In
component C, an improvement is visible perhaps because of increasing
awareness on the part of people as well as government that rights to
intellectual property need to be protected. In components A and B also, there
is a bit of upward movement: A improved from 2.3 to 2.6 and B from 2.2 to
2.3. But it was in 2004. What about 2005 and 2006 and how it affected the
general perception and belief of people and media in Pakistan? Out of a
plethora of heart-rending news reports and stories spread over the electronic
and print media, here is just one example: a letter to the editor of an
English daily has following to say: "My
generation -- one that once lived under British governance -- knows what the
rule of law meant. What we have today is anarchy. People like me, who are not
affiliated with a political party, the bureaucracy, the army or the press,
are treated as though we are not even citizens of the state. And yet we are
the majority, the teeming, toiling citizens of Pakistan..." In sum,
the state of the rule of law in Pakistan is precarious, and so the life of
the people. This shows utter failure of the government and criminal
negligence on the part of the institutions of government. Or is it willful?
Willful in the sense that it might be serving, or it might suit, certain
interests of certain quarters. This fear is strengthened by the fact that
there is no serious notice seems to be taken of the situation, and there are
no efforts on the way to improve it. Whereas
what is urgently needed, and is strongly recommended here, is a new
prioritising by the government putting the establishment and maintenance of
the rule of law at the top with zero tolerance. The government must leave all
its businesses other than building infrastructure to the genius of its
citizens and focus whole-heartedly on its basic duties such as betterment of
the law and order situation and provision of justice. It must divert all its
resources to the performance of its 'protective function' ably and
indiscriminately. The government which succeeds in creating a sense of
protection among its people as regards their life and property is a
government helplessly needed by the people at this critical moment of our
unruly history. It is
this policy which alone can ensure peace and prosperity to the people of
Pakistan. The
writer is associated with Alternate Solutions Institute, Pakistan's first
free market think tank. His email address is: khalil@asinstitute.org Area
Components
Legal Structure and Security of Property Rights A Judicial independence ñ
the judiciary is independent and not subject to interference by the
government or parties in dispute B Impartial
courts ñ a trusted legal framework exists for private businesses to
challenge the legality of government actions or regulation C Protection of
intellectual property D Military interference in
rule of law and the political process E Integrity of
the legal system
The
campaign for the November 2008 US presidential elections is going to be
perhaps the longest in world history, since it has already begun. Are there
any lessons in this strange, drawn-out process for South Asia? A weird
electoral phenomenon has been taking place over the almost two decades since
I've been observing the US presidential elections. The dates for the launch
of the presidential races have been moving continuously backwards. This time,
the process has culminated in the ridiculous spectacle of the candidates
lining up at the starting line literally the day after the elections for the
US Congress held last November. So, we now have the leading candidates for
both the Republican and the Democratic parties actively fundraising, forming
election committees, and going out on the campaign trail. It's going to be a
long, long road ahead for all of them. Why this
lengthy procedure? In a nutshell: money. It is estimated that spending on the
presidential election will top $1 billion this time! To raise money to stay
in the competition, you need to do it better and quicker than others. So, in
the race to get in touch with the right people to get money, each of the
candidates is desperately trying to outdo the others. Plus, the quicker a
candidate gets his or her act together, the healthier the chances of getting
better media coverage and for forming the alliances on the ground needed to
get votes. On the
Democrat side, the supposed front-runner for getting the party's nomination
is Hillary Clinton. (Former Vice President Al Gore will quite certainly not
run, in spite of the enormous publicity his lead role in this year's
Oscar-winning global warming documentary, 'An Inconvenient Truth,' has
generated.) If she gets the nod, every presidential election since 1980 will
have had either a Clinton or a Bush as a presidential or vice-presidential
candidate: George Bush Senior, Bill Clinton, George W Bush, and Bill's better
half. (Even then the Western commentators have the gall to accuse South Asia
of being characterised by family politics!) Hillary is in the bizarre
situation of having both the advantage of having such an incredibly famous
and politically savvy hubby and the disadvantage of being associated with
such a controversial personality. In addition, a lot of people find Hillary
herself to be grating and cold. I had the occasion to see her deliver a
presentation ten years ago (on her trip to South Asia) and came away with my
opinion of hers lukewarm then as now. But
Hillary's path may be made difficult by Illinois Senator Barack Obama, an
African American. Obama's assets are his unique background (his father was
Kenyan; mother a white American), his charisma, and, interestingly, his
comparative lack of political experience. If either of them wins the
nomination and subsequent election, it will be historic, since neither a
woman nor an African American has been elected to the highest office before.
