After relativism, what?
Does relativity of development models mean that we are condemned to live with the inequalities and injustices that various models invariably exhibit?
By Tipu Sultan
Mankind has been too long in the business of conceiving and propagating models based on truthfulness only, and it was the decisive intervention of empiricism that created a niche for truth. Truth remains relative, but probably only in relation to times and ontological development of societies and not necessarily in relation to traditional cultures or individual dispositions. It also needs to be underlined that truth and truthfulness are not mutually exclusive. 

In meritocratic societies, ranking citizens should matter much. In a meritocratic global order, same should hold true for countries. But it's easy for a ranking agency to be objective and neutral when it is comparing more or less similar people and the ones not quite different from those doing the ranking. Ranking countries is much harder. First it involves comparing countries with widely differing socio-economic and cultural indicators and then it is done, almost without exception, by agencies based in one part of the world -- Western Europe and North America. This should leave room for some political/cultural bias towards the countries of South. Another question that needs to be asked about these rankings is regarding their methodology which may not capture local nuances in order to achieve a universally accepted formula.

It is in this context that all the various rankings of Pakistan done by various international fora should be seen, though it is quite obvious that some of them can be immensely helpful in steering the country towards better times in different spheres of life. But that can happen only if we don't just keep dismissing all the various reports and rankings about the state of polity in Pakistan.

Seen this way, all the various rankings of Pakistan issued of late should have a thing or two to say about the country. Take, the latest report by the Transparency International (TI). It has placed Pakistan at 142nd position in a ranking of 163 countries under its Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) of 2006. This index shows that the top most corrupt countries in 2006 were Haiti, Guinea, Iraq and Myanmar.

But this does not make Pakistan's ranking anything to be proud of. The TI has assigned the country only 2.2 points on an index which gives maximum of 9.6 points to Iceland, Finland and New Zealand for being the least corrupt. (The Transparency ranks countries on a scale from zero to 10, with zero indicating high levels of perceived corruption and 10 indicating low levels of perceived corruption.)

The other least corrupt countries are Denmark, Singapore, Sweden, Switzerland, Norway, Netherlands and and Australia whereas the most corrupt countries near the top are Belarus, Cambodia , Cote d'Ivoire, Equatorial Guinea, Uzbekistan, Democratic Republic of Congo, Chad, Bangladesh and Sudan.

The latest index covers the highest number of countries -- 163. The TI in its last index in 2005 had covered 159 countries. In 2004, the figure stood at 133. In 2005 Pakistan was ranked 144 with a corruption index score of 2.1. In 2004, the country scored 2.5 on the index. This shows that Pakistan has improved its score only by one decimal point as compared to its score last year but has lost three points if compared to its score in 2004. Pakistan was declared the second most corrupt country in 1990s, during the second Benazir Bhutto government. This ranking had earned a bad name to the country, prompting authorities to do something about it while at the same time questioning the authenticity and the validity of the TI's index.

It's a telling critique on the working of the governments in Pakistan that they have invariably denied the veracity of the TI's index. Though Pakistan's ranking has improved a bit since 1990s, this does not prove that corruption has receded in the country. Perhaps the countries falling behind Pakistan have become even more corrupt than they used to be. Even if this is not the case, the perennial state of denial by almost all Pakistani governments vis-a-vis corruption ranking hardly helps the country's cause.

But the problem is not just one report by a single forum. There are many other agencies that annually rank countries, including Pakistan, according to the state of their economy, politics and society.

Some of these rankings are considered important by companies as well as donors which give them at least some consideration to such figures in their long-term dealings with the government. For instances, rankings by agencies like the Standard & Poor's sovereign ratings and the 'Ease of Doing Business' ranking by the World Bank are considered some of the barometers to assess a country's economic situation. Recently both these agencies have released their reports on the economic situation in Pakistan.

The Singapore-based Standard & Poor's Ratings Services, in its recent report, has raised Pakistan's long-term sovereign credit ratings by one notch, to 'B+' for foreign currency and 'BB' for local currency. The rating agency said the upgrades reflected declining debt and debt-servicing burdens, as well as sustained economic progress. The rating actions also reflect Pakistan's moderate external liquidity position, the agency said.

These sovereign ratings are a crucial assessment tool for investors and business people seeking information about financial risks involved in investing in developed and emerging markets worldwide.

"Though the rankings by leading institutions about a country have no immediate impact on the economy, for the long-term these reports do have some impact," says Muzammil Aslam, a senior economist at KASB Securities. He says most of these organisations have reputation for basing their rankings on solid data, analysed objectively. Companies and investors, therefore, do give them consideration before finalising a deal with a country or with companies working in that country, he adds.

