Newswatch
American double standards are matched only by Israeli double standards
By Kaleem Omar
Over the last 25 years the United States has exercised its veto powers in the UN Security Council more than 40 times to block resolutions seeking to condemn Israel for its barbaric actions against the Palestinian people and other Arabs.

This year, the sugarcane growers of the Northwest Frontier Province (NWFP), especially those in Mardan and Charsadda districts, after a long time, had expected good prices for their bumper crop. These sugarcane growers could have earned huge profits by turning their sugarcane into gurr ((brown sugar). Traditionally, a large part of the sugarcane produced in the two districts is used for making gurr, which is both exported and used locally as a sweetener since ages. Gurr made in Pakistan has a large market in Afghanistan and Central Asia, where it is also used in making wines. But the gurr producer have their hopes of making some quick bucks dashed after the federal government levied rather heavy duty on gurr exports to Afghanistan.

The central government has imposed Rs 250 as export duty on every sack of gurr going to Afghanistan. The move, the farmers fear, will have severely negative impact on the gurr producers of the NWFP.

In the local market, good quality gurr is available at Rs 2,900 a sack. Because of some recent increases in transportation costs, profit margin of gurr producers from export to Afghanistan was already thin. They have to pay Rs 12,000 for sending one truck-full of gurr to Afghanistan. A permit fee of Rs 8000 is also paid for every truck of gurr going across the border. The imposition of export duty over and above all these expenses is going to discourage sugarcane growing and gurr production, which will have severe implications for the economy of the NWFP. Gurr being one the main exports of the province, is a major sources of revenue for otherwise cash-strapped provincial economy.

Some months ago, the federal government had imposed 15 per cent sales tax on gurr. At that time, because of the sugar crisis, it seemed to be yet another endeavour to prevent sugarcane growers of the NWFP from turning to gurr production instead of selling their sugarcane produce to sugar mills. The sugarcane growers justifiably opposed the imposition of sales tax on gurr, calling it arm-twisting by the government to sell their produce to sugar mills on a price and terms and conditions which strongly favour the millers.

The sugarcane growers and many observers of the provincial economy apprehend that it is the influential lobby of sugar mill owners which is largely responsible for impacting the government's gurr policy. Many see a historical pattern which hardly allows economic policies in Pakistan to be framed for the interest of the people or the country. Instead, organised economic interest has always been dictating these policies. The imposition of sales tax and export duty on gurr is yet another example of the same government-corporate nexus. This does not augur well either for the sugarcane growers of the NWFP or the country.

The sugarcane farmers do not turn to gurr production without reason. The growers of the NWFP for the last ten or so years have started tuning their produce into gurr because it not only fetches comparatively more profit but also by doing so they can avoid the strong arm tactics of the sugar mill owners and managers. The high-handedness of the sugar millers has compelled many growers to stop growing sugarcane altogether.

The hard work that the sugarcane growers in the sugarcane growing districts of Charsadda, Mardan and Peshawar have to undergo warrants that they get a good price for their crop. This year they are being offered Rs 65 by sugar mills for buying 40 kilograms of sugarcane. To be fair to the growers, this can hardly bring any returns for them on the time and money they have invested on the crop. Last year the price the sugar mills were offering was just Rs 40 for 40 kilograms of sugarcane.

There appear to be two main factors behind the sugar price spiral in the country: Firstly, the indirect protectionist policy of the government for the sugar industry and, secondly, mill owners' exploitation of the sugarcane growers. The exploitation of the farmers has reached to such an extent that many of them have become least interested in growing a labour-intensive crop that brings them no profit. The diverting of the crop to gurr production is a panacea found by some growers of the NWFP to avoid stopping the growing of sugarcane altogether. This helps explain why gurr production does not have any role, as is being projected, in the sugar price crisis. Gurr is almost entirely produced in the NWFP and even in this province not all growers but only a part of them have switched over to gurr production. In other words, it's the farmers who have stopped growing the crop altogether who are at the heart of the sugar crisis.

The imposition of export duty on gurr will result in losing the international market for the product in Afghanistan, Central Asian Republics and Iran. This does not sound a shrewd policy. Instead, the government should have taken measures to encourage the export of gurr. Also, the government should have encouraged value addition of the product which can immensely increase its exports not only to the traditional markets but also to countries like India and regions like Africa. This can earn big foreign exchange for the country.

If the growers of sugarcane have started turning their produce to gurr production, they definitely have done so in their best interest and they have every legal right to do so. Discouraging them to do so is a counter-productive policy on the part of the government. Ultimately, it is the grower and the land on which hinges the production of sugarcane or for that matter production of any crop. If he is not satisfied with the what his hard work and investment earns him, he will simply stop producing what he produces or he will switch over to something else.

Sugar mill owners on the other hand have their own interests to protect and promote. Though they have every right to do so, this should not happen at the cost of the growers. The fact does not need any emphasis that the growers and not the millers are the most important factor in sugarcane and sugar production.

Some time ago sugar mills owners would argue that gurr producers did not pay any sales tax while sugar producers do. This prompted the government to impose 15 per cent sales tax on gurr production. Now with the imposition of the export duty, the question arises as to whether the government also provides similar credit facilities to gurr producers and sugarcane growers as it does to the sugar producers. The government has in fact banned electricity connection for gurr making installations

Sugarcane growers of the NWFP grow another crop -- mostly wheat -- on the land they use for sugarcane production. If the sale of their sugarcane produce is delayed, they find it hard to sow wheat on time. Firstly, because the land is not free in time for sowing the next crop and, secondly, the growers do not have money to buy inputs.

Last year, the federal government banned the export of gurr, a move that had cost dearly to the growers and had resulted in large-scale unemployment of agriculture workers. In view of this ban, it is strange that the government has now levied export duty on an item whose export has already been banned. The fact that the NWFP Assembly had condemned the imposition of ban on gurr export by the federal government is enough proof that even the authorities are working at cross-purposes in this country.

Will the United States impose punitive duties on Chinese exports in case China does not revalue its currency -- the yuan? While the imposition of duties appears a relatively easy option as the United States strives to contain its growing trade deficit, the move, if it is made, will have serious implications for the US economy and Sino-America relations as well as for the global economy.

One of the major problems in the world economy is the growing US trade deficit. The US is the world's largest economy and the biggest trading nation. The country, however, is consistently facing trade deficit. With country's exports and imports standing at $904 billion and $1.73 trillion respectively, the US trade deficit in 2005 stood at $ 805 billion (6.5 per cent of the US Gross Domestic Product, according to The World Trade Report 2006).

The principal source of the US trade deficit is cheap exports from China. The US trade deficit with China exceeded $200 billion in 2005, while in the first 10 months of 2006, the trade deficit was registered at $190 billion. Conversely China's global trade surplus is on the increase. In 2005, China's global exports and imports were $762 billion and $660 billion respectively (according to The World Trade Report 2006) giving the country trade surplus of $102 billion. In the first 9 months of 2006, China's trade surplus stood at $ 110 billion.