Trying to catch up with the duo are other candidates, notably former North
Carolina Senator and John Kerry's 2004 vice presidential running mate John
Edwards. On the
Republican side are two very interesting figures. Arizona Senator John McCain
is a Vietnam War hero who spent more than five years as a prisoner of war in
a Vietnamese prison, where he was tortured frequently. His unique problem is
that he's more popular with the public at large than with Republicans due to
his maverick political stances! He's a very charming man in person. I've had
the pleasure of meeting him twice and have been very impressed, a tremendous
feat for any Republican to perform on me. His main challenger is former New
York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, whose major claim to fame is that he was in
charge during 9/11 and managed to convey an image of steadfastness and
decisiveness. His personality is so arrogant and off-putting, though, that
it's hard to see him overcoming that. So how
does the process compare with elections in South Asia? There are surface
similarities and profound differences. Sadly, the electoral process even in
the United States is corrupted by big money. Whoever pays the piper, calls
the tune. There are strict campaign-finance laws on the books but
corporations and rich people always find ways around them. The big difference
with South Asia is that criminal money plays almost a negligible role. This
brings us to the second big contrast between the election campaigns. I always
use a joke to explain the difference. Elections here in the US are tainted by
one M: money power. Elections in South Asia are tainted by two Ms: money
power and muscle power. Sure, here the campaigns are vapid, antiseptic
exercises that are often issue-free, with the 1996 Bill Clinton-Bob Dole
presidential face-off perhaps being the best recent example. On the flip
side, however, there are almost none of the shenanigans that characterise
South Asian campaigns. So no election violence, no booth capturing, almost no
voter intimidation and no large-scale vote buying. (The 2000 elections that
Bush stole was a huge anomaly worthy of a column in and of itself.) 'Dirty'
campaign tricks here in the United States would be laughed at as amateurish. Another
huge dissimilarity is the role played by television. Certainly, television
has a much bigger function in South Asian elections than it had even a few
years ago. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) tried to utilise this medium for
its 'India Shining' campaign in the 2004 elections but the attempt fell flat
on its face. In the US, the idiot box is thought to be the most
cost-effective method to get through to a busy, media-consuming electorate.
So, there are relatively few elections rallies (though I was fortunate to see
rock star Bruce Springsteen perform for John Kerry here in Madison in 2004)
and comparatively little street campaigning. This makes for less of a human
touch but also less disruption. It also
makes for a much more personality-based campaign, where the charm of the
candidate matters more than the party affiliation. Ronald Reagan's key to his
success was that he combined an avuncular folksiness with an impression of
toughness. (After all, he was a B-grade Hollywood actor.) That's a major
reason a lot of people voted for him even when they disagreed with him on the
issues. And, more recently, there has been William Jefferson Blythe Clinton,
perhaps the most charming political personality of his generation, a person
who hasn't, paradoxically enough, managed to pass on this charm to his wife. A
question that may interest readers: What will the winner mean in term of an
adjustment of policy toward South Asia? The answer: not much. The foreign
policy consensus in this country has become such, both among Democrats and
Republicans alike, that there'll just be a difference of emphasis, not a
radical change. So, presidents from both parties will continue the long-term
wooing of India, which is thought to be a rising power, while maintaining a
wary alliance with Pakistan to get its cooperation against Al Qaeda and the
Taliban. The other South Asian countries barely register on the US
foreign-policy map. This may change, though, if Nobel Peace Prize-winner
Muhammad Yunus, a good friend of the Clintons, succeeds in politics and takes
charge of Bangladesh, and if at this end of the planet his buddy Hillary
succeeds in prevailing in possibly the longest election campaign ever to be
seen on the face of this earth. Amitabh
Pal is the Managing Editor of an American magazine, The Progressive (www.progressive.org),
a monthly political publication founded in 1909. This is his regular monthly
column for Political Economy. Bruce Riedel The Afghan solution Troops
from the Muslim countries from the Mediterranean would be one of the best
ways to help move forward to stabilise the situation and help the people of
Afghanistan. By
Raza Khan Bruce
Riedel is a known American scholar, working as a senior fellow at am American
think-tank called Saban Centre for Middle East Policy. Before that he has
worked as America's Special Advisor for Noth Bruce
Riedel has worked on several other important posts including as special
assistant to the US President, as senior director for Near East and North
African Affairs at the National Security Council (1997-2002), as deputy
assistant secretary of defense for Near East and South Asian Affairs
