Editoral-OTHER VOICES - Sri Lankan Press Food choices

CHOICE … is a hallmark [of] a healthy democracy. One may therefore say in a … democracy people are expected to have a fairly varied choice of food. However it is not always [as] simple as that. Take Sri Lanka for instance. When J.R. Jayewardene opened the floodgates of the open economy to give relief to people who were under the extreme protectionist measures adopted by the Sirimavo Bandaranaike government, rice-eating Sri Lankans were given an array of choices. The move went on to make bread one of the three main [staples] of many Sri Lankans. Wheat flour poured into [the] country. So [did] rice from India, Pakistan and many other countries for much cheaper prices. The local farmers obviously saw no point in cultivating rice and just gave it up.

Over the next three decades some 80 per cent of paddy land in Sri Lanka was abandoned. Almost every government that came to power during this period promised to look into farmer grievances. Ad hoc measures like import taxes were introduced … to curb the tide of imports. However … they lost interest and let market forces have their way. [Recently] the government went on to re-impose the … duty on wheat imports…. The imposition … saw Prima jacking up its flour prices … and the All Ceylon Bakery Owners Association increasing the price of bread…. A few years ago a similar move … yielded results triggering a drastic drop in bread consumption. Even otherwise the consumption of bread is on the decline here. With the price of most consumed varieties of rice starting from Rs60 and bread prices now standing at Rs45 and above, once again a significant drop in bread consumption is expected. Similar measures have been adopted by countries like China and many in the socialist bloc [which] triggered lifestyle changes in the best interest of the farmer and the health of the consumer. However all those countries had consistency in policy…. Sri Lanka unfortunately is yet to come up with a set of proposals like those. — (June 24)

Read More

Editoral-Civilian control of military

By Shada Islam
Saturday, 26 Jun, 2010

US PRESIDENT Barack Obama’s decision to fire Gen Stanley McChrystal for engaging in conduct which “undermines the civilian control of the military” has strong lessons for Pakistan, Turkey and Thailand, three modern-day democracies that I know well and where tensions between the civilian government and a restless military continue to darken the landscape.

Real democracy demands an end to army domination, the elimination of all military control over the national agenda and, as President Obama pointed out, it puts civilians in control of the military, not the other way around. But try telling that to the impatient men in uniform in Islamabad, Istanbul and Bangkok. Not to mention Bangladesh and Myanmar.

These and other countries where armies strain at the leash share several unfortunate similarities: weak civilian institutions, often accused of corruption and nepotism, contrasted with a strong, modern and efficient army which is called on to ‘save the nation when times get bad.

The end result of such coups or military interventions, however, is almost always the reverse of what is expected. As in the case of Pakistan, the generals operate no differently from the civilians (why should they, since they come from similar backgrounds?), corruption abounds and when push comes to shove, often from the frustrated public, the army retreats out of the public eye but endeavours to keep the reins of power firmly in its hands.

The overarching argument is security: in Pakistan’s case the ‘threat’ posed by India, in Turkey, it’s the Kurdish minority in Thailand, the so-called red-shirts who back former Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra. If only life were that simple.

The Burmese case is particularly poignant. The generals in the country appear too firmly entrenched to allow any dreams of democracy to flourish. Democracy icon and opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi has just marked her 65th birthday, under house arrest. The Nobel laureate has been in detention for almost 15 years and has been barred from running in upcoming elections that critics have denounced as a sham aimed at entrenching the generals’ power. Suu Kyi’s party won the last polls in 1990 but was never allowed to take office.

The Burmese generals could, if they wanted to, learn a lesson or two about democratisation from neighbouring Indonesia where the transition to democracy from army-backed authoritarian rule has been one of the most dramatic — and heartening — political events of the late 20th century. Although sometimes painful, the transition has brought back freedoms to Indonesia that have not been seen since the country’s first, short-lived experiment with democracy in the 1950s.

Interestingly, Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, who was sworn in for a second five-year term last year, is a dictator’s loyal soldier who is now transformed into the leader of a thriving but messy democracy. A former senior general during the Suharto dictatorship, the taciturn 60-year-old, with a penchant for singing romantic songs, has become a standard-bearer for Indonesia’s reform. Rising to power in the country’s first direct presidential election in 2004, Yudhoyono is credited with years of relative stability and prosperity which won him a decisive election victory last July.

Although the country has yet to tackle all its problems, including corruption, the Indonesian army is firmly in the barracks, leaving the civilian government in charge. And SBY as he is called affectionately will be strutting his stuff at the G20 meeting on June 26, confirming Indonesia’s status as an internationally respected, thriving democracy.Not too far away to the north, the military domination of South Korea ended firmly with the 1997 presidential election and peaceful transition of power to Kim Dae-jung, a lifelong democracy and human rights activist. And in Latin America, dictatorships have given way to elected leaders in many nations.

