otherpakistan.org

May’s B-side looks at a number of pressing Pakistani concerns and includes a focus on Kashmir, the power crisis and last but not least Pakistan-US relations. May 2010’s B-side contents include the following:  

• Kashmir Solution: Imperative for Peace by KHURSHID MEHMOOD KASURI
• Power-less Pakistan by CHARLES K. EBINGER & KASHIF HASNIE
• Faisal Shehzad’s Anti-Americanism by PERVEZ HOODBHOY

Khurshid Mehmood Kasuri is the former Foreign Minister of Pakistan and the author of the first article. Mr Kasuri focuses on an issue close to my heart, Kashmir.  

Kashmir Solution: Imperative for Peace by Khurshid Mehmood Kasuri  

The biggest problem between Pakistan and India currently is the absence of trust. Anything that addresses this trust deficit is, therefore, helpful. For this reason I warmly welcome the initiative by The Times of India Group and the Jang Group of Pakistan to initiate the project ‘Aman Ki Asha’. Media can help remove suspicions about each other. This is all the more important because the existing suspicions and distrust about each other have been further exacerbated by irresponsible and distorted stories carried by sections of the media in both the countries in the first instance.  

For this reason, this initiative is very important. I sincerely hope the other media groups will also play their role. It was precisely for this purpose that earlier on, I had convened a meeting of seven former Foreign Ministers of Pakistan and India in Lahore. Our Indian counterparts have promised to carry the process further by inviting us to Delhi later on during the year.  

The Times of India has asked me to write an article on the need for resolving the Kashmir issue and as well as on the direction in which this process is headingí. Some people in both countries may well say that, after all, both Pakistan and India are important countries and could go their own way. It was for good reason that Prime Minister Vajpayee said that you can change history but not geography during a debate in the Lok Sabha.  

Moreover, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh echoed similar sentiments also in a debate in the Lok Sabha, where he said as neighbours it is our obligation to keep our channels open. Unless we want to go to war with Pakistan dialogue is the only way forward. I was encouraged to note during the recent meeting of the Aman Ki Asha in Lahore that some distinguished Indian participants said that India felt the need to resolve the issue of Jammu & Kashmir inter alia for two reasons.  

Firstly, that India being a democracy could not resort to force in Jammu & Kashmir for an indefinite period, and, secondly, that India could achieve its real potential and play a major role on the world stage only after resolving its disputes with Pakistan.  

Speaking for myself I can say with confidence that as a politician all my life, belonging to a political family as I do, also as one who has been elected a member of parliament from a constituency in Central Punjab on the Indian border – and as former Foreign Minister for five years, I can say with confidence that peace with India is not only in the national interest of Pakistan but can also be sold to the people of Pakistan provided it is peace with honour.  

History teaches us that only peace with honour can be lasting. India is a big country and may have extra regional ambitions. As far as Pakistan is concerned, our very doctrine is one of minimum credible deterrence aimed at protecting Pakistanís national security.  

Another reason that gives me confidence is that every major political party of Pakistan supports a negotiated settlement. This implies that if India were to show flexibility, Pakistan would reciprocate similarly. In this connection it is correct that while the agreement was arrived at during our tenure in office, former Prime Ministers Nawaz Sharif and Atal Behari Vajpayee showed leadership and courage in restarting this process in February 1999 when Mr. Vajpayee undertook his famous bus journey on the invitation of the then Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif.  

Similarly, Mohtarama Benazir Bhutto during both her tenures made concerted efforts to improve the relationship between the two countries. MQM, ANP and even Jamiat Ul Ulema Islam, under the leadership of Maulana Fazal Ur Rehman, have supported a negotiated settlement on Kashmir.  

Perhaps one reason why there is such a strong need for a negotiated solution of Kashmir is the recognition in both countries that Pakistan and India have tried everything in their power to enforce their version of a Kashmir settlement. They had fought five wars including two minor ones in the Runn of Katch and in Kargil. There had been various mobilizations of troops, including the largest one since First World War (Operation Parakram), in which a million soldiers remained eye ball to eye ball for almost a year. After Nuclearization of South Asia, following tests by India and Pakistan, war between the two countries has become nearly impossible.  

That being the case, it was equally clear that any solution we found would not be an ideal one from the perspective of the Kashmiris, Pakistanis and the Indians. It could be the best under the circumstances. It had to be one that the Kashmiris would accept, and one, that the leaderships of India and Pakistan could sell to their respective peoples whose perspectives were radically different. It would seem to many people that such a solution could just not be found.  

It was precisely to find such a formula that the two leaderships directed their representatives involved in the backchannel to remain engaged. No wonder the non-papers went to and fro innumerable times. The backchannel negotiators met in different locations in many countries to preserve the secrecy of the process. They brought the drafts to the principals in both the countries, where changes were made and sent back to the other side and so on and so forth. It was after approximately three years of such pains taking work, which sometimes even involved changing punctuation in different drafts, that the two governments felt that they had agreed on the draft of an agreement towards the end of 2006 beginning 2007. They felt that on the basis of this draft they would be in a position to present an agreement to their respective constitutional authorities for their approval. It was felt that this draft would be acceptable to an overwhelming majority of Kashmiris, Indians and Pakistanis.  

The major features of the draft Kashmir agreement involved, inter alia, a gradual demilitarization as the situation improved, self governance and a joint mechanism involving Kashmiris from both sides as well as presence of Pakistani and Indian representatives in this process. The purpose was to improve the comfort level of Kashmiris. The joint mechanism envisaged cooperation in various fields including exploitation of water resources and hydro-electric power.  