The US-China trade imbalance was the main item on the agenda when a high profile US delegation led by the treasury secretary and including among others the chairman of the Federal Reserve, America's central bank, visited China in the middle of December 2006. The USA attributes its increasing trade deficit with China in the main to what it calls a grossly undervalued yuan. China has a fixed rather than a flexible or floating currency, which has been pegged to the US dollar for last 10 years. Ideally Washington would want Beijing to adopt a flexible exchange rate. But realising that the Chinese banking sector is not prepared for that move, Americans are at present only calling upon China to re-value the yuan. The US has threatened that in case China does not revalue its currency vis-a-vis the dollar, it may face punitive action including additional tariff on all Chinese exports to the US. On its part, though China acknowledges that its foreign exchange regime needs adjustments, it has ruled out the possibility of revaluing the yuan at least for the time being.

Economic theory tells us that no country can maintain huge trade surplus for long. This is simple. The value of a country's currency depends on the demand for its goods and services in international market. When, therefore, a country has a large trade surplus -- showing increasing demand for its goods and services -- the demand for its currency goes up and as a result it appreciates. Currency appreciation makes the country's exports more expensive thus lowering its trade surplus. However, this mechanism works only when market forces are allowed to work. If the exchange rate is fixed by the government, then increase in trade surplus will not push up the value of the currency. This is what is happening in China, whose growing trade surplus has not pushed up its currency value. Since China's economic growth is largely dependent on its export performance, the Chinese government is reluctant to let the yuan appreciate. The effect of an undervalued yuan is the same as that of a subsidy to exporters. Both make export price artificially lower than it would be if left to market forces and thus push up demand for exports. Interestingly, though there are clear-cut World Trade Organization (WTO) rules regarding subsidies -- subsidies on industrial products are not allowed if they have the effect of distorting production or price and the importing country can impose additional duties on subsidised exports to offset the effect of subsidies -- the global trade regime lacks rules regarding an undervalued exchange rate. However, a country faced with balance of payment problem -- just as the US is facing -- can levy additional duties on exports.

In case China revalues its currency, Chinese exports to the US will become less competitive, which will bring down demand for them. Thus as US sees it, a re-valued yuan will help correct US balance of trade with China. The US assessment is, however, only partly correct. No doubt, yuan is undervalued with respect to the dollar, but this is only one possible cause of US trade deficit with China. What makes Chinese exports competitive in the US market is low input costs particularly labour cost in China, economies of scale and China's highly subsidised state-controlled economy.

Towards the end of 2006, China achieved another landmark when its foreign exchange reserves reached $1 trillion, the largest holding of foreign exchange reserves by any country. The huge accumulation of foreign exchange reserves can mainly be attributed to China's emergence as a major player on the global export scene. Though China's imports have also gone up, export growth has outpaced import growth giving China a trade surplus in excess of $100 billion.

Trade balance is a major item on the current account balance. A country's current account deficit is financed by inflow of capital from its trading partners having current account surplus. The US current account deficit is in large measures financed by China by investing in long-term US treasury bonds and other government securities. It is estimated that China has invested $700 billion in US long-term bonds. In case China decides to disinvest its holding of US bonds, the US dollar will come down with a thud increasing inflation in the US and destabilising the global economy. But such a move would also lower the real value of China's own foreign exchange reserves.

With the Democrats taking over the US Congress, the possibility of a punitive action on the Chinese exports looms large. However, there is more than one factor which militates against such a move. In the first place, US-based multinational corporations (MNCs) have invested heavily -- to the tune of $25 billion -- in China to take advantage of a huge market and economies of scale. A great deal of what China exports to the world including the US is produced by these MNCs. Hence, clamping punitive duties on Chinese exports will also penalise the US businesses, which are lobbying against such a move. In the second place, additional duties on the Chinese exports would harm American consumers, who are getting inexpensive goods. In the third place, an undervalued yuan means cheap exports to the US of consumer goods, which keeps inflation in check and allows the US economy to grow at a stable pace. In the fourth place, as mentioned above, in China, the US gets a credible source of funding for its current account deficit. Imposition of duties may force China to disinvest part of its holdings of the US government securities thus pushing the dollar down and causing great inflationary pressures on the US economy.

China being the leading nation among the developing countries and the US being the leading nation among the developed countries hold the key to the successful implementation of the Doha Development Agenda (DDA), which will determine the future of multilateralism in trade represented by the WTO. Probably more than any other country, these two can help bridge the differences among developed and developing nations. In case the US takes punitive action against Chinese imports in an attempt to correct its trade imbalance, it will not only strain their bilateral relations but is also likely to sharpen differences between the developed and the developing countries and further stalk the DDA. Besides, trade restrictions may impinge negatively on China's headway towards market economy.

Aid and trade -- policy coherence for development

In the previous article (published on January 7, 2006), we reflected on a number of aid and development issues at the end of 2006 and the beginning of 2007. In this article we shall examine more specifically the Millennium Development Goals -- in particular the Millennium Development Goal No 8, with its seven sub-items. The focus of this development goal is on North-South relations and trade issues in order to develop a global partnership for development. It uses the term 'policy coherence for development' to describe and explore all components to be included to achieve tangible development results in the poor countries. It is admitted that development aid alone, or as a main factor, has its clear limitations in actually leading to sustainable development.

We would like to state that we believe in major increases in the volume of development aid. Major international policy thinkers also recognise the importance of increased development aid, on certain conditions. In the previous article, we also stated that there is need for improvement in the way development aid is administered and implemented. There is general consensus about the fact that development aid, even if implemented flawlessly, cannot alone lead to sustainable development in the poor countries. Other factors are important, which we shall discuss below.

Few would question the importance of emergency aid, humanitarian aid and assistance when man-made or natural disasters strike, such as wars, earthquakes, floods and refugee exodus. Even in these fields, there are great needs for improvements, in implementation of aid after disasters, and in mediation so that conflicts and disasters can be avoided, and in monitoring systems to give people early warning before naturally disasters strike.

Currently, Darfur in the Sudan is in such a situation where international organisations and the international community at large should be able to end the violent conflict, provide security, food and other humanitarian aid. The conflict has already gone on for several years and we have all known about it. Still, many people keep dying daily and millions of people keep suffering, without the international community being able to work with the Sudanese government authorities and the local leaders. This is not a sudden disaster. It is a tragedy which has evolved quite slowly over a number of years. The international community has not yet developed systems that can curtail conflicts before they become violent, even in the eleventh hour when everyone knows that they will end in disaster.

The 2006 Israel-Lebanon war is another case in point where the international community failed to stop a terrible conflict and end it quickly once it had started. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan both show gross shortcomings in international systems for peace and security, and for transitional and development aid used for reconstruction and reconciliation.

Researchers and analysts in social and human sciences remind us that without security and peace, development becomes difficult or even impossible. They also underline that without democracy and justice, it becomes difficult to develop egalitarian societies with reduced inequalities between social groups. These are seen as key prerequisites for peaceful coexistence and development. It is because of these reasons that they also form parts of policy coherence for development concept. It is a question of assisting and empowering people and the civil society, not only the governments, to run their own business better. Sometimes, good systems were destroyed by colonialism, sometimes by wars and superpowers' interference, sometimes by unfair trade relations, and sometimes by unscrupulous indigenous rulers. Whatever reason, the future is in the hands of the current local, national and international leaders.