Readers of this paper hardly need further depressing confirmation of the pervasive presence of the army in Pakistan. The European Union is careful to maintain contacts only with Pakistani civilian leaders — while Gen Kayani keeps up an animated conversation with Nato. However, for all the US talk of support for Pakistan’s shaky civilian government — and President Obama’s dismissal of the wayward Gen McChrystal — Gen Kayani was the dominant Pakistani participant at the US-Pakistan ‘strategic’ dialogue held in March this year.

That may have defused tensions with the general over the Kerry-Lugar Bill — the army, it seems, was furious that US aid was being channelled to the people through the civilian government, rather than used for buying arms — but it certainly did little to lift the morale of Pakistan’s civilian government. Revealingly, at a press conference in Brussels earlier this month, Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani made a point of referring to the fact that the “Pakistani government and the army” saw eye to eye on fighting extremism in the country.

Perhaps Mr Gilani and Gen Kayani should take advice from Thailand’s Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya who, in talks in Brussels recently, warned the country’s generals that any military intervention would “close Thailand from the outside world”. “I am optimistic there will be no military takeover,” said Mr Piromya, adding: “the military works under civilian control.” He was clear, however, that the civilian government “had to get the respect of the army”.

Thailand has, of course, just gone through its worst violence and turmoil in history, marked by confrontations between pro- and anti-government protesters. Acting ahead of the demonstrations, the Thai government imposed the Internal Security Act, putting the military in charge with powers to impose curfews, restrict numbers at gatherings and set up check points. With 88 people dead during the rioting, Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva recently set up a fact-finding mission to determine whether the army used undue force against the civilians.

Which brings us to Turkey — the country that Indonesia, Thailand and Pakistan look up to as having managed to find a formula for keeping the military in check. True, the government of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has returned the once all-powerful army — four coups in as many decades — to the barracks.

Unfortunately, however, Mr Erdogan’s religious-oriented political party is engaged in a permanent battle with the secular Turkish army to win the public’s hearts and minds. Many Turkish officers see the current government as trying to undo the country’s secular constitution. Rumours of planned coups and counter-coups abound in Istanbul and are the daily fodder of the country’s many newspapers.

In an ideal world, the civil-military relationship should be based on mutual respect, cooperation and a share-out of the burdens of governance. Armies are needed to protect nations from foreign enemies and, in some unfortunate cases, internal ones as well. Real life, however, is more complicated. As Gen McChrystal has shown, boys will be boys — especially when they have large guns in their hands.

The writer is Dawn’s correspondent in Brussels.

Read More

Editoral-Islands for sale

By Elena Moya
Saturday, 26 Jun, 2010

THERE’S little that shouts ‘seriously rich’ as much as a little island in the sun to call your own. For Sir Richard Branson it is Neckar in the Caribbean, the billionaire Barclay brothers prefer Brecqhou in the Channel Islands, while Aristotle Onassis married Jackie Kennedy on Skorpios, his Greek hideway.

Now Greece is making it easier for the rich and famous to fulfil their dreams by preparing to sell, or offering long-term leases on, some of its 6,000 sun-kissed islands in a desperate attempt to repay its mountainous debts.

The Guardian has learned that an area on Mykonos, one of Greece’s top tourist destinations, is one of the sites for sale. The area is one-third owned by the government, which is looking for a buyer willing to inject capital and develop a luxury tourism complex, according to a source close to the negotiations.

— The Guardian, London

Read More

Editoral-Anti-narcotics policy

On the International Day against Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking, there is no better way for the government to renew its commitment to a narcotics-free society than by having the cabinet approve the new national anti-narcotics policy. It was in 2000-01 that we eradicated poppy cultivation and achieved poppy-free status, thanks to the first anti-narcotics policy, 1993. However, with no new policy, success in reducing the production of narcotics in the 1990s was not matched by similar progress on the drug-trafficking and drug-addiction fronts. Thus trafficking in drugs increased and drug addiction rose from three million drug addicts in 1993 to, reportedly, at least six million today, with one in 10 college/university student said to be an addict.

How sincere the government is in its commitment to reducing drug abuse can be judged by the goals of the Anti-Narcotics Policy 2010. Any effective policy must go beyond maintaining a poppy-free status, and mop up what we failed to stem in the first decade of the 21st century. The new policy should address what the latest World Drug Report 2010 says is a growing new trend — the use of synthetic drugs or amphetamine-type stimulants.