Self governance also provided maximum possible powers to Kashmiris to manage their political, economic, financial and social matters and those pertaining to economic development as well as for enhanced travel and economic interaction on both sides of the LOC. For practical purposes, as for as the Kashmiris on both sides are concerned, the border would be made irrelevant for movement of goods and people. The agreement though not ideal, was the best possible under the circumstances.  

The agreement provided for a review after 15 years. The Pakistani and Indian sides realized that in view of the history of the Jammu & Kashmir dispute, no solution that they could think of, would be an ideal one since it had to be made acceptable to all three. We were aware of the fact that there would be overwhelming support for this agreement; but, we also realized that there would be criticism from some sections in Kashmir, Pakistan and India.  

In the very nature of things, it is impossible to produce a solution which will be equally acceptable to every one. It was for this reason that we decided that the arrangement that we had arrived at would need a review at the end of 15 years during which its implementation would be monitored with great care by all the parties concerned, and in the light of the experience, this arrangement could be further improved.  

Another question that people sometimes ask me in hushed tones these days, now that President Musharraf is no longer in power, is whether the agreement that we have arrived at had the support of the Pakistan Army. Of course, it had the support of all the stakeholders. It is unthinkable that an issue of this nature could be negotiated without having all the stakeholders on board. Besides the Foreign Office and the Presidency, the Military was appropriately represented.  

Former President Musharraf in response to a question whether he took into confidence his Corps Commanders, is on record in saying on more than one occasion that he used to take everyone on board. Furthermore, Pakistan Army high command is highly disciplined and sophisticated and understands clearly that national security is a very broad concept and military preparedness is only one, albeit, a very important component of it.  

The concept of national security includes economic and political stability and a settlement with India on honourable terms strengthens Pakistanis national security. It is also pertinent to mention here that while President Musharraf may not be on the scene presently, institutional thinking does not change so rapidly Ofcourse, for tactical reasons, adjustments are made keeping in view time and circumstance. I am aware of the current differences between Pakistan and India on Afghanistan following President Obamaís announcement regarding Americaís intentions in Afghanistan. If trust deficit between the two countries can be bridged, all differences between the two countries can be resolved.  

Before I conclude, I would like to welcome the statement of Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gillani that efforts are being made through the backchannel to resolve all outstanding issues with India. It is important that negotiations be resumed soon because Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s government with which we negotiated the agreement is still in power, and, the BJP, the other major national party in India, had started the process during the tenure of former Prime Minister Vajpayee.  

I welcome the statement of our Prime Minister, despite being in the opposition, because I believe that in matters of national interest one has to rise above the spirit of partisanship. I am sure Indian politicians would have a similar approach. There is no need to reinvent the wheel. A lot of detailed work has been done and we can start from where we left. This piece was commissioned for and published in the Times of India.  

Published in The News  

WASIM VIEW- Kasuri’s article is a must read for all Pakistanis as it details how the Kashmir dispute has been debated and discussed over recent years.  As a Pakistani Kashmiri, I can comment on the issue and Kasuri’s proposals without fear and favour and I will do so.   

Before I pass comment, its need to be stated at the outset that Kashmir is, was and will always be for me at least the jugular vein of Pakistan. That said it is also clear from the lessons of six decades that the geopolitical environment in South Asia is fashioned by hostile Pakistan-India relations, both of whom are opposed to the Kashmiri independence which many Kashmiris still aspire to. Therefore the most credible solution to the Kashmir dispute must be based on a compromise and with reference point, the much trumpeted solution to the Kashmir dispute needs to be read.   

The so-called Kashmir agreement that Pakistan and India negotiated on the back channels is shared in Kasuri’s article. The Kasuri Kashmir solution included gradual demilitarization, self governance and a joint mechanism that involved Kashmiris from both sides as well as presence of Pakistani and Indian representatives in this process. The purpose was in Kasuri’s words to improve the comfort level of Kashmiris.   

The joint mechanism envisaged cooperation in various fields including exploitation of water resources and hydro-electric power. Self governance also provided maximum possible powers to Kashmiris to manage their political, economic, financial and social matters and those pertaining to economic development as well as for enhanced travel and economic interaction on both sides of the LOC. For practical purposes, as for as the Kashmiris on both sides are concerned, the border would be made irrelevant for movement of goods and people. The agreement provided for a review after 15 years.  

My views on the agreement is that there is no such agreement until it is signed and  more importantly implemented, thus it is premature for a seasoned politician like Kasuri to argue otherwise. On the specifics I do agree with Kasuri albeit with a number of provisos ‘that the agreement though not ideal, was the best possible under the circumstances’. The provisos include the level of Kashmiri support for the agreement and how this is to be ascertained via referenda or other ways.   

Demilitirazation is another concern given India has a smell for Kashmiri blood and how it will be achieved is a key make-or-break issue. Other questions include self-governance means what exactly and how bound are both Pakistan and India to the joint-mechanism given India has a history of breaking accords in Kashmir and in the region more widely a la the Indus Water Treaty.   

All in all, Kasuri’s Kashmir solution has many questions that need answering before it can be fairly assessed. Nevertheless on the evidence before me, I believe it could be a step forward.
  

The second post looks at Pakistan’s power problems in detail within the broader vision of Pakistan-US relations.  