Aid, trade and migration

Not only in the past but even today, we often put aid and trade up against each other. Developing countries will frequently say that they want trade, notably access to markets in the rich countries, to begin to sell agricultural and horticultural produce, and later to sell manufactured products, such as, for example, textiles and leather products in Pakistan's case, without protective tariffs and customs keeping them out from the rich countries' markets.

More and more, poor countries want access to the labour markets in the rich countries. Legal as well as illegal migration keeps growing, especially from poorer countries in the South to richer countries in the North, and to regional hubs within the South. Everywhere, there is urgent need for developing migration policies, not necessarily to reduce migration, but to regulate it and make it fairer. For example, there is need to avoid 'brain drain' from the South to the North. Yet, there is also need for facilitating people from less developed countries to get exposure to other countries in order to gain experience, learn and create peaceful dialogue.

Dialogue and exchange have always existed between countries and people, and it will be more important in the years and decades ahead in order to establish peaceful coexistence and development in a world which becomes more and more interdependent. If dialogue, exchange of people and ideas are hindered and seen as unfair, the world becomes less safe and secure for all. Reduced poverty and differences between and within countries, fairer global trade policies, increased respect for and tolerance between people from far and near, will lead to a more peaceful world. We also see such issues as key elements in the fight against terrorism, which can only be won through positive means. We don't all need to agree about everything, but we do need to respect each other and even help those we disagree with so they too can live rich lives.

Investment and partnership

Furthermore, developing countries want the rich countries to invest in their countries and through the developing countries expect to receive transfer of finance, technology, knowledge, and be able to establish linkages with the companies, institutions and organisations in the rich countries. If all that materialises, the developing countries will then become real partners in development in an interdependent world and they will be able to build local capacity and competence on a more level playing field. Today, the World Trade Organization (WTO) and most of the multilateral organisations, including the United Nations system, and other international organisations, in particular the 'Bretton Woods' finance institutions, are not constructed to support this kind of level playing field. There is need for major changes in the way the international organisations and institutions operate in general and in trade in particular. Otherwise the developing countries will forever be kept as 'second class' countries, or they may attempt to force changes through trade wars or wars.

Numerous studies show that major changes in trade conditions between North and South, and facilitation of foreign investments and technology transfer could count for more economic and social development in developing countries than the economic contribution from aid.

Other studies show that remittances from migrants and foreign workers in the North to their home countries in the South amount for more than the official annual development assistance (ODA). It can be difficult to quantify since a large percentage of these remittances goes through informal channels, such as money and gifts brought home when immigrants visit their families at home. Bank transfers probably only account for half of the transfers. Some transfers may be semi-legal or illegal to avoid (double) taxation, or for other reasons. Various policy measures should be taken so that remittance and a multitude of trade and aid transfers can complement each other and lead to major benefits to the developing countries. In other words, we need to focus on broad, flexible and innovative North-South relations as the term 'policy coherence for development' attempts to do.

How well is the West doing?

It is important to note that when measuring how well countries meet the MDGs, including the MDG-8, it is not only the progress of the developing countries that is measured, but also the progress of the rich countries. Very often, countries donating aid criticise the recipient countries for not fulfilling their obligations, such as not focusing enough on poverty reduction, improved transparency and reduced corruption. As regards fulfillment of the MDGs, it is not only the volume of development aid which counts -- though it is important and we repeat that aid should be increased markedly. But in order to create a partnership for development, we need to include a set of factors of importance to the developing countries. Researchers have identified seven main factors, which are considered particularly important, notably, aid, trade, investments, migration and remittances, environmental protection, security and peace, and technology transfer and development.

When President Pervez Musharraf last autumn visited the United States he was asked by a participant at one of the many public meetings he held, what he wanted the US to do. He replied that he wanted to see favourable conditions so as to enable Pakistan to export more goods to the US. And then he added that he also wanted development assistance for the social sectors in Pakistan, notably education and health.

To the author of this article, this sounds very wise, and we would like to recall that when the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation, Norad, marked its 25th anniversary in 1977, the then Norwegian Minister of Foreign Affairs Knut Frydenlund and the Norad Director Arne Arnesen wrote in a joint article that they thought we should give priority to assistance in the fields of education and health. Messrs Frydenlund and Arnesen added that in other sectors the developing countries themselves had to sort out things. This means that the developing countries should sort out internal equity issues, employment conditions, and so on. They should also fight for fairer international trade regulations, not wait for the rich countries to change the rules, which may not happen. Naturally, like-minded groups in the West should assist the developing countries. They wrote these things over 25 years ago, and that time there were hopes for a New International Economic Order (NIEO), coordinated by the UN organisation, UNCTAD. Regrettably, little came out of our hopes and work.

Cooperation and indigenous expertise

Usually, developing countries would need to work together in groups, split along lines that are seen as advantages to them in different cases, situations and geographic regions. The Organization for Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) is one example of such a split. The South Movement is another example, although very different, and the latter is in disrepute in some rich countries. Furthermore, it is important that developing countries have access to international forums, where analyses and strategies are developed, not only the forums where decisions are made (such as the UN, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund etc). However, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), which we just mentioned above, was one such forum, but it failed to produce any significant results when it was at its heights in the 1970s and early 1980s. Thus, we may also see more militant methods by developing countries in the future since the 'gentlemen's and gentlewomen's discussions' have achieved so little!

For many years development aid was mainly for infrastructure development, not for education and health, the so-called 'soft sectors' as opposed to the 'hard sectors'. Today the soft sectors are seen as giving more development effect. Yet, there is need for both. For example, construction of hydroelectric power plants, building of new roads and bridges, and maintenance of old ones, building of hospitals, universities and advanced research laboratories are all required and there is need for giving staff in developing countries good and stimulating working conditions and international cooperation linkages. However, we have not yet found a balance between the soft and hard sectors, and we have also not found a balance between levels within the sectors. For example, some will see assistance to basic education as important, and close their eyes to further and higher education. Others will overemphasise higher levels of education without considering that basic education may help masses of men and women to become able to work for their own economic and social development. Hopefully, Pakistan's important major increases in funding of public higher education will also be widened to the lower levels of education.

In our articles we underline the crucial importance of indigenous expertise within each country, and it is the local experts and elected politicians that should analyse and prioritise their country's needs, not foreigners, who stay for a few years at embassies or UN offices, and who are often only aid generalists and book-keepers. We have also expressed skepticism about the use of foreign consultants, because they may not be experts on the specific country and relevant implementation aspects, and they may also have certain vested interests.

However, we would like to emphasise foreign consultants and academicians, who indeed work as experts with loyalty to their scientific disciplines and subject matters, should be included in the process of development. But even such experts may be best for advice, not necessarily for making decisions and usually not as implementers of activities. An expert in special education can advise, but he or she should not 'run activities'. This is built on the understanding that a country's experts must themselves gain the experience needed, and the foreigners must get out of the way and 'not shade for the sun to shine'. Foreigners can support initiatives taken by locals and provide ideas, but not initiate concrete activities. There are many such important fields, of course, such as improved human and social rights, greater gender parity and freer regulations for labour unions. But it is the privilege of any country's inhabitants to decide on how and when to do things.