New narcotics control measures in the 2010 policy, like the creation of an inter-agency task force, the setting up of parliamentary committees on narcotics control and the enhancement of treatment and rehabilitation facilities, are important. But to forestall a shift in the 2010s from the abuse of opium and heroin to the use of new addictive substances that can easily be manufactured in clandestine laboratories from legal and readily available chemical raw materials the government will need to act now. It must control the sale and purchase of such chemicals. It must also carry out a narcotics survey regularly to assess emerging trends and the extent of abuse.

Read More

Editoral-Rampant deforestation

A slaughter is in progress across the country. We are destroying the environment with little regard for the ecological and socio-economic consequences of this plunder that benefits an elect few and damages the health and livelihoods of the poor. Species are dying out and our rivers and harbours have been turned into toxic cesspools. Officialdom’s apathy in all this is appalling and yet understandable because in many cases it is a party to the devastation. Take deforestation, which is just one of many environmental issues of grave concern.

The latest findings of the World Wide Fund for Nature reveal that Pakistan’s already meagre forest cover is being depleted by 2.1 per cent, the highest annual deforestation rate in Asia. Much of this reduction can be attributed to the official policy of changing the status of forest lands and allowing their use for other purposes. According to the WWF, more than 150,000 acres of forest have been lost in this way since the country’s inception in 1947. Encroachers and commercial harvesters, often called the timber mafia, have also played havoc with their authorised as well as illegal felling.

Pakistan’s once lush mangrove stands, which serve as natural hatcheries and offer protection against tidal surges, have taken the biggest hit with an annual depletion rate of nearly 2.3 per cent. Estimates vary but it is believed that the mangrove cover along the coast has fallen from nearly 1.5 million acres in 1966 to just about 420,000 acres today, and even this shockingly low count is seen by some as generous. Deforestation, be it in the Indus delta or the mountains, carries severe socio-economic costs. The livelihoods and way of life of local communities that use forests in sustainable ways — collecting fallen branches for fuel, grazing livestock, etc — can be ruined beyond repair by rampant logging. Deforestation is also associated with climate change while Pakistan has already seen an increase in deadly landslides, flash floods and the silting of major dams. All this is preventable and reforestation is the need of the hour. But for that to happen we need rulers who actually care.

Read More

Editoral-Fake degrees

The ‘fake degrees’ issue continues to rumble on, injecting a fresh element of uncertainty in the assemblies. On Thursday, the Supreme Court ordered the Election Commission of Pakistan to initiate proceedings against the fake-degree holders which could lead to their eventual disqualification from the various assemblies. The matter is not so straightforward, however: a legal thicket means that it’s not clear if the ECP can proceed of its own accord — thus far it has maintained that it would require references from the speakers of the various assemblies and the chairman of the Senate. Before that can happen, though, the National Assembly may attempt some sort of legislation that could try and resolve the matter.

The background to all of this is of course Gen Musharraf’s tinkering with election-related laws in an attempt to keep political rivals out of the assemblies. When the time for nominations for the February 2008 elections rolled around, the degree requirement had been challenged in the Supreme Court and it was expected that it would be done away with. However, since it was still the law at the time nominations were to be made, the ECP requested all candidates to submit their higher educational degrees. Which is why, as estimated by the former secretary of the ECP, perhaps 140 members of the various assemblies filed fake degrees. Many, if not most, of those are believed to belong to the PML-N, which is acutely embarrassed that its era of ‘principled politics’ is being undermined so publicly.

At this point, a measure of pragmatism is required. If 140 members, and perhaps more, stand to be disqualified, an equivalent number of by-elections will have to be held. A mini mid-term election is not something the country needs presently. One way of looking at the fake degrees issue is that assembly members have lied in order to get elected and should be punished. But from the declaration of assets to campaign spending, candidates routinely lie and on a much bigger scale. In the case of fake degrees, however, it was a procedural hurdle deliberately put in place by Gen Musharraf to trip up candidates who the electorate might otherwise have genuinely elected. This of course does not justify the lie. And the Supreme Court was right to ignore the context and focus on what the law says. Given all of this perhaps a political-cum-legislative solution is the best away ahead. Legislation with retrospective effect is not something that should be encouraged, especially where it benefits assembly members themselves, but in the present instance it would be a small price to pay for righting a wrong of Gen Musharraf’s doing.

Read More

Editoral-The two Punjabs

By A.G. Noorani
Saturday, 26 Jun, 2010

A ‘WATER CRISIS’ has emerged of late from the shadows to claim the spotlight in relations between Pakistan and India. It has begun to jostle with other items on an already crowded agenda in their dialogue in an unseemly and desperate bid to elbow them down and lay a false claim to primacy for itself at the top of the agenda.