That is, if the methods employed by these rating agencies are not questioned by the countries concerned as well as independent analysts. Sometimes, data collection by those organisations can be questioned because the methodology for this can be easily influenced by any interested party.

"It is true that the findings of these ranking agencies can be sometimes politically influenced, says Muzammil. For example, in Pakistan's case, Shaukat Aziz factor has influenced most of the reports by leading financial institutions like the International Monitory Fund (IMF), International Finance Corporation (IFC) and the World Bank (WB). These donors have started giving positive reports about Pakistan due to his (Shaukat Aziz's) influence within these organisations," he claims.

Influence or no, the country is slipping down on some important international rankings. In a report called the 'Ease of Doing Business', the World Bank has ranked Pakistan at 74 in its latest report, eight points below its ranking in 2005. Singapore, New Zealand, United States, Canada and Hong Kong are among the top ranked countries in the 'Ease of Doing Business' report. Higher rankings indicate better, usually simpler, regulations for businesses and stronger protections of property rights.

The 'Ease of Doing Business' report is co-sponsored by the World Bank and the International Finance Corporation (IFC), the private sector arm of the World Bank Group. This report ranks countries in the following categories: Starting a business, dealing with licences, employing workers, registering property, getting credit, protecting investors, paying taxes, trading across borders, enforcing contracts and closing a business.

Although Pakistan has been striving hard to attract foreign direct investment and its privatisation programme is driven by attracting more foreign fundings for local businesses, these reports indicate that a lot of things still need to be done in this regard.

Still on purely economic rankings, Pakistan has improved its standing during the last six years, though its rank still compares unfavourably with those of other developing countries like India and China. Most importantly, Pakistan still lags behind in its efforts to alleviate poverty and improve its social indicators. The World Bank and some other donors have been highlighting these shortcomings in their reports.

Though the country has achieved robust economic growth during the last two/three years, social indicators remain very depressing. In fact, some of them mar the economic performance of the country which is not resulting in the uplift of all and sundry.

A large segment of the country's population lives below poverty line. According to the government statistics, per capita income has risen to $720 but poverty rates, which had fallen substantially in the 1980s and early 1990s, have started rising again. Poverty varies significantly among rural and urban areas and from province to province, from a low of 14 per cent in urban Sindh to 41 per cent in rural NWFP.

According to the World Bank's Country Overview 2006, "Pakistan has grown much more than other low-income countries, but has failed to achieve social progress commensurate with its economic growth. The educated and well-off urban population lives not so differently from their counterparts in other countries of similar income range. However, the poor and rural inhabitants of Pakistan are being left behind. For example, access to sanitation in Pakistan in rural areas is 30 per cent lower than in other countries with similar income."

The World Bank report further said the progress remained slow on maternal health with only a third of births attended by skilled personnel. "Low contraceptive use and increasing prevalence of HIV/AIDS among vulnerable population subgroups continue to pose significant challenges. Meeting the MDGs (Millennium Development Goals) by 2015 (including reduction of infant and child mortality by two thirds and maternal mortality by three quarters) will require...renewed efforts to expand coverage in rural areas with a focus on maternal health services and enhancing existing (facilities) to combat HIV/AIDS epidemic."

Another important way to gauge a country's social progress is the famous Human Development Index (HDI) issued by United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) every year. The HDI measures the average progress of a country in human development. This year it has ranked Pakistan 134th out of 177 countries. One reason for this dismal performance is low spending on education and health by the government.

The Human Poverty Index for developing countries (HPI-1) focuses on the proportion of people below a threshold level. It analyses the same dimensions of human development as the human development index does -- living a long and healthy life, having access to education, and a decent standard of living. By looking beyond income deprivation, HPI-1 represents a multi-dimensional alternative to the one dollar a day poverty measure. The HPI-1 ranks Pakistan 65th among 102 developing countries for which the index has been calculated.

While the HDI measures average achievements in a country, it does not incorporate the degree of gender imbalance in these achievements. The gender-related development index (GDI) measures achievements in the same dimensions using the same indicators as the HDI but captures inequalities in achievement between women and men. It is simply the HDI adjusted downward for gender inequality. The greater the gender disparity in basic human development, the lower is a country's GDI relative to its HDI.

If Pakistan's GDI value, 0.513, is compared to its HDI value of 0.539, it turns out that the former is 95.2 per cent of the latter. Out of the 136 countries with both HDI and GDI values, 132 countries have a better ratio than Pakistan's.