Micro-finance

In the private sector, it is probably easier for people to see that changes can be made fast, while changes in the public sector may take longer, though they are very important. It is probably also easy for the lay and the learned to see that access to capital is essential for micro-finance enterprises. We believe that such development is particularly important to empower poor men and women in developing countries, including in the least developed countries (LDCs).

Investment capital can be channeled from rich countries to poor countries to facilitate micro-finance, especially in countries with weak capital markets. Micro-finance will lead to poverty reduction, reduction in gender gap, improved possibilities for parents to send their children to school, better nutrition and health, and in general it will help people come out of the poverty trap. The rich countries can even get their money back, if the basic capital is given as a temporary credit. Grameen Bank in Bangladesh is the classic example of this kind of success, and it is also interesting to note that the vast majority of its good borrowers are women.

Questions for the future

Towards the end of this article we would like to pose some questions to the readers, experts and decision-makers in the developing countries, in our case to the people in Pakistan. Since many of the questions do not have clear-cut answers, they also need to be analysed and discussed, and if possible, comparisons made with other countries from which we can learn.

We have emphasised above the need for major increases in aid, but it should be administered in simpler ways than it's done today and allocated to fields decided more by the recipients who should also implement the projects and programmes themselves. We have underlined the need for expanded trade and greater access to markets -- all on fairer terms. We have said that there should be freer flow of labour, but that migration should be regulated, and if there is development in the South and in poor areas in remote regions in developing countries, most people will like to develop their own homelands. We have also emphasised the importance of investments in the South, not only in micro-finance enterprises, which will probably usually be aid-related and funds can come from within the country too, as poor countries do also have some very rich people who should be loyal to their own land. Investments should not only be small-scale but also in infrastructure and other costly fields. Let us add a few points concerning the latter, since we have not said much about that above.

What types of investments does a developing country want, and how can it attract investors? Is it sometimes wise to decline offers for investment even if the country is in dire need for 'any' foreign currency investment?

In Pakistan, it seems that information technology and telecommunications are attractive fields for foreign investors, so let us use those as case fields for a few questions.

Are IT and telecom the most important fields where Pakistan should use foreign investors? Will those investors bring important technology transfer to Pakistan and how will that happen? Will such investors tap resources over time and export capital from Pakistan to the rich countries, thus having an opposite effect of development aid? If Pakistan had had financing itself, would it not have been in a position to develop the said case fields without the foreign companies? Perhaps then, Pakistan would have chosen other more complex fields for foreign investments, such as hydroelectric power development, or modernisation of its textile industry, which is urgently needed to maintain market share in international trade?

Is it therefore credits and access to finance that are needed more than foreign companies to set up shop in the developing countries? How can financing be obtained so that developing countries keep control of the types and fields of investments?

In Pakistan's case, there is potential to attract money from the Pakistani diaspora, some three million strong, to invest in productive sectors at home, such as the relatively simple telecommunications sector. Already, Pakistanis abroad send home more money than what comes as aid, but it is often used for daily consumption needs by poor relatives rather than investments in productive sectors. But will Pakistanis abroad be able to invest enough? Or, perhaps we should establish consortiums with multiple financiers, including foreign companies too? Would the foreign workers and other Pakistanis abroad, some of them immigrants with relatives at home, trust the government and the private companies that would be the leaders in implementation of such projects? And, what rate of return would be gained?

Technology and knowledge transfer

Finally, let us try to draw a parallel to privatisation of higher education in the North as well as the South. Those sectors have always been, and will probably always mainly be government funded. But they need contact with the private sector, with industry and with international research and development community.

It is likely that technology transfer will come from such overseas linkages rather than from foreign companies in Pakistan. Currently, Pakistan is vigorously pursuing renewal and upgrading of its higher education institutions. Let us not forget that the government will have major responsibility for higher education, in any country. Foreign and local private companies should join hands and cooperate in technology transfer and development. The public sector has the leadership and policy role but this can happen in cooperation with the private sector, whose funding is also required.

It is our hope that the relatively new concept of policy coherence for development will be studied in great detail in the developing countries. If we want to reach the Millennium Development Goals by 2015, and specifically the MDG-8, which focuses on policy coherence and partnership in development, then we do indeed have to move fast.

Atle Hetland is a Norway-born international consultant currently based in Islamabad. E-mail: atlehetland@yahoo.com

A South Asian wish-list

A happy New Year to all the readers! A New Year is time to make resolutions for new beginnings and to wish for new hopes. In our fickle and unpredictable part of the world, resolutions are often something that cannot be kept. What the region does need, however, is a lot of things to aspire for. It is in this spirit that I am making New Year's wishes for the countries of South Asia, most importantly for their people, in the hope that at least some of these will come true.

For the people of India and Pakistan: A comprehensive peace settlement. This will need to first and foremost address the issue of Kashmir and, so that this can happen, both nations need to think imaginatively, drawing on successful models ranging from Andorra to Northern Ireland. They also need to respect the wishes of the people of Kashmir. But though Kashmir is the crux of the issue, it is not the only problem. There are several other things to be resolved, not least the legacy of mistrust and suspicion on both sides. And for this, nothing less is required than a radical change in the way of thinking in both countries.

For the people of India: An end to the myriad insurgencies that are plaguing the nation, from Kashmir and Assam to the multi-state Naxalite insurrection and the bewildering array of movements that are plaguing the small northeastern states beyond Assam. These rebellions have exacted a huge human cost over the years. The BBC estimates that the toll in India's longest-running insurgency in one tiny state alone, Nagaland, is more than 100,000 since the 1950s. But for this state of affairs to change, there needs to be a push for political solutions and for good governance, both in terms of addressing the grievances of the people and in improving their basic lives.

For the people of Pakistan: A move towards a more democratic, inclusive polity. Pakistan is poised for dramatic events in 2007, and let's hope that they portend a change for the better. The present situation, with power concentrated in a few hands and with the major opposition leaders outside the country, is untenable, especially in the long run. The state of affairs needs to be changed so that the voters of Pakistan have a real say in who is presiding over them. People of all nations deserve a voice in the running of their country, and Pakistan should be no exception to this rule.

For the people of Sri Lanka: An end to the horrible strife that has bedeviled the country. 2006 was an awful year for the country, since it saw the resumption of the civil war that had lain dormant for a while. The human toll has been horrendous, with at least 3,000 people being killed in the course of the past year. The Tigers and the government need to give up their intransigent stances, the Tigers in their ultraviolent campaign for a Tamil Eelam nation, and the government in its reluctance to grant any real autonomy to the Tamil areas. The international community, led by the Norwegians, needs to prod the two sides even more, since all its brave efforts have come to little so far.

For the people of Bangladesh: A functioning political system. In this nation, there is not even a minimal compromise that is the hallmark of functioning democracies. Khaleda Zia and Hasina Wajed detest and mistrust each other so much that they are willing to ruin the nation for their political shenanigans. The brave efforts of nongovernmental organisations (most famously exemplified by the current Nobel Peace Prize-winners Muhammad Yunus and Grameen Bank) have brought about some human development in the nation in spite of the feuding duo, but for further advances to be made, there needs to be a complete overhaul of the mindset of the ruling class, failing which the country will slide further and further into anarchy.