Power-less Pakistan by Charles K. Ebinger & Kashif Hasnie  

Pakistani leaders preoccupied with a Taliban insurgency and political infighting also face an explosive issue that could damage the credibility of governments for years to come: nationwide power outages. Attention was refocused on the energy crisis after recent high profile talks in Washington in which long-time allies, the United States and Pakistan, outlined steps to refurbish power stations in Pakistan.  

Many Pakistanis, who face hours of crippling power cuts each day, doubt their government will take decisive action, despite a U.S. warning that the crisis threatens this nuclear armed nation’s economic and political stability.  

The promised 4 Es – Employment, Education, Energy, Environment – of the current Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) government are falling apart. Promises of tackling the recent energy crisis by building 8,000 Megawatts (MW) of new coal, solar, hydroelectric and wind electric generation plants have fallen through the cracks of the proverbial dilatory Pakistani political and bureaucratic elites.  

Small towns and villages are experiencing power outages from 20 to 22 hours daily, whereas large cities such as Karachi, Lahore, Hyderabad, Faisalabad, Peshawar and Quetta are without power for at least half of every day as a result of shortages in power generation. An ageing transmission and distribution system, power theft, large commercial losses owing to poor billing and collection systems, and a power tariff scheme in desperate need of revision, are reasons for the current crisis.  

With power demand at about 14,680 MW and current supply at 10,200 MW, the power supply shortage stands at 4,480 MW, which provides fertile ground for social and economic chaos. Nevertheless, despite these “apparent” dire power shortages there is a path forward if only Pakistan embarks on a vigorous action program where it produces energy to its full capacity while ending power theft, improving billings and collections while reducing its technical losses. After researching the gap between the demand and supply and total capacity (19,000 MW) of electricity, we came to the following reasons for the shortage:  

1. Hydropower contributes 6,500 MW of energy in the total energy mix of Pakistan. Recent excessively dry seasons, mismanagement and trans-boundary water issues have restricted this capacity to only 1,500 MW. Resulting in a shortage of 4,000 MW.  

2. Independent Power Plants (IPPs) produce 6,250 MW. Due to non-payment in the energy pyramid, a circular debt (currently around $1.3 billion) has been created, resulting in a shortage of 1,500 MW.  

3. Government owned power generation plants are underutilized. Most of them working way far below their capacity, either because of lack of funds for maintenance or unavailability of spare parts.  

4. Power infrastructure, especially in transmission and distribution is old and defective, causing heavy line losses of electricity.  

5. Power theft. Public and private theft of power contributes to 32% of the ‘line losses.’  

Keeping the above factors in mind, we know that the relevant Pakistani authorities are trying their best to gather foreign financial and technical assistance to address this crisis. A new $125 million USAID Energy Program will upgrade five major power stations, replace more than 11,000 tube wells producing water for agriculture, and boost Pakistan’s overall power production by 10 percent.  

In mid-January, U.S. Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Ambassador Richard C. Holbrooke launched the first phase of these energy projects in Islamabad, announcing the United States will contribute up to $1 billion to the energy sector. Technical support from the U.S. also is being provided by the private sector, when GE’s CEO, Jeff Immelt met President Asif Ali Zardari last year, resulting in signing a Memorandum of Understanding this year to help Pakistan in the energy, water and transportation sectors.  

But the crisis cries out for far more help than that being offered. Pakistan’s energy crisis which has raged for more than 40 years is more due to ill planning, short sightedness of successive governments, including the current one, mismanagement and corruption. For the government of Pakistan and the international donor community wanting to help them, here is an agenda of actions that will begin to stabilize the country’s economic and political future.  

1. Both, the Sui Northern Gas Pipelines and the Sui Southern Gas Company Limited should make it a priority to produce a 300-400 million cubic feet of gas which is well within their reach if gas tariffs are raised to economic levels. This will provide enough gas to fuel an additional 2,000 MW of electricity in the mix. The circular debt between every company in the electricity mix – PEPCO, WAPDA, IPPs, fuel suppliers and refineries – need to be settled to bring modern accounting practices into the sector. Until this is done there can be no real assessment of the future economic and financial needs of the sector.  

2. The power infrastructure should be upgraded with a modern efficient grid. Without such an investment there will be little improvement even if major new generation facilities are built.  

3. Accounts receivables from the public and private sector, including the military, for electricity should be recovered. Nothing is ‘free’ and electricity is no different.  

4. The relationship of furnace oil and natural gas prices should be monitored closely. Since furnace oil is more expensive, its excessive use has contributed $571 million out of the current $1.3 billion of circular debt.  

5. Energy prices throughout the economy must be rationalized and raised to the level required to pay for their full cost while returning a profit to the producers. Where subsidies are required for social reasons they should be targeted and paid for out of government revenues not by energy producers.  

6. Government owned power generation companies should be technologically refurbished. This could close the demand and supply gap by 1,500 MW.  

7. Finally, Pakistan needs to manage its water resources more efficiently. Historically, Pakistan has been a very ‘water conscious’ country. At independence, despite British efforts to steal its valuable water resources for India, Pakistan obtained access to the headwaters of the Indus and the rivers of the Punjab. The country has made great strides in dealing with water logging and salinity in the world’s largest contiguous irrigation system. During the 1960s, the Harvard Water Program worked closely with Pakistani experts to negotiate the classic Indus Water Treaty. During this time, Pakistani engineers built the giant Tarbela Dam, the largest reservoir in the world formed by an earthen dam. Today, Pakistan faces the “Malthusian-plus” challenge of dealing with rapidly growing water demands (for energy, agriculture and people) from a resource base that is likely to change substantially as the glaciers of the western Himalayas melt and monsoon patterns change under the onslaught of climate change.  