Similarly, Pakistan ranks 66 out of 75 countries in gender empowerment measure (GEM). The GEM reveals whether women take an active part in economic and political life. It tracks the share of seats in parliament held by women, of female legislators, senior officials and managers and of female professional and technical workers. It also covers gender disparity in earned income, reflecting economic independence. Differing from GDI, GEM exposes inequality in opportunities in selected areas.

While questions will always be asked about the methodology and the authenticity of these indices, they go a long way in highlighting what's wrong with a country's polity. Pakistan can be no exception, only if it starts taking these indices and rankings seriously in order to improve its standing.

Doing Business 74 66 -8

Starting a Business 54 44 -10

Dealing with License 89 93 +4

Employing Workers 126 120 -6

Registering Property 68 57 -11

Getting Credit 65 59 -6

Protecting Investors 19 18 -1

Paying Taxes 140 143 +3

Trading Across Borders 98 117 +19

Enforcing Contracts 163 163 0

Closing a Business 46 34 -12

Note: 2005 rankings have been recalculated to reflect changes to the 2006 methodolgy and the addition of 20 new countries.

It is agreed that Pakistan needs to enact an Anti-Money Laundering legislation to comply with its international obligations and commitments. However, there is a growing consensus that the Anti-Money Laundering bill presently pending before the parliament be modified to accurately incorporate these obligations.

In the wake of post 9/11 counter-terrorism efforts, and a universal desire to eliminate financing opportunities for sponsoring acts of terrorism, it has become crucial for states to be able to keep track of any suspect transfers of money. This requires the assistance of financial institutions and most banks have already developed compliance departments with specific Anti Money Laundering (AML) contact points within such departments. However, Pakistan needs to enact a proper legislation for ensuring such compliance, and properly investigating, criminalising and prosecuting money-laundering offences.

The enactment of an anti-money laundering law has been an agenda item at most top level meetings and Pakistan has been under pressure for the quick passage of the said law from western governments, loan granting institutions and other international forums such as the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) and the Asia Pacific Group (APG).

Furthermore, United Nation Security Council Resolution 1617, passed under Chapter VII of the UN Charter and therefore binding on all member countries, "Strongly urges all member states to implement the comprehensive international standards embodied in the FATF Forty Recommendations on Money Laundering and the FATF Nine Special Recommendations on Terrorist Financing".

The Financial Action Task Force, an inter-governmental body whose purpose is the development and promotion of national and international policies to combat money laundering and terrorist financing, developed the Forty plus Nine Recommendations, which now form the benchmark for anti-money laundering initiatives and measures.

The AML bill is presently pending before the parliament for approval and the National Assembly Standing Committee on Finance & Revenue has already been briefed by Minister of State for Finance Omar Ayub Khan on the said bill earlier this month and the committee has also made certain objections to the provisions so far discussed.

The committee is likely to discuss the rest of the bill in the coming week and since the provisions of the bill are now under consideration and the text of the bill has been opened up by the committee itself for discussion, the Research Society of International Law (RSIL) thought it appropriate to conduct a workshop for the stakeholders to highlight and discuss its concerns regarding the text of the bill. The said workshop was attended by representatives from 20 governmental, sub-state and financial organisations and a productive debate on the subject was thus initiated.

It is pertinent to mention that the said committee has not yet been given any legal briefing on the bill as such. However, RSIL is likely to be invited by the committee for a formal presentation on the bill.

Eminent lawyer and international law expert, Ahmer Bilal Soofi is of the opinion that the bill presently being debated in the parliament travels far beyond the minimum requirements of compliance. According to him, the bill needs to be modified; otherwise, it shall create serious operational impediments which will even make the minimum compliance more difficult. Resultantly, at the end of the day, despite having made the law, the international community will view Pakistan as not seriously complying with anti-money laundering measures and obligations. Soofi represented Pakistan in the UN General Assembly negotiations on the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCOC), which contained provisions on money laundering and also participated in the FATF/APG evaluation of Pakistan's compliance.

From another point of view, Pakistan, by virtue of being a developing country should strive to adopt anti-money laundering and terrorist financing policies in order to help, protect and build its economy.

In this regard RSIL considers that there is no need to create special courts on anti-money laundering, as proposed in the bill. The charge of money laundering should be framed either in the courts that try to predicate offences or in general courts as a stand-alone charge. Other states have not encouraged setting up specialised anti-money laundering courts. Moreover, the FATF recommendations do not require it, then why should Pakistan set up a parallel judicial system for prosecuting offences that are inherently linked with existing offences that are tried in existing courts?