For the people of Nepal: A stable democracy. 2006 was a watershed year for the nation. It saw the king's wings clipped by the power of the people, and the Maoists pledged to forsake violence and join the political system. Will the peace process hold? Will the king be completely done away with? Will the Maoists keep their word, even if they are not able to get what they want? Will the politicians be able to stop squabbling and start providing decent government? The whole of South Asia will be watching.

For the people of Bhutan: modernity. King Jigme Singye Wangchuk has announced that he will be stepping down and handing power to his son, Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuk. Also promised is a dose of democracy by 2008. The king has shrewdly used Bhutan's unique Shangri-La image to maintain the monarchy's grip on power. (The reality of hundreds of thousands of ethnic Nepalis driven out by him does not seem to contradict that image.) Will Bhutan finally be brought into the modern world in 2007?

For the people of Afghanistan: (Here, I start moving beyond the traditional boundaries of South Asia to wish the best for two blighted neighbours.) A relief from their misery. Afghans have suffered deep enough and long enough over the past three decades. The people of Afghanistan need relief from the violence that they've been subjected to again with increasing frequency over the past year. They need relief from the misery of their daily lives that has made Afghanistan one of the most underdeveloped nations on earth. And they need relief from the mismanagement by the motley collection of warlords and thugs that rule over them to a large extent.

For the people of Burma: deliverance from their government. The Burmese regime qualifies as one of the most vile and wretched on the planet. Since the 1960s, successive military rulers have engaged in extremely brutal repression, shut the country off, economically ruined the nation, and foisted upon it (in the case of General Ne Win, in power from 1962 to 1988) policies often based on numerology and mumbo-jumbo rather than any rational considerations. Not too long ago, the regime announced it was moving the nation's capital inland into the middle of the jungle because of its fear of an external attack! This lot has got to go, and Nobel Peace Prize-winner and global icon Aung San Suu Kyi, whom the junta has had under arrest for close to two decades, has to be set free.

And, above all, for the people of South Asia: a wish for better lives. There is no good reason that the region should be so stalked by malnutrition, bad health, illiteracy and poverty. It takes a special perverse bureaucratic genius to have the proportion of malnourished children in the region roughly double that of sub-Saharan Africa! Surely, all of us deserve better than this. A radical new approach to governance is needed in the region.

Perhaps this is the most ambitious wish one can make for South Asia for the coming year: A happy and prosperous 2007 for everyone!

Amitabh Pal is the Managing Editor of an American magazine, The Progressive (www.progressive.org), a monthly political publication founded in 1909. This is his regular monthly column for Political Economy.

Sakuntala Kadirgamar-Rajasingham is the head of South Asia Programme of International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA), Stockholm, Sweden. She is a citizen of both the United States and Sri Lanka.

Kadirgamar joined International IDEA in 1998 and she holds degrees in law (University of Colombo, Sri Lanka), social sciences (University of Reading, United Kingdom) and doctorate in law (University of Sydney, Australia). Her doctoral dissertation addresses the problems of democracy in plural societies.

She has worked as programme officer at law and development studies division at the Marga Institute for Research and Development in Sri Lanka, as a consultant to the Law and Society Trust, Sri Lanka and also as consultant to the World Bank on the legal status of women in several African countries and on labour standards. Kadirgamar has been a regular contributor to publications on legal literacy for women, domestic violence, and on democratisation.

The News on Sunday got the opportunity to talk to her in Stockholm, Sweden, on various issues related to South Asia. Excerpts follow:

The News on Sunday: How do you look at the recent developments between Pakistan and India?

Sakuntala Kadirgamar-Rajasingham: I think President Pervez Musharraf has made a bold statement (on Kashmir) and provided a bottom line. This creates an opportunity for a very meaningful dialogue between India and Pakistan and I hope that it can be carried further. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh of India too has responded positively to President Musharraf's four point proposal: phased withdrawal of troops, local self-government, no change in the borders of Kashmir, and a joint supervisory mechanism for Jammu and Kashmir with India, Pakistan and Kashmir represented, and a guarantee that there will be no support from Pakistan for an independent Kashmir.

However, I hope that it resonates with the people of Kashmir too and that they will be a part of the process in determining levels and forms of local self-governance. Unless it appeals to them too, it will not bring the much needed peace and stability.

It is also important that bold political statements from high level leaders are followed through by appropriate policy measures to make them a reality. These statements, to bring about real policy changes, must also be supported by the militaries, bureaucrats, media etc of the respective countries. Every peace initiative has its spoilers and this has to be anticipated.

TNS: Sustainable democracy has always been a problem for Pakistan. What has been your own and IDEA's assessment of the factor that cause this problem?

SK: Pakistan has had an unfortunate history with a track record of military take-overs. The political institutions and processes vital for democracy -- that is, visionary political leadership committed to democracy, political parties and civil society -- have been weak and are periodically trumped by military take-over. The military justifies its dominant role on the grounds that it is the only institution that is capable of defending the country from the ever present security threats that the country faces. This has reinforced the weakness of the democratic political institutions. In the context of super-power rivalries and today's global war of terror, there is no strong international commitment to support or push for sustainable democracy in Pakistan either.

TNS: What should be done to establish a sustainable democracy in Pakistan?

SK: Whatever has to be done to establish sustainable democracy in Pakistan has to be done by the people of Pakistan themselves. Outsiders/external actors can help create the conditions but the thrust must come from the people. Given the history of coups, endemic corruption and developmental failures associated with the few democratic governments that did operate in Pakistan, it will take time to establish trust in the effectiveness of the democratic process. People's trust in the democratic process and in its institutions must be restored but trust takes a while to build up.

Today the military is seen as the only durable institution as it seen as professional and organised. But the military must come to terms with the fact that while they may be able to provide 'good governance' they can never establish democratic governance. If there is an interest in seeing sustainable democracy in Pakistan, the military must see its own national role in terms of providing security and not governance. Democratic institutions and actors (political parties, civil society, media) have to be able to develop a more consensus oriented approach to politics and not the present, divisive, conflict type politics. They must also be oriented towards delivering tangible benefits (in terms of human security, development) to the people. For democracy to survive and be sustainable, democracy needs democrats. People at all levels (not just the high leaders but ordinary citizens) must believe in democracy, support it and not subvert it. They should even fight for it. Pakistan needs to invest in civic education, political and civic literacy to ensure that the people will believe in and defend democracy against all odds -- as the people of Nepal have recently done.

TNS: How best can citizens in Pakistan assess, monitor and promote democracy?

SK: People need to debate and discuss democracy broadly and continuously: the quality of their public institutions, they ways in which their representatives are chosen and how they are controlled or monitored between electoral cycles, whether the system of government provides for and protects human rights in all its dimensions, among other issues. The IDEA has developed a framework which has been used in several countries (including Pakistan among other South Asian countries) to assess the state of democracy in this way, without ranking countries. It uses an actor-orientated approach and multiple methodologies -- surveys, the assessment frameworks, and dialogues with focus groups -- to determine the existence of democratic institutions and how they actually function. Democracy needs free and fair elections but it needs more. How the society is governed between elections, the rights that marginalised groups enjoy, the sense of security that people feel must be studied to know whether and what kind of democracy exists in a society. Democracy is more than freedom and people in Pakistan and the rest of Asia expect it to deliver on social justice as well.