We were compelled to write this article to highlight the fact that even if the Taliban and its Pakistani allies were to disappear tomorrow, Pakistan in the absence of a plan to deal with its energy crisis will remain in darkness – literally and figuratively.  

If Pakistan is to emerge economically healthy and politically stable, the U.S. must realize, given the stakes involved and its own growing political and military involvement, that its commitment must be a sustained one. One that may need to last for decades not months or years!  

With promises and prospects of a long term engagement, we believe that ‘smart American power’ projection lies in addressing issues such as energy and water. While short term aid and a few promises can start to mend a relationship, sustained partnerships as we have learned in Afghanistan, require a lot more.  

Published by The Brookings Institution  

WASIM VIEW- The power crisis in Pakistan is perhaps the most pressing live issue facing the Pakistani masses today. Ebinger & Hasnie’s article is nothing less than a masterpiece of an article for it details both the problem and the solution to Pakistan’s power crisis. Indeed the article sets the US in particular a challenge that can be institutionalised in the ongoing Pakistan-US strategic dialogue, namely how the US will help Pakistan tackle its power crisis.  

The article needs to be considered in the background of the love-fest between Shah Mehmood Qureshi and Hillary Clinton during the recent Pakistan-US strategic dialogue which was high on style and offered little in substance to helping Pakistan. Mr Qureshi would do well to send this very article to Hillary Clinton from his desk in Pakistan’s Foreign Office adding these words ‘ Pakistan expects US action and support on all of the solutions put forward in the article as per the Pakistan-US strategic dialogue, its time to stop talking the talk, lets walk the walk, PS the $125m offered to Pakistan on energy is a pittance compared to the cost Pakistan has endured in financial terms alone of $35bn, so get moving Madame Secterary and fast!  

As a critic of the way America has used and abused Pakistan since 9/11, I still am ready to give Uncle Sam a chance to redeem herself in the eyes of the ordinary Pakistani whom they kill via drones and much more. And so, let the one test of so-called Pakistan-US friendship be this, can the US deliver on projects that add many hundreds of megawatts of electricity by 2012, I for one suspect that the US will not rise to the challenge for security not solar-powered energy is all that America cares for vis a vis Pakistan.  

The final article focuses on Pakistan-US relations and particularly so-called anti-Americanism and is written by the one and only, Pervez Hoodbhoy.  

Faisal Shehzad’s Anti-Americanism by Pervez Hoobhoy  

The man who tried to set off a car bomb in Times Square was a Pakistani. Why is this unsurprising? Because when you hold a burning match to a gasoline tank, the laws of chemistry demand combustion.  

As anti-US lava spews from the fiery volcanoes of Pakistan’s private television channels and newspapers, a collective psychosis grips the country’s youth. Murderous intent follows with the conviction that the US is responsible for all ills, both in Pakistan and the world of Islam.  

Faisal Shahzad, with designer sunglasses and an MBA degree from the University of Bridgeport, acquired that murderous intent. Living his formative years in Pakistan, he typifies the young Pakistani who grew up in the shadow of Ziaul Haq’s hate-based education curriculum. The son of a retired air vice-marshal, life was easy as was getting US citizenship subsequently. But at some point the toxic schooling and media tutoring must have kicked in.  

There was guilt as he saw pictures of Gaza’s dead children and related them to US support for Israel. Internet browsing or, perhaps, the local mosque steered him towards the idea of an Islamic caliphate. This solution to the world’s problems would require, of course, the US to be destroyed. Hence Shahzad’s self-confessed trip to Waziristan.  

Ideas considered extreme a decade ago are now mainstream. A private survey carried out by a European embassy based in Islamabad found that only four per cent of Pakistanis polled speak well of America; 96 per cent against.  

Although Pakistan and the US are formal allies, in the public perception the US has ousted India as Pakistan’s number one enemy. Remarkably, anti-US sentiment rises in proportion to aid received. Say a good word about the US, and you are labelled as its agent. From what TV anchors had to say about it, Kerry-Lugar’s $7.5bn may well have been money that the US wants to steal from Pakistan rather than give to it.  

Pakistan is not the only country where America is unpopular. In pursuit of its self-interest, the US has waged illegal wars, bribed, bullied and overthrown governments, supported tyrants and undermined movements for progressive change. Paradoxically America is disliked more in Pakistan than in countries which have born the direct brunt of its attacks — Cuba, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. Why?  

Drone strikes are a common but false explanation. Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi implicitly justifies the Times Square bombing as retaliation but this does not bear up. Drone attacks have killed some innocents but they have devastated militant operations in Waziristan while causing far less collateral damage than Pakistan Army operations.  

On the other hand, the cities of Hanoi and Haiphong were carpet-bombed by B-52 bombers and Vietnam’s jungles were defoliated with Agent Orange. Yet, Vietnam never developed visceral feelings like those in Pakistan.  

Finding truer reasons requires deeper digging. In part, Pakistan displays the resentment of a client state for its paymaster. US-Pakistan relations are transactional today but the master-client relationship is older. Indeed, Pakistan chose this path because confronting India over Kashmir demanded big defence budgets. In the 1960s, Pakistan entered into the Seato and Cento military pacts, and was proud to be called ‘America’s most allied ally’. The Pakistan Army became the most powerful, well-equipped and well-organised institution in the country. This also put Pakistan on the external dole.  