(1995-1997) and as director for Gulf and South Asia Affairs at the US
National Security Council (1991-1993). An
expert in counter-terrorism, Arab-Israeli issues, Persian Gulf security and
India and Pakistan conflict, Bruce Riedel also did several assignments at the
Central Intelligence Agency between 1977 and 1990. Now
working on projects related to conflict management and counter-terrorism, he
did his master's degree from the Harvard University in 1977. The News
on Sunday had the opportunity to ask him some questions related to Pakistan
and Afghanistan through the e-mail. Following are the questions and his
responses: The News
on Sunday: Do you think increase in the number of Nato forces in Afghanistan
will help put an end to Taliban resistance and militancy in that country? Bruce
Riedel: I do not think the increase so far we have seen would resolve the
whole problem but I think they (the increased number of forces) are essential
in preventing the Taliban from achieving major successes when they launch
their offensive this spring and summer. The Nato forces in Afghanistan are
under-manned and under-equipped for the last several years. We have now seen
the United States, United Kingdom, Germany and some of other allies sending
additional forces. TNS: Do
you see or suggest any role for troops from the Islamic countries in
Afghanistan to create and maintain peaces? BR: I
think Nato should ask Muslim countries to help contribute troops to the
mission today. The Nato has a dialogue with several Muslim Countries, which
goes back more than a decade. (It is) called "Mediterranean
Dialogue" and through this arrangement the Nato representative meet
regularly with Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, Egypt and Jordan and I think it
would be very helpful if Nato ask its Mediterranean partners to send troops
to Afghanistan as you correctly point out that Afghan people would be more
receptive to Islamic countries troops than to European and US forces
presence. I think troops from the Muslim countries from the Mediterranean
would be one of the best ways to help move forward to stabilise the situation
and help the people of Afghanistan. TNS:
There have been reports that Afghan President Hamid Karzai is inviting
Taliban for talks. Do you think Taliban have a political role to play in
Afghanistan? BR: I
think this is the decision ultimately that should be made by the government
of Afghanistan. President Karzai and Parliament of Afghanistan ought to be
the ones which make the decisions on what level reconciliations should be
with the individuals that have been associated with the Taliban. I do not
think that should be an American decision or the Nato decision. And in the
end, I would leave this to the people of Afghanistan. It is the people of
Afghanistan who should decide about how to resolve the war in their country.
Our role as partners is to provide assistance to those decisions to be made
in Kabul and not in Washington and Brussels. TNS:
Given the strong resentment among people in the south of Afghanistan, do you
believe Nato will succeed in achieving its objective of eliminating Taliban
resistance without help from the Afghan people? BR: The
Nato forces in the south need to work in harmony with the local governments
and provincial governments and there should be a strong relationship between
the Nato reconstruction themes. The battle for Afghanistan will ultimately be
won in the hearts and minds of the Afghan people. Nato can provide
stabilisation for that battle to be won. But in the end it is up to the
Karzai government to put programmes to win over Afghan people. The virtue in
increasing the size of the Nato Personnel is to prevent the Taliban from
achieving a military success in this summer, which would make even more
difficult the political dialogue in future. TNS: Do
you believe Nato can play role in combating drugs production and trade in
Afghanistan? BR:
Well, the government of Afghanistan and the Karzai administration have asked
Nato to assist and provide stabilisation throughout the country. In the
entire country -- north, west and central -- it is going successfully but the
problems is in the south -- the Pashtun areas. One thing which is
counterproductive is when Nato operations inadvertently result in civilian
causalities. In my writings, I have made a recommendation that Nato should be
much more careful in its military operation to avoid civilian causalities. And in
those regrettable cases in which there were civilian casualties Nato should
set up a programme to compensate or assist any victim of military operations.
TNS: Do
you think the civilian casualties can harm the objective of Nato in
Afghanistan? BR:
Certainly, anytime the military operations result in civilian and innocent
causalities that is a setback for efforts to stabilise the situation. Nato
needs to be careful in its operations. It should do all it can to avoid
civilian casualties. When they do happen, Nato needs to make (it known that
it regrets) the result of such operations. The families of the victims should
see the Nato truly regrets the casualties and they should get some form of
compensation for whatever damage they have suffered. TNS:
What role do you see for Pakistan as an neighbouring country in the context
of maintaining peace in Afghanistan? BR:
Pakistan has to play an important role here as it has for too long tolerated
Taliban and Al-Qaeda activity in its territory, especially Taliban activity.