The so-called ‘water crisis’ does not deserve that place. The thoughtfully crafted Indus Waters Treaty of 1960 has stood the test of time and provides for a precise and effective mechanism for conflict-resolution. Not all the problems, however, arise from a conflict of interests, rights or perceptions. Some have been created by climate change; some by increase of population; not a few are due to sheer mismanagement and waste. Disagreements on the Kishanganga project on the Indian side of the LoC in Kashmir and the Neelam-Jhelum project on the Pakistan side in Kashmir and the Nimoo Bazgo project in Leh will follow the procedures set by the precedent of Baglihar.

It is the larger problems that both countries must jointly face — climate change and consequential depletion of river flows, pressures of growing population and waste — in a non-partisan way; for, they affect both. It was in this spirit that the Indus Waters Treaty was concluded. The idea was mooted in a seminal article in the now defunct Collier’s in the United States in the issue of Aug 4, 1951. It was written by David E. Lilienthal who had won fame as the chairman of the Tennessee Valley Authority. He suggested “a joint use of this truly international river basin on an engineering basis”. Ideas can shape policies and policies can change the political climate from an adversarial one to a cooperative enterprise.

A recent article by Dr Manohar Singh Gill in The Hindu of May 29 is refreshingly free from polemics and makes a powerful plea for cooperation between the two countries. Entitled ‘Water crisis of east and west Punjab’ it argues that both sides will have to rise above politics and focus on the water crisis which requires difficult solutions.

Dr Gill, now minister of youth affairs and sports at the centre, was a civil servant and served as development commissioner, Punjab from 1985 to 1988 and rose to be chief election commissioner. He recalls the warning given by Calvert, ICS, in 1928 in his classic book The Wealth and Welfare of the Punjab, of the dangers of undue dependence on rivers, dams, rainfall and tube-wells. In a convocation address at the Punjab Agricultural University in Ludhiana on Nov 5, 1998 he had predicted a water crisis and tension “within and without” Punjab on the question of water. What will be the state of things a decade from now?

He now writes: “Sixty years have drastically reduced the comfort of 1950 on both sides. In Pakistan, the population growth from 50 million to 175 million has put an unacceptable burden. This has reduced the water availability per capita, per year, from 5,000 cubic feet in 1960 to 1,500 today. In our Punjab too, the population has increased over 60 years but at a lesser rate. In 1947, in east Punjab, 6,000 cubic metres of potable water was available per person, per year. Now it is only 1,600 cubic metres. It is estimated to fall further to 1,147 cubic metres in 2050.

“However, the nine lakh shallow tube-wells now dangle dry. The rich have started digging deep to 300 feet or more with submersible pumps to grab water. Small farmers who predominate cannot afford the cost and their wells are drying up. One deep tube-well will dry up 100 (tube-wells) around it. The water table has gone far down, and this situation will lead to social tension. …West Punjab too faces these grave questions.”

Dr Gill offers concrete suggestions to be followed within Indian Punjab and in cooperation with the Punjab in Pakistan. “What should the two Punjabs do?” One proposal is to license and regulate tube-well sinking, including the permissible depth. “All must share fairly, and not take the maximum by means of wealth and power.” Monitoring is easy in this computer age. A high commissioner for groundwater management for the Punjab, with a competent scientific staff, would report directly to the chief minister and present an annual report to the state assembly. “Our British canals are in a state of collapse and flood irrigation will not do.”

He has a word of advice “for my friends in West Punjab”. Only recently the foreign minister of Pakistan, Mr Shah Mehmood Qureshi, said in a TV interview that the total average canal supplies of Pakistan are 104 million acre feet while the water available at the four gates is about 70 million acre feet. “Where does the 34 million acre feet go? It is not being stolen by India. It has been wasted in Pakistan.”

Therein lies the wisdom of Dr Gill’s advice. “Both Punjabs should face up to the water crisis, with courage and steady application of science. Else, they will be in trouble which won’t go away” — a dire prediction, indeed. The solution lies in a joint harnessing of scientific knowledge. The Punjab Agricultural University in Ludhiana can invite an academic from Pakistan to serve on its faculty for a year or so and the Punjab University in Lahore can reciprocate. India-Pakistan seminars on the subject can help. So can joint studies by independent experts. The chief ministers of the two Punjabs have met before. They should do so again before long to set afoot a dialogue at various levels, academic and otherwise, which will help their respective national governments the better to understand the ‘water crisis’ and drive the demagogues to find other topics to keep their business going.