TNS: What practical tools you suggest for promotion of democratic processes in Pakistan?

SK: I think a great deal of investment must be made on strengthening citizenship of men and women in Pakistan. This means expanding and deepening the right and opportunity to vote; create ways of teaching citizens the power and obligation they have in exercising their democratic rights.

Institutions that control the exercise of democratic rights must be curtailed and people must be encouraged to participate as stakeholders in their government from local level to the national parliament. The political institutions and processes that are designed must take into account the country's social, economic and political realities, and its demography. Stability in neighboring Afghanistan also impacts on Pakistan. Pakistan has to deal with the regional issues that have led to instability and also with religious fundamentalism. Democracy depends on values of pluralism and tolerance and it requires dialogue to be the basis of identifying and addressing problems. There has to be a culture of dialogue that will replace the resort to violence as a first step to solving problems. But this is not unique to Pakistan. Many countries in the region need to be mindful of this.

TNS: The transparency of general elections has always been questioned in Pakistan even by organisations like the Europeans Union Elections Observation Mission. With elections approaching in 2007 in Pakistan, how do you foresee the veracity of these elections in the context of the country's earlier electoral experience?

SK: Free and fair elections depend on many issues. Can all the political parties compete equally and field candidates of their choice? Can they campaign without fear or intimidation? Will they have access to the media to get their messages across? Is party financing an issue where smaller parties do not have the financial resources to campaign? Will the election laws be administered fairly by watchdog institutions and will the police and military be neutral? Is the judiciary impartial and credible in making its rulings? There must be a probability that changes can take place through elections and that elections are not merely exercises to re-affirm incumbency. These are among the criteria that are looked for to determine if elections are free and fair.

For institutions to be impartial, they need a legal framework that will bolster its independence and it will need people who will exercise that independence.

Everything can not be left to laws and legal frameworks. As I said before, Pakistan needs democrats committed to preserving democracy at all levels in society -- as public officials and as voters.

If election monitors and observers are serious about ensuring free and fair elections, they must also address the structural framework and context in which elections are held while also focusing on events on election day -- levels of violence, intimidation, corruption etc.

TNS: In Pakistan's tribal areas, especially Waziristan, a conflict like situation prevails even after the government's agreement with the militants there. How do you evaluate Pakistan's policy of dealing with the Taliban sympathisers in its tribal areas?

SK: Pakistan faces many problems in the tribal areas -- given its porous borders with Afghanistan, the sensitivities of managing the tribal areas (which in any event are not easily controlled and administered), the kinship ties that many Pakistanis in the border areas have with the Taliban and other Afghans -- that make heavy handed tactics unpopular and difficult to enforce. It is not possible to simply classify the militants as enemy aliens and strike at them. The pacts and treaties with the militants simply affirm the reality that they are difficult to dislodge and destroy. If the Pakistan government could effectively do that (that is, if it had both the military and political capacity to carry such measures) they probably would have done so. However, buying time through such a strategy and keeping the militants in place is also a risky strategy as it gives them a base to consolidate their power too (even as the Pakistan government consolidates itself to deal with the problem at a later date).

TNS: Under-representation of number of groups in political and electoral processes in Pakistan, especially of women, has greatly hindered democratic and institutional development. How the situation could be remedied?

SK: Again, there has to be a long term investment in education (civic as well as literacy programmes) to make people aware of their rights and the rights of others and economic measures taken to raise the living standards of women. Women have consistently been marginalised on grounds of social custom and religion and this has effectively created an under-class of 50 per cent of the population. Likewise tribal areas have not been developed for decades.

If Pakistan does not develop all its human resources its development inevitably suffers. I think the special representation of women needs to be bolstered and budgets specially allocated to improve the political and economic status of women. This will help enhance their social status in the community too.

I think the recent Nobel peace prize given to Mohammed Yunus recognises that change can be effected over time through micro-finance and literacy programmes targeted at women and it is something for the South Asian region to consider advancing.

TNS: In Pakistan, there are no genuine national or mainstream parties. Almost all the parties more or less have regional complexions. What sort of impact such a situation does have in establishing real democracies?

SK: The fact that parties have a regional base and identities will restrict the national appeal that they have. Having some national parties or leaders with national appeal is an asset. But if this is the reality, the only way around it is for the regional parties to become more adept at coalition politics. They will have to recognise that while representing their regions they have to also develop national agendas and link themselves to other parties that have similar national agendas. In recent years India has had coalition governments where strong regional parties have played a role. What may seem as a disadvantage initially, could actually lead to a more bottom-up (from the region to the center) approach to development. But it needs skilled politicians to manage this relationship and the expectations that it creates.

TNS: What is IDEA's assessment of Afghanistan's democracy? Is it progressing in the right direction? What are the problems in the establishment of democracy there?

SK: Afghanistan has re-engaged in developing a democratic government after decades of conflict, economic and social devastation and so it will take time. It is too soon to talk of Afghanistan's democracy. Yes, they have a constitution and have held elections but the state has to consolidate itself, provide security beyond Kabul, provide development opportunities so that people can earn living wages, and the economy need not be dependent on the drug trade and the instabilities that it creates. The conflict has displaced so many people who have lived for decades in camps. Communities have to be re-established and they must have the confidence that fighting will not erupt again to drive them from their villages.

A lot of international assistance comes in during the early stages and may well dry up (in the later stages). So people have to establish livelihoods and become self-reliant. Corruption also takes over and much assistance gets siphoned off or spent on the wrong priorities so their must be more oversight.

TNS: Of late, there has been a surge in violence in Sri Lanka between the government troops and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). Where is this conflict going to take the country?

SK: Yes, the conflict has re-ignited in Sri Lanka and, although not formally abrogated, the peace process is all but dead in Sri Lanka. An invaluable opportunity has been lost again and I anticipate an intensification of the conflict, thousands dying over the next few years, more bitterness between the communities and a deeper economic crisis before the parties recognise that a negotiated political settlement is needed.

Sri Lanka is a highly centralised, unitary state and at the heart of the conflict is the need to provide autonomy for the minorities. Until and unless this is provided, the conflict will go on in various degrees of intensity.

TNS: In South Asia, almost all countries have their conflict zones. Is there any common denominator of these conflicts?

SK: There are many conflict zones in South Asia and many of the conflicts appear to be based on identity issues. But I believe that identity is used to mark people away from each other when they are in fact fighting over scarce resources. So at the heart of the conflict are really unmet human security needs. People are struggling for jobs, land, and the means to earn a living and religion, language and regional identities are often used to demarcate who should have the preferred right of access.

All the countries in South Asia must seriously address the needs of their growing populations or frustrated people, especially the frustrated youth who have nothing to aspire to, will turn to extremism and violence to secure a place for themselves.

The views expressed in this interviewee are Sakuntala Kadirgamar-Rajasingham's own and not necessarily those of IDEA's council, board and management.