I think the Nato alliance needs to encourage Pakistan to cease providing a
safe heaven for the Taliban. I see some of the US officials who have recently
visited Pakistan have done so specifically to push Pakistan to close safe
havens and help stabilise Afghanistan. TNS: Do
you think fencing the Pak-Afghan border is a good idea in this context? BR: I
think fencing the border is not the optimal solution and the optimal solution
is (that) Pakistan needs to close down the recruiting and fundraising
activity of Taliban on it soil. I think fencing the more than 2000 kilometers
border would not be very successful and (it is) likely that in the long run
it would lead to more alienation between Afghanistan and Pakistan. I think
for Pakistan it involves more steps than building a wall dividing the Pashtun
tribes on both sides of divide.
End of the world as we know it Whenever states have gone to war, humankind has suffered By
Muhammad Ahsan Yatu A state regarding
internal affairs is either wise or unwise, nothing more, nothing less. Wisdom
requires the state to be considerate most of the time and occasionally tough.
To elaborate this we
begin with our own examples. "It is not 1970s; they will not know what
has hit them", so said General Pervaiz Musharraf about the Baloch
rebels. Nawab Akbar Khan Bugti was the Had our state been wise
it would have given financial autonomy to East Pakistan. It could have
avoided war, defeat and separation. Balochistan must be given financial
autonomy to avoid another catastrophe. Weren't the Bengalis being exploited
since the beginning? Aren't the Baloch the losers in the federation? What our
state does is that it chooses military options where dialogue and compromises
are needed, as it did with the Bengalis and is doing with the Baloch; and
makes compromises where toughness is required, as it did with the Taliban in
Waziristan. Had the North not waged a war against the South on the question
of slavery, the US would not have been a super power today. It would have
been like one more Canada in the continent of America. A state regarding
external affairs is a larger entity. Besides, wise or unwise, it is weak or
strong, and dependent or independent also. In inter-state relations morality
is rarely invoked. Here too toughness and cooperation guided by wisdom form
the basis of a relationship. However, the weak states even if they are wise
often have limited choice. The strong states even if obtuse dominate. The
massacre of the Indians by the forces of Ahmed Shah Abdali, Nadir Shah and
East India Company are examples from not so old Indian history. India during
those times was divided into so many weak states. However, after 1857 the
British and the Indians acted wisely and did not fight with each other. It
benefited both, and the Indians ultimately got independence peacefully. How the Germans
butchered the Polish, the French, the Hungarians, the Slovaks and many more
is a European example. The weak states had no way out but to submit. An
advancing Germany on the other hand should have stopped somewhere and entered
into a dialogue. It should have
avoided elongation of war when it had come to know that it would finally lose
. And that by not doing so let the powerful states, The US and the USSR,
defeat and destroy it. How the Japanese killed
the Koreans and the Chinese, and the US used atomic bombs in Hiroshima and
Nagasaki are the terrible Asian examples. .The US should not have resorted to
that degree of toughness against Japan.
there was no need of displaying beastliness through nuclear
bombardment. Yet, the beastliness is a part of mankind's evolutionary or
'intelligently designed' structure, and it on times comes out in a big way to
express itself; needed or not is a subsequent question However, after the war
Both Germany and Japan cooperated with the US and are reaping the harvest of
wisdom. The North Koreans
tested nuclear bombs for a different purpose. They needed energy, food and
capital. They were seeking a bargaining edge. The Americans knew about their
intentions and also about their limited capabilities. Hence, the explosion
was ignored and post-explosion agreement is under consideration. North Korea perhaps
detonated all of its enriched uranium during its nuclear tests. It is a case
similar to the one of Pakistan and India.
They tested their enriched material collected over decades and
returned to conventional things soon after. Poor nations have limits. Even
the Chinese nuclear programme related to defence is not seen as a big threat,
even by the Indians. Iran on the other hand
would remain for a long time, an energy surplus country. It can buy whatever
it needs through sale of oil and gas. Hence, if Iran's quest for nuclear
energy is seen by the Americans as meant for conversion to the atomic
weaponry, there is logic in it, if not truth. Iran's non-cooperation with the
IAEA extends the logic even to the extent of truth. Given the nuclear
enrichment capacity of Iran, a possibility of hundreds of nuclear bombs being
added to its arsenal exists. Iran's case is
different by one more angle. Iran
has openly and so many times expressed its deep hatred against the very
existence of Israel as a country. Not only that, Iran has also been
supporting Hezbollah and Hamaas financially as well as through supplies of
arms. The US blaming it for
supporting Shiites militancy in Iraq is another point in the charge sheet.