As for Pakistan and India, they would render high service to the people of Kashmir if, without prejudice to their rights under the Indus Waters Treaty, they set up a single joint project on the Kishanganga-Jhelum-Neelam sharing electricity for both sides of the LoC rather than two rival hydroelectric projects in the same area. The power-starved people of Kashmir will thank them for it.

The writer is a writer and a lawyer.

Read More

Editoral-A culture of mistrust

By Aslam Pervaiz Abro
Saturday, 26 Jun, 2010

A RECENT survey conducted by Transparency International Pakistan (TIP) is a grim reminder of the fact that corruption continues to be viewed as one the gravest problems facing the country.

The report, the National Corruption Perception Survey 2010 (NCPS), was comprised of a 24-page questionnaire filled out by 5,200 respondents from all four provinces.

It states that corruption has escalated to the extent that the amount involved in overall misappropriation has reached Rs223bn in 2010 as compared to Rs195bn in 2009. It ranks police and power as the two sectors perceived as the most corrupt and pins land administration and the education department at number three and four respectively.

TIP’s findings are not unfounded and appear to reflect the realities that keep the country mired in backwardness. Syed Adil Gilani, the chairman of TIP, correctly indicated that corruption “is the root cause of poverty, illiteracy, terrorism, shortage of electricity, food etc and lack of governance in Pakistan”.

The survey highlights that 70 per cent of the respondents think that the current government is more corrupt than the previous one. It is axiomatic that people have become disillusioned and frustrated, believing that their expectations have been left unfulfilled by the government they elected to end a long period of dictatorship. Going by the respondents’ views, then, the citizens seem to have lost trust in the current set-up and appear confused when it comes to drawing a distinction between dictatorship and democracy.

The four sectors that the NCPS 2010 ranked as being perceived as the most corrupt are public service departments where any kind of malpractice has a direct bearing on the life of ordinary citizens. Amongst the major reasons that government departments, including the four seen as the worst affected, are riddled with corruption are excessive political influence and the government’s cavalier attitude towards corrective action.

In the police department, political meddling remains the order of the day. Money comes easily to the policeman who abuses his power for the purpose of extortion. With political backing, the corrupt policeman gets away with malpractice even if a departmental inquiry is instituted. While there is talk about reforms in several sectors, the legislators remain silent on the need to reform the police.

The Police Order 2002, which provides for checks and balances on police power, is being done away with by the present government which considers it non-workable. Yet no substitute legislation laying emphasis on accountability is in evidence.

The report indicts the power sector perceived as being callously corrupt. This is hardly surprising since blackouts have added immensely to people’s miseries. The stealing of electricity through kundas or illegal hook-ups is a common practice that can be seen in the streets of almost every town in the country. Yet Wapda employees look the other way or even collude in the malpractice: the limitless consumption of ‘free’ electricity is just a matter of paying a few hundred rupees to the lineman.

Thus, electricity shortage was bound to happen. The short-term measures adopted by the government, including the reduction in the number of working days, the closure of businesses at 8pm and the stress on independent power producers — whose process of tender is questionable in terms of transparency — cannot bear fruit until corruption is eradicated.

According to the NCPS 2010, land administration is the third most corrupt sector in Pakistan. The land mafia, in palpable connivance with government officials and politicians, can in many areas be found to be illegally occupying government land and public areas designated for parks, playgrounds, etc.

Take the example of Sindh Goth Abad (Housing Scheme) Act 1987 which provides for the allocation of land, free of charge, to poor people. Under this scheme, the land mafia has grabbed thousands of acres in Karachi and has been selling it to people against the payment of hundreds of thousand rupees. Some observers believe that the current spate of targeted killing in Karachi is related to land grabbing.

Land records, which are currently manually maintained, must be computerised to insulate them from patwaris’ and tehsildars’ manipulations: in many cases, such officials favour those who offer bribes.

Such widespread corruption is a result of the absence of a viable accountability system that enforces anti-corruption laws. The general public cannot help but lose trust in state institutions whose organisational heads, even at the town and district level, acquire postings through bribes.

This is a situation that leads to a culture of mistrust and dashes the citizenry’s hope for justice. This was recently seen when the Supreme Court ordered the set-up of a National Accountability Bureau investigation team headed by Tariq Khosa, ex-director general of the Federal Investigation Agency, to investigate the Bank of Punjab scam.

Invoking Section 27 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, the chairman NAB wrote to the Establishment Division to requisition the services of Mr Khosa. The government turned down the request and appointed Aftab Sultan, additional inspector general of police in Punjab, as head of the NAB investigation team.