Introduction

The awful killing of women under the pretext of 'honour' has, unfortunately, been an old custom in this part of the world. In fact, everyday incidents of 'honour killing' are reported from across Pakistan, though most of the cases are taking place in upper Sindh province. A consensus has evolved in civil society that there is a dire need to devise a comprehensive strategy aimed at tackling this pernicious problem. Moreover, in order of take corrective measures and effectively counter this deplorable custom, the realisation has been increasing in state institutions.

This brief report highlights the most common causes of 'honour killing' and looks at the prevailing legal system and the role of state institutions in their failure to deter perpetrators of unabated 'honour killings'. It further makes appropriate recommendations for safeguarding hapless women against brutal murders committed in the name of honour.

It is a pity that so-called honour killings continue to be reported daily, taking place at an alarming rate in Pakistan and with virtual impunity in the garb of tradition. Indeed, the killing of girls and women is simply brutal murder that leaves no room for an alternative explanation in the name of culture or traditions. Even if the tradition had certain norms in the past, their existence does not preclude tradition from being shaped by new realties. Furthermore, this 'honour system' is derived from tribal traditions in Pakistan, which are in conflict with other traditions in national life, such as Islam and liberal democracy.

There is no denying that it is the foremost duty of the state to ensure the protection of the universally recognised fundamental rights of its citizens, including the right of life. The government of Pakistan in the past few years under President Pervez Musharraf has taken some encouraging steps. Some courts have made progressive rulings benefiting women and have officially condemned these gruesome acts of honour killings. However, there is an immediate need to focus on this burning issue with even more sincerity.

The steps required to root out the menace of karo-kari, or honour killings, are well within the powers of the government to implement and do not require a large investment of resources. They do, however, require political will and the determination that these abuses will be no longer tolerated. For change to take place, apart from the government, every one has a part to play -- political parties, religious groups, all elements of civil society and individuals. Everyone has a responsibility to commit themselves to the equality of all human beings, irrespective of gender, age and social status.

Historically unequal power relations

Political, economic and social processes that have evolved for centuries have kept men in a position of power and have effectively made women second-class citizens. This social hierarchy has resulted in laws and practices that politically and economically put women at a disadvantage.

Control of women's sexuality

Traditionally, women have been subjected to intimidation and grave violations of their physical and mental integrity by members of their families as well as groups and institutions in the community in order to control their sexuality.

Cultural ideology

Cultures define gender roles. While some cultural ideologies promote women's rights, conversely, there are customs, traditions and religious values in many societies that are used to justify violence against women.

Doctrine of privacy

The persistent belief that violence against women within the family or intimate relationships is considered to be a private matter has permitted the practice to continue without countering any hindrance. It is alleged that the state itself enforces the control of women through a legal system that discriminates against women, such as through family laws, like those related to marriage, inheritance and custody, and criminal laws.

Government inaction

A lack of action on the part of the government institutions to prevent and end violence against women makes them complicit in the violence and creates an environment where perpetrators act with impunity. The government negligence establishes a tolerance of violence against women that creates a culture of silence, discouraging women from seeking support and protection from the state and its agents.

Tribal justice system or the jirga system

In most parts of the country, disputes related to zar (money), zan (women) and zameen (land) are settled by conflicting parties in a traditional tribal justice system, or jirga, which has become a parallel justice system severely affecting the rights of women. Regrettably, the jirgas held are usually male-dominated, and there is no representation of women permitted. Even when women are the victims, they are not heard, and hence, they are discriminatory in nature.

Gender bias in the law

Although Article 7 and 25 of the 1973 Constitution explicitly define the equality of women with men and their entitlement to equal protection of the law and with equal opportunities disregarding sexual orientation, the law of qisas (retaliation of a similar nature) and diyat (compensation) covering offences relating to physical injury and murder does not conform to these standards. Section 302, a penal section for the offence of murder, is a compoundable offence. In honour killing, usually the accused and the heir of the victim are close relatives. Hence, they are bound to compromise. As a result, the compoundability clause is widely abused to the disadvantage of women who are victims.

Recommendations

The government should recognise women's rights as universal, inseparable, incontrovertible and integral. The government should guarantee the equality of women in the constitution and statutory law of Pakistan and should meet its international obligations, like those contained in the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women (CEDAW) and the convention on the rights of the child (CRC), which the government of Pakistan has ratified, that oblige the government to take due diligence to prevent, scrutinise and punish violence against women and girl children.

The government needs to take measures in the following three areas to eliminate the menace of honour killings and to effectively deter perpetrators of this gory crime against humanity.

• Legal measures, including penal sanctions and compensatory provisions, to protect women against honour-related violence.

• Preventive measures, including educational and media strategies, that will contribute to overcoming discrimination against women.

• Protective measures, including victim counseling, rehabilitation and support services, like shelter for women at risk of honour-related violence.

As a first step, the government should firmly, publicly and unequivocally condemn violence in the name of honour and should send an unambiguous signal that such violence will not be tolerated. In addition to it, the government should also make it obvious that anyone taking the law into their own hands to injure or kill another person in the name of honour will be brought to justice by putting them behind the bar.

Legal measures

• Undertake a review of the criminal laws, and enact any amendment to ensure equality before the law and extend equal protection of the law to women, including under the law of qisas and diyat, the Evidence Act and Zina Ordinace.

• Let off murder from compensability when it is committed for the motive of 'honour killing' to avoid its misuse, for, as mentioned above, murder is a compoundable offence in accordance with the Qisas and Diyat Ordinance.

• Amend the law to define a new offence of murder in which motive is 'honour killing', which will deny the culprits the benefit of compensability.

• Adopt legislation which makes domestic violence in all its manifestations a criminal offence, and ensure that all law enforcement officers, police personnel and judicial workers are made fully aware of the obligation to enforce it.

• Provide women who are subjected to violence with access to the mechanisms of justice, to just and effective remedies for the harm they have suffered, and inform women of their rights to seek redress through such mechanisms.

• Consider the adoption of legal reforms in the area of criminal and family law.

Preventive measures

• Undertake wide-ranging public awareness programmes through the electronic and print media, the education system and public announcements to inform both men and women of women's equal rights.

• Provide gender sensitisation training to law enforcement and judicial personnel in particular to enable them to impartially address complaints of violence in the name of 'honour' and ensure that data and statistics are collected in a manner that guarantees that the problem of 'honour killings' is made visible.

Protective measures

• Ensure that human rights activists, lawyers and women's rights groups can pursue their legitimate activities without harassment or phobia of the physical safety of themselves and their families by providing adequate police protection to those exposed to threats and harassment as well as to public and privately run shelters for women.

• Expand victim support services provided by the state and non-governmental organisations (NGOs), which should be operated as places of voluntary recourse for women.

Only a few weeks ago, Pakistan and India exchanged the lists of their nuclear installations. The purpose of the exercise is that these installations will not be attacked by the two countries in the event of any conflict. But exchanging lists is not a sufficient cover for an unwarranted action by either country. Only a relationship that is based on trust and willingness to resolve all issues and is backed by economic and commercial links as well as strong support from the international community can guarantee that Pakistan and India don't go to war against each other.

Can we, therefore, now start thinking of a forward looking strategy which does not stop at the mere exchange of nuclear installations and thus ensure that the threat of any nuclear or conventional attack is extinguished for ever? The fact that other countries have successfully done that only serves to highlight the inadequacy of the current approach India and Pakistan are employing to resolve their differences.