Iran, moreover, is an ideological state and is full of emotional charge.
Combine its richness, capabilities to acquire hundreds of nuclear bombs,
hatred for Israel, hard-line ideology and posture of self-righteousness, the
resulting entity makes Iran a suspect in the eyes of the Americans who have
very high stakes not only in the oil rich region, but also the world over. A war, intentional or accidental, between Israel and Iran
would bring disaster not only to the region but also to entire world. It is
because of the most sacred places of the Muslims and others that are located
in the region. Israel being a small country as compared to its neighbours and
Iran cannot sustain a nuclear attack; it will be destroyed totally. So to
save itself it would use whatever it has including 400 to 2000 nuclear
warheads. A nuclear showdown of that kind would be sudden; hence intervention
from others would not be possible. The neighbours of Iran including Pakistan
are not ignoring the possibility of such occurrence. General Pervaiz
Musharraf's efforts backed by important Muslim majority countries to convince
Iran on nuclear restraint regime were timely. Will Iran be attacked
is a decades old question. The US would do it the moment it is convinced that
Iran would not abandon its nuclear weapon programme. Isolated as Iran is
today, the US would not seek the UN approval. The UN's observations that the
sanctions are not working would be taken as a sufficient reason. In case Iran chooses to remain on the nuclear path, the US is
prepared and the war strategy has already been chalked out. It is certain
that it will not be a war like the ones of Afghanistan and Iraq. The level of
preparation as being told and seen reflects that the Americans this time
would display their full strength. Required number of aircraft carriers and
thousand of cruise missile would be available to the US forces in less than a
month. This Gulf war would be
unique in modern times. The American navy would be in the forefront supported
by the reinforcements coming from the near by bases.
The Americans may
destroy all that connects a country and nation. Devastation of communication
systems,economical and politically relevant areas would top their hit list. Change of government and redefining of political system
including turning Iran into a confederation of Persian speaking population,
Kurds, Baloch and Arabs are post-war agendas of the US. It could be a
beginning for a redrawing of boundaries in the entire region. What adds to fears is
that the beastliness of man may again come out to show its maximum. While the
Israel-Iran nuclear war is a probability, the US using nuclear bombs is a
possibility. Almost all war analysts are talking about it. Given the
discourse of Richard Armitage on the Lebanon, Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and
linking them with the pre and post-WW II Germany and Japan, the world should
prepare itself for the bad days ahead. Iran must turn to
wisdom. It is a disturbed country. It has no enemies other than the ones of
its own imagination. It should
spend oil income on internal development and not on the military
paraphernalia that it does not need and is making it vulnerable too. Iran can
live, better, without a nuclear bomb. Today it has a choice. It would be not
be the same after the war. |
|
In fact the real potential of
revenue collection in Pakistan is much higher. Our revenue collection can be
double than what has been set by the CBR. For tapping our actual potential,
there is an urgent need to give taxing rights to provinces in respect of
goods and services within their territorial jurisdictions, bring undocumented
economy in the tax net and distribute the incidence of various taxes
judiciously amongst all the segments of society.
the World Bank that Pakistan is 'one of the most water-stressed
countries in the world'. What is more, the greater part of Pakistan's water
is not just dirty, but actively harmful to the majority of the population. A
report issued last month by the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) has
confirmed that water problems have yet to be adequately tackled by the
government agencies despite various efforts by human rights and health
organisations. Although guidelines specifically oriented to aid the water
decontamination effort, such as the National Water Policy (Draft 2004) and
the National Environment Policy (2005) have been passed, they have not yet
been implemented to a sufficient, globally-recognised extent. There is vast
disparity between the growth of Pakistan's industrial sector and the parallel
humanitarian and ecological efforts that need to be taken to ensure
sustainable development and a stable outlook for the ecological future of the
country. 
governments rarely organise such events in partnership with public interest
NGOs. The seminar added some momentum to the slow moving talks on Doha Round.
Most importantly it delivered a key message that the civil society may not be
able to enter negotiating rooms, but it can influence them from outside. 
Atlantic Treaty Organization (Nato)
in Brussels, Belgium (2003-2006). 
most prominent among those who have
been hit since then. Hitting is still going on and consequently the hatred
against the state is going up. After the military operation in East Pakistan
whoever would talk about the negative repercussions and likely disintegration
of Pakistan, the response used to be terrible: 'we would keep Pakistan united
even if we had to exterminate half of Bengali population'. Result: half of
Pakistan was separated in 1971. 