Whether it is Mr Sultan or Mr Khosa, the Supreme Court’s directive that a third person from a different department be appointed to head the NAB investigation team constitutes a question mark regarding the bureau’s efficiency and credibility in investigating a high-profile corruption case.

The Supreme Court seems to have given this order in view of the NAB officials’ inability to grill many big guns involved in the scam. The matter has to be viewed in context of the fact that NAB has so far shied away from examining the federal law minister — the bureau’s boss: the accused in the case, Sheikh Muhammad Afzal, has alleged that the minister received Rs35m for getting a court verdict in favour of the accused.

Read More

Editoral-Russia’s slow modernisation

By Simon Tisdall
Saturday, 26 Jun, 2010

PRESIDENT Dmitry Medvedev this week stepped up his campaign to convince the West that Russia can be counted on as a reliable political and business partner. But even as he toured California and talked of creating a Russian equivalent of Silicon Valley, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin was up to his old tricks.

While continuing to deny Russia uses its energy exports as a geopolitical weapon, Putin, the former president, warned neighbouring Belarus it could face a total shutdown in gas supplies unless it knuckled under. On Thursday Russian gas producer Gazprom said it was resuming supplies to Belarus after it paid £133m for previous shipments.

The row was ostensibly about the debt. But the context is Kremlin displeasure at Minsk’s decision to take in the deposed president of Kyrgyzstan, Kurmanbek Bakiyev, ousted in a Moscow-backed coup this year. The dispute recalled rows with Ukraine that caused energy shortages across Europe. Ukraine elected a more amenable government, which agreed to extend the Russian Black Sea fleet’s lease on port facilities in Sevastopol. As if by magic, Gazprom lowered gas prices for Kiev.

Against this backdrop, Medvedev took his message of a modernising Russia to the White House, where he and Barack Obama were expected to discuss economic cooperation. He is due to meet the British premier David Cameron at the G8 summit in Canada. But Obama and Cameron face a similar dilemma.

The US has tried to ‘reset’ relations with Moscow since George Bush left office, brokering deals on nuclear weapons reductions and Iran sanctions. Yet it is concerned about authoritarian trends within Russia and strategic issues such as the government’s uncompromising stance towards former Soviet republics within its ‘sphere of influence’.

Recent moves to enhance the surveillance powers of the FSB (the successor to Putin’s KGB), attempts to block a book about Putin by opposition politician Boris Nemtsov, the politicised trial of former tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky and the failure to solve more than a dozen murders involving human rights advocates and investigative journalists appear at odds with Medvedev’s vision of a transformed Russia.

Last week Mikhail Gorbachev, the reformist former Soviet leader, said Russia was halfway through the transition from communist monolith to modern state. “Modernisation can be carried out but only if the people are included ... We need democracy, we need improvement of the electoral system. Without that, it will not succeed,” he said.

British officials say Cameron is hoping for a “substantive” meeting with Medvedev; the Russian ambassador to London has suggested a fresh page could be turned in bilateral relations. But Britain shares Washington’s concerns and has some of its own, notably Russia’s refusal to extradite Andrei Lugovoy, a former KGB officer sought in connection with the 2006 murder of Alexander Litvinenko in London.

Still, Obama and Cameron are likely to encourage Medvedev’s modernisation campaign, hoping perhaps to strengthen his hand in what may become a power struggle with Putin ahead of the 2012 presidential election. Putin has refused to say whether he will stand.

Working in Medvedev’s favour is the growing realisation that a more diversified economy, less state control and more private sector businesses are essential for the country’s long-term health. Russia’s economy contracted last year by 7.9 per cent, following worldwide falls in commodity prices, boosting Medvedev’s argument that it is too reliant on energy exports.

Medvedev’s ability to influence the way Putin runs the country is limited. But he may be gaining in confidence.

— The Guardian, London

Read More

US for stable govt in Pakistan

June 25: President Barack Obama has said that the United States wants stable and strong governments in Pakistan and Afghanistan that could defeat terrorists.

In a joint news conference with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, President Obama said his decision to send a new commander to Afghanistan was “a change in personnel but not a change in policy”.

The US mission in the Pak-Afghan region was, first and foremost, to dismantle and destroy Al Qaeda and its affiliates so that they could not attack the United States again, he said.

“In order to achieve that, we have to make sure that we have a stable Afghan government, and we also have to make sure that we’ve got a Pakistani government that is working effectively with us to dismantle these networks,” he said.

Read More

Petraeus to change rules of engagement

June 25: US Defence Secretary Robert Gates has said that the new US commander in Afghanistan Gen David Petraeus will have more ‘flexibility’ than his predecessor in drawing up his strategy for defeating the militants.