Even if we confine resolving the problem of nuclearisation of India and Pakistan, a successful model to emulate exists in the form of the Argentine-Brazilian nuclear rapprochement.

During the colonial era, two European powers (Spain in Argentina and Portugal in Brazil) expanded their own rivalry through territorial conquests in South America. Even after their independence (Argentina in 1816 and Brazil in 1822), the rivalry between the independent states continued to reflect their colonial past. Competition for the leadership of South America -- with elements of antagonism, rivalry, and mistrust -- was always present in the bilateral relationships between Argentina and Brazil.

Though the South American experience can be valuable for India and Pakistan , one important difference must be kept in mind. While Argentine and Brazil were competitors and rivals for the leadership of South America, they were not enemies. The only war between them took place in 1825, more than a century-and-a-half ago, giving birth to a new (buffer) state, the Uruguay, through the peace treaty of 1828. Since then, their relations have alternated between cooperation and competition, but not a single shot has ever been fired. Even a bitter border dispute between them was resolved by arbitration, not war. In 1985, the time came when it was decided to put an end once and for all to the rivalry and mistrust that had pervaded bilateral relations for too long, especially by focusing on social and economic relations.

Beginning with the 1980s, Argentina and Brazil initiated efforts towards a nuclear rapprochement and by 1985 this process developed in earnest. The period from 1985 to date can be divided into two stages: During the first period, (1985-1988) purely bilateral approach to the issue was undertaken while the second period between 1989 and the present had dual objectives: first, to give a legally-binding character to the agreements already signed by the two countries, and second, to take these obligations to the international field, making the two nations part of the regional and global non-proliferation regimes.

It is in this endeavor that these two countries along with Paraguay and Uruguay formed the South American Common Market (the MERCUSOR) in 1991 which was later joined by Chile in 1996 and Bolivia in 1997. The aim of the formation of the common market was to enhance trade and investment opportunities because these Latin American countries had realised that closer and deeper economic relations facilitated by free trade would further strengthen understanding, faith, confidence and mutual cooperation among themselves.

But if we want to go beyond the nuclear sphere and bring in all the various aspects of bilateral relationship between India and Pakistan, the world is not devoid of lessons that can be easily learnt. There are several examples offered in the history where belligerent neighbouring countries have moved from hatred, antagonism, rivalry and mistrust to understanding, trust, faith and cooperation thereby enhancing peace and prosperity between themselves and in the region.

It took several decades after the World War II to mend relations between the people of Germany and those of France. The formation of the European Union, giving rise to higher levels of economic well being resulting from enhanced economic cooperation, has been instrumental in reducing the enmities -- not only between France and Germany but across the Western Europe -- and receding the memories of the atrocities of the World War II from the minds of most people, especially of the next generation which came of age by the 1970s. Given that bitter memories of the Nazi atrocities remained vivid among people in Europe even many decades after the World War II, especially among those living in Poland, Holland and Russia, this should be deemed no minor achievement.

Given the high level of economic and other cooperation among different member countries of Asean (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) , it is hard to believe that Thailand was on the American side in the Vietnam war, that Vietnam invaded Cambodia in 1975, that Vietnam and China fought in 1979 and that Thailand had a border skirmish with Laos as recently as 1988. Regional co-operation has come a long way since then.

There are several lessons that can be derived from the friendship, cooperation and peace-making process across the globe. First and foremost, to be successful, an exercise of this kind must be based on a sincere purpose of reaching agreements to end nuclear race and/or cross border terrorism and establish a climate of mutual confidence. No moves in this field can have the slightest chance of success if they are taken with the ulterior motive of destabilising the other party or lulling it into a false sense of security. As a first step, a country should open itself to the other party, on the understanding that this policy will be reciprocated. Information should flow fully and freely from one country to the other. Of course, the climate of mutual trust thus attained will not last if flanking and additional measures do not follow to give it a permanent character.

Such additional measures include to keep talking: it's never over until it's over. Secondly, constructive engagement works better than pressure: Renewed efforts for willingness to support bilateral confidence-building measures would lead to more progress than diplomacy-based political criticism accusing each other for cross-border terrorism (which of course needs strong action by both the sides).

Thirdly, regional cooperation infrastructure projects have a potential for the improvement of the well being of all parties involved. The East-West Economic Corridor, a 1500 Km long highway project crossing 6 GMS (Greater Mekong Sub-region) countries in the Southeastern Asia connecting South China Sea to Indian Ocean and the Middle East regional cooperation projects are some good examples in this regard. In the same vein the mega-economic projects like the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan and the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline projects would help in promoting trust and regional economic cooperation between India and Pakistan.

Lastly, it may be beneficial to look for opportunities where the United States (and European Union) foreign policy can support bilateral initiatives that can have positive proliferation. For example, river diplomacy in Argentina accelerated bilateral cooperation in the nuclear area. The current initiative to expand upon 'bus diplomacy' in India and Pakistan should receive strong US and EU support. Similarly, India and Pakistan can benefit if the US offers them Qualifying Industrial Zones (like the ones in which exports from Jordan and Egypt containing inputs from Israel enter duty-free into the US market) under the Generalized System of Preferences of international trade.

Skeptics would argue that in the case of India and Pakistan, the Kashmir dispute is sui generis and thus the improvement of relations is dependent upon its resolution. In this case, one can draw lessons from North Ireland, which has been a bone of contention between the United Kingdom and Ireland as well as a huge number of people living in Norhern Ireland. The Irish Republican Army has agreed to lay down its arms, and has also stopped any terrorist activity either in Ireland or in the UK, after thirty years of conflict. Can the same not be attempted in Kashmir, which has become a similarly intractable problem between India and Pakistan as well among the people living in various parts of Jammu and Kashmir.

Fortunately, due to various internal as well as external reasons, a window of opportunity is opening wide for improving relations between India and Pakistan. Both the Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf and Indian Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh (apparently due to their own reasons) have suggested ways forward to craft peace among the two nuclear countries. Similarly, people in both the countries and in Kashmir have a strong yearning for peace. They are dreaming of a South Asia free of hunger, poverty and under-development. Like past 59 years, they have been wishing for a new year during which their governments would shift the huge resources being spent on defence expenditures to developmental expenditures. On New Year's eve, which incidentally was the Eid-eve in India and Pakistan too, many expressed their desire to celebrate festival across the border on various private TV channels. Should we not imagine a South Asia full of peace and harmony? Should we not let peace work for prosperity? Should cross border tourism not take over cross border terrorism? There seem to be a little ray of hope from the top. It is about time that we create the pressure from the bottom and facilitate the peace process between two nuclear nations through enhanced economic relations.

Some political observers are defining a new South Asia as a region where various types of freedoms can be realised -- that is, freedom from want, freedom from fear, and freedom to live with dignity. This is premised on the axiom that every single individual on earth has both the potential and the right to live a decent life. Let us work for a new South Asia in 2007 and grab any opportunity for a long lasting peace following the examples in South America, Europe, and Southeast Asia.

By Kaleem Omar

Over the last 25 years the United States has exercised its veto powers in the UN Security Council more than 40 times to block resolutions seeking to condemn Israel for its barbaric