The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, even as it brought in profits, deepened the dependence. Paid by the US to create the anti-Soviet jihadist apparatus, Pakistan is now being paid again to fight that war’s blowback. Pakistan then entered George W. Bush’s war on terror to enhance America’s security — a fact that further hurt its self-esteem. It is a separate matter that Pakistan fights that very war for its own survival and must call upon its army to protect the population from throat-slitting fanatics.  

Passing the buck is equally fundamental to Pakistan’s anti-Americanism. It is in human nature to blame others for one’s own failures. Pakistan has long teetered between being a failed state and a failing state. The rich won’t pay taxes? Little electricity? Contaminated drinking water? Kashmir unsolved? Blame it on the Americans. This phenomenon exists elsewhere too. For example, one saw Hamid Karzai threatening to join the Taliban and lashing out against Americans because they (probably correctly) suggested he committed electoral fraud.  

Tragically for Pakistan, anti-Americanism plays squarely into the hands of Islamic militants. They vigorously promote the notion of an Islam-West war when, in fact, they actually wage armed struggle to remake society. They will keep fighting this war even if America were to miraculously evaporate. Created by poverty, a war culture and the macabre manipulations of Pakistan’s intelligence services, they seek a total transformation of society. This means eliminating music, art, entertainment and all manifestations of modernity. Side goals include chasing away the few surviving native Christians, Sikhs and Hindus.  

At a time when the country needs clarity of thought to successfully fight extremism, simple bipolar explanations are inadequate. The moralistic question ‘Is America good or bad?’ is futile.  

There is little doubt that the US has committed acts of aggression, as in Iraq, and maintains the world’s largest military machine. We know that it will make a deal with the Taliban if perceived to be in its self-interest — even if that means abandoning the Afghans to bloodthirsty fanatics. Yet, it would be wrong to scorn the humanitarian impulse behind US assistance in times of desperation. Shall we write off massive US assistance to Pakistan at the time of the earthquake of 2005? Or to tsunami-affected countries in 2004?  

In truth, the US is no more selfish or altruistic than any other country. And it treats its Muslim citizens infinitely better than we treat non-Muslims in Pakistan.  

Instead of pronouncing moral judgments on everything and anything, we Pakistanis need to reaffirm what is truly important for our people: peace, economic justice, good governance, rule of law, accountability of rulers, women’s rights and rationality in human affairs. Washington must be resisted, but only when it seeks to drag Pakistan away from these goals. More frenzied anti-Americanism will produce more Faisal Shahzads.  

Published in Dawn  

WASIM VIEW- Hoodbhoy’s  article could have been written by an American neo-con like Richard Perle for its content are full of pro-US drivel and a rejectionism of many US crimes against Pakistan and the wider world. Hoodbhoy is right to bemoan many ills of the Zia era and army rule, a price which Pakistanis pay for in blood on a daily basis in the form of a bigoted state as evidenced in Lahore in recent days.  

However Hoodbhoy for the main part of the article is plainly lost at sea for he makes childish and elementary schoolboy-type points to support his views. The intellectual rigour and cogent arguments that are synonmous with supposed intellectuals of his stature go missing when he chooses to support drone attacks in Pakistan.   

The best evidence of this is demonstated shown when he foolishly brackets Pakistan with Vietnam and asks why Pakistan has visceral feelings towards America due to the drone attacks when Vietnam does not. To quote Hoodbhoy ‘the cities of Hanoi and Haiphong were carpet-bombed by B-52 bombers and Vietnam’s jungles were defoliated with Agent Orange. Yet, Vietnam never developed visceral feelings like those in Pakistan’. The answer to his ludicrous point is this, that Vietnam was at war with America whilst Pakistan is supposedly an ally of America, Vietnam was a foe and treated accordingly and Pakistan is a friend and not treated accordingly, rather it is treated as a foe as the drone attacks prove and that is why Mr Hoodbhoy, Pakistanis have such visceral feelings against America, duh!  

The rest of the Hoodbhoy article is an exercise in futility  for all it does is reaffirm his liberal credentials and includes a cheap shot attack on  the media for its supposed ‘media tutoring’ of Faisal Shehzad, which is an unproven allegation.   

On the more substantive point, Hoodbhoy is right to bemoan Faisal Shahzad’s acts in New York which are undefendable. Indeed I will go further in my condemnation and say that many Pakistanis like me are disgusted by his actions which have sullied Pakistan’s name once again in the world and want to see him face a fair trial and face exemplary punishment if he is found guilty. The Faisal Shahzads of this world are the enemies of Pakistan, period. On that point at least, Wasim Arif and Pervez Hoodbhoy are on the same page.  

• Drowning Today, Parched Tomorrow by STEPHEN SOLOMON
• The PM Should Listen More and Talk Less by DAVID MILIBAND
• PM Spoke As True Friend of Pakistan by SAYEEDA WARSI 

The first article is an article written by Stephen Solomon and looks at Pakistan’s impending doom. as sadly more doom awaits us owing to Pakistan’s water shortage crisis.

Drowning Today, Parched Tomorrow by Stephen Solomon

Hard as it may be to believe when you see the images of the monsoon floods that are now devastating Pakistan, the country is actually on the verge of a critical shortage of fresh water. And water scarcity is not only a worry for Pakistan’s population — it is a threat to America’s national security as well.

Given the rapid melting of the Himalayan glaciers that feed the Indus River — a possible contributor to the current floods — and growing tensions with upriver archenemy India about use of the river’s tributaries, it’s unlikely that Pakistani food production will long keep pace with the growing population.