Gen Petraeus will “have the flexibility to look at the campaign plan and the approach and all manner of things when he gets to Afghanistan”, Mr Gates told a Pentagon briefing on Thursday.

Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen told the same briefing that Gen Petraeus would be able to make tactical changes.

And the US media reported on Friday that one of the first things the general would do was to modify the controversial rules of engagement to make it easier for US troops to engage in combat with the enemy. US military officers in Afghanistan often complain that strict rules – aimed at preventing civilian casualties – have effectively forced the troops to fight with one hand tied behind their backs.

Secretary Gates also indicated that President Obama’s decision to send a senior and experienced general like Mr Petraeus to Afghanistan showed that the administration too was keen on ending this conflict as quickly as possible but without causing further chaos in the region.

Mr Gates said that Gen Petraeus’s close relationship with the Pakistani military and his familiarity with the present set-up in Afghanistan were the key reasons for his appointment.

Read More

Govt nets Rs315 billion from oil taxes

The government is estimated to have earned about Rs315 billion in taxes on oil business during the current fiscal year, making it the single largest revenue-contributing sector. But this contributed to the overall inflationary trends.

Sources in the petroleum ministry told Dawn on Friday the government earned about Rs115 billion as general sales tax on domestic sale of petroleum products during 2009-10 and Rs90 billion was recovered on POL imports.

The total sales collection on petroleum products stood at Rs205 billion.

Likewise, the government netted about Rs108 billion during the current fiscal year on account of petroleum levy on oil products.

Besides, a 16 per cent variable general sales tax on all petroleum products being charged to consumers, the government collected a fixed petroleum levy at the rate of Rs10 per litre on petrol, Rs14 on high octane blending component, Rs6 on kerosene, Rs3 on LDO and Rs8 on high speed diesel.

The government earns on an average about Rs10 billion per month as petroleum levy on five petroleum products, namely high speed diesel, light diesel oil, kerosene, HOBC and petrol.

The government had set a budgetary target to collect about Rs122 billion during the current fiscal year on account of petroleum levy that was originally introduced as carbon tax, but later renamed as petroleum levy when the Supreme Court raised questions about the utilisation of carbon tax.

The petroleum levy target was later revised to Rs110 billion, said the source, adding the actual collection under this head had now been estimated at about Rs108 billion.

The government currently collects about Rs20 per litre on petrol, Rs26 on high octane blending component, Rs15 per litre on kerosene and Rs12 on light diesel oil from consumers.

In addition, about Rs8.91 is paid to the oil companies and dealers on petrol, Rs11.93 per litre on high octane, Rs3.23 per litre on kerosene and Rs4.27 on light diesel oil.

Pakistan’s total sales tax collection during the current fiscal year has amounted to about Rs500 billion, against Rs430 billion in the previous year—an increase of about 16pc.

A senior government official said that higher electricity tariffs and petroleum prices during the outgoing fiscal year had resulted in substantial windfall revenues to the government, although these revenues had a negative impact on the purchasing power of the common people.

He said a robust growth in sales tax collection on POL product imports had been mainly because of massive growth in imports of motor spirit, furnace oil and JP-1 that was higher than the last year’s collection on these products to the extent of 560pc, 45pc and 150pc, respectively.

The sales tax collection from electricity went up by an unusual 40pc during the current fiscal year over last year.

Power tariffs have increased by more than 60pc in 15 months up to April.

This was despite the fact that the nation suffered long hours of loadshedding both in winter and summer.

Read More

Companies seek huge increases in gas tariff

Two gas utilities have sought Rs20.36 and Rs63.10 per unit increase in their prescribed prices with effect from July 1, to meet their revenue loss arising out of the government’s decision to increase excise duty on gas production by Rs5 per unit.

Informed sources told Dawn that the Sui Southern Gas Company Limited (SSGCL) and Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited (SNGPL) had submitted their review petitions before the Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority. The ogra had not only rejected their petitions for tariff increase, but also reduced their prescribed prices by Rs4.53 per unit.

Ogra sources said that the regulator had received the two review petitions.

A petroleum ministry official said that Ogra was unlikely to accept the two review petitions, although it would be obligated to allow about Rs4.90 per unit increase on account of the rise in excise duty. The gas companies will probably be allowed to raise prices proportionate to the rise in excise duty, the official added.

The two companies have pleaded that because of the government’s decision to increase excise duty on wellhead prices, it would not be possible for them to pay for gas purchases from producers.

In the federal budget 2010-11, the government has raised the excise duty on natural gas from Rs5.09 at present to Rs10 per MMBTU. The decision will bring in an additional revenue of Rs7 billion. The money will go to Sindh in keeping with an understanding reached during negotiations for NFC award.

The government has already decided not to pass on an average Rs4.53 per unit reduction in natural gas tariff approved by Ogra to mop up Sindh government’s gas-related revenue loss under the National Finance Commission Award.

Ogra had decided on May 18 to reduce prices of natural gas by an average of 2.55 per cent, or Rs4.55 per unit, for all categories of consumers from July 1. A notification for maintaining gas rates is likely to be issued by next week.

Sindh had agreed during the NFC talks to allow Balochistan to have higher returns on gas produced from that province for the last few decades to address longstanding grievances of the people of Balochistan.

The Ogra’s May 18 determination said the prices of gas for domestic, commercial, industrial, CNG stations, fertiliser, cement and power generation would come down both for SNGPL and SSGCL.

The two gas utilities had sought an increase in tariff at the rate of Rs20.36 and Rs63.10 per million British thermal unit (MMBTU), respectively, but Ogra held that average tariff for both companies should be reduced by Rs4.53 per cent.

Read More

Pakistan-India talks make wary start

Quite in contrast to the cordiality that marked the Pakistan-India foreign secretaries’ talks one day ago, the interior ministers of the two countries found it difficult to move towards a breakthrough on counter-terrorism cooperation as they opened their talks on Friday.

The two ministers are likely to meet again on Saturday.

Indian Home Minister Palaniappan Chidambaram, who is the first minister from Delhi to visit Pakistan since the 2008 Mumbai attacks, met his Pakistani counterpart, Rehman Malik, for talks on terrorism, a subject which stopped the normalisation of relations after the terror strikes.

Their meeting was preceded by the interior secretaries’ meeting earlier in the day for setting an agenda of the talks.

The outcome of the foreign secretaries’ and the interior ministers’ parleys is certain to set the tone for a meeting between the two foreign ministers next month. That dialogue is likely to lay out a strategy for overcoming the trust deficit between Islamabad and New Delhi.

The foreign secretaries had agreed on Thursday on the need for jointly dealing with terrorism, but had left it to the interior ministers to work out the nitty gritty.

There was no official word from either side after the meeting, but sources privy to the discussions warned against expecting any ‘dramatic development or grand gestures’.

Indications were that the two leaders might settle for an incremental progress beginning with small-scale confidence-building measures like release of detained fishermen, reactivation of the judicial commission on prisoners, return of confiscated boats and simplifying procedures for dealing with inadvertent border crossings and violations of maritime boundaries by fishermen. During his talks with the interior minister, Mr Chidambaram expressed dissatisfaction over the trial of the alleged perpetrators of the Mumbai attacks and said his government felt that Pakistan was not pursuing the prosecution wholeheartedly.

Mr Malik asked India to respect Pakistani courts’ decisions in the Mumbai attacks case just as it honoured an Indian court’s verdict in the trial of Ajmal Kasab, a source said.

Mr Chidambaram shared the findings of interrogation of Lashkar-i-Taiba operative David Headley by an Indian team in the US. Some of the findings were earlier shared in the latest dossier given by India to Pakistan a few days back.

He also took up accusations of an increase in infiltration into held Kashmir from the Pakistani side. The Indian side was of the view that Pakistan had not taken the action required against Jamaatud Dawa (JuD) chief Hafiz Saeed, the alleged mastermind of the Nov 26, 2008, attacks.

Mr Malik said as no credible evidence had been found to substantiate the allegations, the court could not take any action against him.

He said Pakistan had asked the Indian government to hand over the principal accused, but the plea was turned down in the light of a court decision. “We honoured the Indian court’s decision in that case.”

Mr Chidambaram asked Pakistani authorities to hold a speedy trial of those accused of planning the attacks.

Mr Malik reiterated allegations of Indian sponsorship of sabotage activities in Pakistan, particularly in Balochistan and the tribal areas.

Mr Chidambaram later called on Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi.

“The two ministers expressed the desire for developing friendly, cooperative and good-neighbourly relations between the two countries. The need for a sustained and comprehensive dialogue to build trust and confidence was emphasised,” the Foreign Office spokesman said after the meeting.

The Indian minister is also likely to meet President Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani.

SAARC CONFERENCE: Mr Chidambaram will represent India at a meeting of the home ministers of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (Saarc) on Saturday.

On the third day of the regional conference, member countries expressed their resolve to formulate a joint strategy to fight terrorism, drug smuggling, human trafficking and other cross-border crimes.

Read More