It’s no surprise, then, that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made Pakistani headlines a few weeks before the flooding by unveiling major water projects aimed at bolstering national storage capacity, irrigation, safe drinking water and faltering electrical power service under America’s new $7.5 billion assistance program. In March, the State Department announced that water scarcity had been upgraded to “a central U.S. foreign policy concern.” Pakistan is at the center of it.

This is because a widespread water shortage in Pakistan would further destabilize the fractious country, hurting its efforts to root out its resident international terrorists. The struggle for water could also become a tipping point for renewed war with India. The jihadists know how important the issue is: in April 2009, Taliban forces launched an offensive that got within 35 miles of the giant Tarbela Dam, the linchpin of Pakistan’s hydroelectric and irrigation system.

Pakistan needs to rebuild and overhaul the administration of the world’s largest contiguous irrigation network. For decades, Islamabad has spent far too little on basic maintenance, drainage and distribution canals, new water storage and hydropower plants.

To some extent, these deficiencies have been masked since the 1970s by farmers drilling hundreds of thousands of little tube wells, which now provide half of the country’s irrigation. But in many of these places the groundwater is running dry and becoming too salty for use. The result is an agricultural crisis of wasted water, inefficient production and incipient crop shortfalls.

Like Egypt on the Nile, arid Pakistan is totally reliant on the Indus and its tributaries. Yet the river’s water is already so overdrawn that it no longer reaches the sea, dribbling to a meager end near the Indian Ocean port of Karachi. Its once-fertile delta of rice paddies and fisheries has shriveled up.

Chronic water shortages in the southern province of Sindh breed suspicions that politically connected landowners in upriver Punjab are siphoning more than their allotted share. There have been repeated riots over lack of water and electricity in Karachi, and across the country people suffer from contaminated drinking water, poor sanitation and pollution.

The future looks grim. Pakistan’s population is expected to rise to 220 million over the next decade, up from around 170 million today. Yet, eventually, flows of the Indus are expected to decrease as global warming causes the Himalayan glaciers to retreat, while monsoons will get more intense. Terrifyingly, Pakistan only has the capacity to hold a 30-day reserve storage of water as a buffer against drought.

India, meanwhile, is straining the limits of the Indus Waters Treaty, a 1960 agreement on sharing the river system. To cope with its own severe electricity shortages, it is building a series of hydropower dams on Indus tributaries in Jammu and Kashmir State, where the rivers emerge from the Himalayas.

While technically permissible under the treaty provided the overall volumes flowing downstream aren’t diminished, untimely dam-filling by India during planting season could destroy Pakistan’s harvest. Pakistan, downriver and militarily weaker than India, understandably regards the dams’ cumulative one-month storage capacity as a potentially lethal new water weapon in India’s arsenal.

Now, on top of all this, come the monsoon floods, which have obliterated countless canals, diversion weirs and huge swaths of cropland. Pakistan needs help, and projects like those heralded by Secretary Clinton, while valuable, are not on the scale needed to turn things around.

The best first step is a huge one: for Washington to kick-start progress on the Diamer-Bhasha dam, an agricultural and hydroelectric project on the Indus that’s been on the drawing board for decades. The project, likely to cost more than $12 billion, has languished for want of financing. It has also has run afoul of the developed world’s knee-jerk disfavor of giant dams.

But there is simply no other project that can add so much desperately needed water storage and hydroelectricity — Pakistan is tapping just 12 percent of its hydropower potential. Giant dams, moreover, can be inspiring, iconic projects — the Hoover Dam was a statement of American fortitude at the height of the Depression. Beleaguered Pakistan could use a symbol of progress.

There are other projects, already shown to be successful, that on a larger scale could save more water than building half a dozen giant dams. Managers at one Punjabi canal branch, for example, are working with international experts to replace the traditional supply system called warabandi — in which farmers draw water on a simple rotational basis — with one that requires less overall water but delivers it on a reliable, as-needed basis.

Finally, President Obama should take a lesson from John F. Kennedy. In 1961 President Kennedy and President Ayub Khan of Pakistan established a technical collaboration between American experts and a young generation of Pakistani engineers who, together, largely ameliorated Pakistan’s seemingly intractable problem of waterlogging and soil salinization. Yes, Washington’s interest may have been more related to the cold war than to helping the Pakistani people, but we’ve again reached the point where national security and benevolence align.

The Pakistanis may never come to love us. But as the current spectacle of Islamic jihadists bringing emergency aid to flooded areas warns us, we can’t afford to ignore Pakistan’s looming freshwater crisis.

Steven Solomon is the author of “Water: The Epic Struggle for Wealth, Power, and Civilization.”

Published in The New York Times

WASIM VIEW- Solomon’s article is a tough read for a Pakistan in ruin after the devastating floods. Solomon’s first few words say it all ‘hARD as it may be to believe when you see the images of the monsoon floods that are now devastating Pakistan, the country is actually on the verge of a critical shortage of fresh water.

Solomon’s article is a must read for all policymakers in Pakistan given it has the potential to make or break Pakistan. Water shortages would add to Pakistan’s unending woes and seem to be on the horizon unless Pakistan deals with this issue head-on and in supersonic speed.

Solomon warns in his article that India could use untimely dam-filling during Pakistan’s planting season to destroy Pakistani harvests. Furthermore global warming is likely to decrease river flows with Solomon warning ‘ the future looks grim. Pakistan’s population is expected to rise to 220 million over the next decade, up from around 170 million today, terrifyingly, Pakistan only has the capacity to hold a 30-day reserve storage of water as a buffer against drought’.

Solomon ends the article with credible solutions and asks for US support in helping Pakistan with the Basha Dam and other water projects. Sadly Uncle Sam has shown little interest in these areas, however Solomon’s article clearly shows America can help Pakistan, indeed that America can too, do more!

The second article is the first that focuses on David Cameron’s comments against Pakistan and is written by the former British Foreign Secretary, David Miliband.

The PM Should Listen More and Talk Less by David Miliband 

David Cameron has used the past two weeks to make a verbal splash on foreign policy. Like a cuttlefish squirting out ink, his words were copious and created a mess. The cancellation by the Pakistani intelligence agency, the ISI, of a security meeting with our services shows that, in foreign policy, words can be our most powerful tool. But the Prime Minister’s have been destructive. The mindsets in Israel, Pakistan and Britain have all been given the once-over. But making a splash is not the same as making a difference. Mr Cameron either has a loose tongue – his comments about Gaza, terrorism and the Second World War were made off the cuff at press conferences or in interviews – or he is desperate for headlines. Neither is encouraging.

The Pakistan issue is the most important. It is the region’s tinderbox. We have 10,000 young men and women at risk in Afghanistan. Only a political settlement can bring an end to the war. For that we need Pakistan; and they need our economic and military support. David Cameron is right that terrorist groups have launched attacks from Pakistan, and links into parts of the Pakistani state have been an open secret over the past 20 years. Militants have moved with comparative ease across the Durand Line, and the insurgencies in the south and east of Afghanistan are directed partly from Quetta and Peshawar.

But that is only part of the picture. Pakistan has also been the victim of terror. A few days before David Cameron’s visit, a suicide bomb near Peshawar killed seven people near a gathering mourning the death of a Pakistani cabinet minister’s son. His death, too, was claimed by the Taliban. Bombs and attacks blamed by the Pakistani government on Taliban and al-Qa’ida-linked militants have killed more than 3,500 people in the past three years. Benazir Bhutto was killed by terrorism in her own country.

But the Prime Minister, in attacking Pakistan for “looking both ways”, did not tell this side of the story. In highlighting attacks originating from areas like Peshawar, he ignored the murder of people from Peshawar struggling to prevent them. And he showed no understanding of Pakistan’s path back to democratic rule in the past two years.

It would have been better for the Prime Minister to talk about ways we can support Pakistan. The level of EU funding in Pakistan is just half a euro per person compared to five to 10 times as much in other parts of the world not only more developed, but less crucial to global security.

For an Afghanistan settlement we need regional peace, and Pakistan is the key player in achieving that, along with India, Russia, Turkey and China. For that to happen it is vital that the political and military effort that Pakistan has shown is recognised. Then he would have been in a stronger position to argue for the Pakistani authorities to do more – to tackle the infrastructure of front organisations for terrorist groups in Pakistan, to complete the prosecution of those linked to the Mumbai attacks, to act with full complementarity with Afghan and Isaf forces at the Afghan border.

The Conservatives are putting domestic politics before sound foreign policy. The truth is they are continuing Labour’s policies on Turkey’s membership of the European Union, on the need to open up Gaza and on trade with India. After all, it was the British presidency of the EU in 2005 that opened membership talks.

Trade with India became a priority for the British government when Robin Cook announced a bolder policy in 1997, and between 1998 and 2008 inward investment from India into the UK increased by 3,559 per cent. That the Prime Minister wants to build on this is to be welcomed. But to laud this idea as being revolutionary, and righting a policy wrong, is just spin.

The real worry is that Mr Cameron has a shrivelled notion of Britain’s role in the world. We are not a superpower. But our open, creative economy and society are the essential counterpart to our strong role in the worlds of ideas, diplomacy, culture and security, from our handling of the economic crisis to climate change, from development to Afghanistan. We break this link at our peril.

The Prime Minister’s trade drive in India was overshadowed by a self-inflicted wound: his heralding of a cap in skilled non-EU immigration as the answer to “uncontrolled” immigration. It doesn’t add up – at home, where the cap is a minor part of the immigration numbers, or in India, where it was received with bemusement.

Equally he says he wants to export culture and British identity, but we have a government policy at home that seems to not care about British culture at all. For example, the UK Film Council is to be axed without consultation. For every pound the UK Film Council invested in British film-making, £5 was made at the box office. As an export alone it is worth £1.34bn; and as a cultural export it reflects Britain’s history and way of life.

If Britain shrinks at home, and if we make the wrong decisions for expansion in our economic and cultural identity, then there is quite literally less to export. Britain needs strong partnerships in the world. We depend on stronger international cooperation and stronger international institutions. We don’t need bluster. We all have two ears and one mouth. Foreign policy demands that we use them in that proportion.

John Rentoul is away

David Miliband is Shadow Foreign Secretary

Published in The Independent

WASIM VIEW- David Miliband’s article does well to ridicule British Prime Minister David Cameron after his crude comments against Pakistan. Miliband is cutting and correct when he said ‘David Cameron has used the past two weeks to make a verbal splash on foreign policy. Like a cuttlefish squirting out ink, his words were copious and created a mess’.

Later on in the article Miliband is right in highlighting how Cameron attacked Pakistan for “looking both ways” accusing him of not telling the other side of the story, that Pakistan is the worst victim of terror. Moreover Miliband’s article does well to bring home to the British readership the pitiful support Pakistan has received given that Pakistan is fighting a war thrusted onto it by the West.

As such Pakistan sadly acts as a mercenary force for the West with Uncle Sam paying a pittance to do its dirty work and the EU funding according to Miliband ‘just half a euro per person compared to five to 10 times as much in other parts of the world not only more developed, but less crucial to global security’. That said Miliband cannot absolve his government and his person from criticising the EU support for Pakistan or the lack of it given that Miliband and the Labour government did little to help Pakistan vis a vis increased EU funding and market access when his person and party was in office.

Miliband’s article ends as it began, with cutting words and that say it all and are condescending in nature for a new PM clearing learning on the job, Miliband ends with ‘We don’t need bluster. We all have two ears and one mouth. Foreign policy demands that we use them in that proportion’. I couldn’t agree more.

The final article is an attempt by Sayeeda Warsi to defend David Cameron’s comments against Pakistan and is necessary reading.

PM Spoke As True Friend of Pakistan by Sayeeda Warsi

A war of words has broken out between David Cameron and Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari ahead of their talks at Chequers tomorrow. The PM has enraged Pakistan’s leader by accusing the country of looking “both ways” at home-grown terrorism. Here Tory chairman Baroness Warsi, whose parents are from Pakistan, explains why the spat will not damage the countries’ long-term relationship.

There are two countries I feel I know pretty well. One is my home, Britain, where I was born and which I am privileged enough now to serve in government. The other is Pakistan, where my parents and grandparents were born and where for eight years I have run a women empowerment charity.

What seems to have been lost in the headlines this week is that Pakistan is a friend of the UK. And a friendship is meaningless unless you can be honest with each other.

David Miliband accused the Prime Minister of speaking too frankly about the terror threat Pakistan faces. But the best relationships between countries have to be rooted in honesty and mutual respect and it is absurd to deny that Pakistan has a problem with extremism and terror inside its country.

Pakistan is paying an incredibly high and tragic price for the ongoing terror threat within its borders. Thousands of Pakistanis have been victims of suicide bombs and other attacks in recent years. Many live in fear of attacks every day. Raising this issue and speaking candidly about it is the very least that a true friend can do.

And what’s more, this isn’t just about being a true friend to Pakistan. It’s also about showing respect and support to the British Pakistani community, many of whom have lost loved ones in Pakistan and are too frightened to travel there because of the threat.

Our relationship with Pakistan is also not a one-way transaction and it is not just about counter-terrorism. Pakistan is currently facing its worst floods in living memory, affecting an area of Pakistan I know well, as do the one million British Pakistanis.

In that true British tradition of helping those in need, our International Development team has offered support to 800,000 people, of whom 630,000 are women and children. We stand ready to assist the relief effort and have already given support to provide drinking water, hygiene kits and basic sanitation.

I spoke to aid workers in the region yesterday, who stressed that the need for international action is immediate and great. However, our relationship is not just about aid. That is why, in one of his first trips as Foreign Secretary, William Hague travelled to Pakistan and met not only counterparts in Islamabad, but also investors and entrepreneurs at the Karachi Stock Exchange.

It’s why Andrew Mitchell, Secretary Of State For International Development, also made an early visit, and not just to Islamabad but also to Peshawar, announcing that we had increased our level of aid to Pakistan and in particular the money we provide to drive forward educational reform.

And that is why, just a fortnight ago, I returned from a four-day trip where I talked about women’s empowerment and civil society. Long-term friends are not lost over a weekend just because honesty is brought to the table.

Under David Cameron’s leadership, this Government will have honest, robust and frank conversations with our friends. Pakistan will be no exception. Straight talking won’t break a relationship based on mutual respect which goes back more than 60 years.

Published in The Sun

WASIM VIEW- Sayeeda Warsi has been lauded by me and was made the subject of a detailed post on OP that should be read again see here. Today the same Sayeeda Warsi is criticised for penning an article full of verbose and meaningless words.

To be fair to Warsi, she was always going to be on a sticky wicket as she tried to defend her Prime Minister after his offensive comments against Pakistan. As a British Pakistani and as a Cabinet Minister she had to prove her loyalty to Britain over and above Pakistan and her Pakistani roots and she does achieve that and not much else in her article.

As a lawyer, Warsi’s weak defence of David Cameron’s comments centred on the notion of a Pakistan-Britain friendship and that friends can talk frankly to each other. Warsi conveniently forgets that true friends also appreciate one another and their respective concerns and that the Pakistani-British friendship if there is one would be mindful of Pakistan’s concerns vis a vis India. The fact that Cameron uttered his crap in India is what riled me and Pakistanis across the world and is the Indian and African elephant in the room that Warsi seeks to ignore and hide somehow.

If we accept the weak plea from lawyer Warsi that David Cameron’s foreign policy doctrine has a focus on being frank to friends then where was it madam during his India visit?. Clearly the trip centred on improving trade relations a la the heralding of a new East India Cameron Company with British Cabinet ministers falling head over heels to win over their Indian friends.

Frank words on India’s occupation of Kashmir and their human rights abuses did not feature and it is this double standard that irks me and Pakistan’s Prime Minister when he said ‘”In India, you talk about terrorism but you don’t say anything about Kashmir. You forgot about the human rights abuses going on there. You should have spoken about that, too, so that we in Pakistan would have been satisfied’.

Warsi’s article is missing any mention of India or Kashmir although she boasts in her article that ‘Under David Cameron’s leadership, this Government will have honest, robust and frank conversations with our friends. Pakistan will be no exception’. India will be an exception is what Warsi conveniently forgets to state as the dawn of a new era of trade and commerce in South Asia takes shape, all hail Cameron Raj!