Furthermore, under international requirements, money laundering should be prosecutable as a stand-alone crime without first convicting an offender for the predicate offence. The proposed law does not comply with this obligation.

RSIL maintains that the definition of money laundering in the proposed bill is also flawed. The correct definition is found in the Vienna Convention or the Palermo Convention. The said definitions are approved by FATF. They calibrate the role of the main offender and the accomplice with penal consequences, whereas, the definition in the present bill is unnecessarily wide.

RSIL also maintains that the bill must specifically exclude such remittances that are made for avoidance of income tax as fiscal offences are not included in the list of predicate offences. Furthermore, there is a need for a provision to clarify if the law will be applicable to money laundered prior to its coming into force.

The existing bill formulates a complex and a confusing regime, both for rendering assistance and to obtain assistance in money laundering investigations and prosecutions. We are of the view that the said provisions be replaced with provisions similar to the ones on mutual legal assistance found in article 46 of United Nations Convention Against Corruption and article 18 of United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organised Crime; as the same are considered to be accurate legislative formulations of the MLA regime.

RSIL team is of the view that the Financial Monitoring Unit (FMU), being created under the proposed bill, which will be authorised to receive reports on suspicious financial transactions from the banks, has been given unnecessarily wide powers of summoning, production of record and conducting investigation. Hardly any other state has done so.

FATF recommendations also do not require this. Therefore, the investigative powers of the FMU should be withdrawn and the bill be modified accordingly, otherwise, this will have serious implications for banks and other financial institutions in the country in terms of compliance and reporting requirements. Investigation should only be the domain of the prosecuting agency that has a functional link with the predicate offence.

Moreover, most of the provisions of the existing bill have been copied from the flawed Indian law titled 'The Prevention of Money Laundering Act' passed in 2002. While, there is no harm in copying good provisions from Indian legislations on the same subject, this particular Indian law has not generally been accorded approval internationally and has in fact faced criticism at international forums such as the Asia Pacific Group (APG), especially during the 2005 APG conference in Australia.

It is RSIL's position that an anti-money laundering law must be passed soon because Pakistan, under international law, is obliged to do so. In this regard Specific Recommendations of Financial Action Task Force (FAFT) are to be implemented within Pakistan through compliance divisions of financial institutions and other regulatory measures. In summary, RSIL's position is that the bill must be corrected and suitably modified so that it ensures smooth implementation of anti-money laundering measures in Pakistan.

The writer is executive director of the Research Society of International Law (RSIL) Pakistan. He can be reached at rsil@wol.net.pk

"We have a great desire to live in peace and harmony, like good neighbours. I can never understand why some forces do not want it to happen.

"Politicians have vested interest. If they let the conflicts between India and Pakistan resolved, what will be the issues they may politicise?"

"It is all for defence budget. Our armies want to have unlimited, un-audited budgets in the name of security. The real beneficiaries of this approach are those who want to sell and experiment their ammunition."

"There are very few people on both sides of the border who do not want peace between India and Pakistan due to their vested interest. Majority of us are peace lovers."

"It is all media hype. Media want to sensitise the issue. They generate controversies to sell their products but in the process hamper peace process."

It is very common to hear these conversations, especially when an ordinary Pakistani meets an ordinary Indian for the very first time. Informed by the history of partition that has been taught to them in their respective country, initially they may have an enemy image of each other. But very soon they realise that both of them are normal human beings and can live like good neighbours, if not like close friends.

As they say perceptions often outlive reality. How did people form the perception that there are certain actors that hamper peace process? I work on indigenous knowledge and local wisdom in the context of rural livelihoods and am a firm believer that one should start one's analysis using locally held perceptions as an entry point (without prejudging if they are right or wrong).

First of all, it is said that media create misunderstandings. Personally I don't think it is valid any more because state-controlled TV and newspapers have lost their monopoly of the media market. One hardly finds a mention of Pakistan in major Indian newspapers. They have their own problems to talk about and are trying to build India's image vis-a-vis international players like the United States and China. Likewise in Pakistan, one finds that print media will love to utilise any available column space for advertisements even if it happens at the cost of some important news story. No wonder, on both sides, the projection of enemy image by print media has reduced considerably. As far as electronic media are concerned, state TV on both sides are still his master's vice. Barring them, most of the private channels cannot afford to create a distinction between Indian and Pakistani viewers on commercial grounds. They have to market their channels in Europe, North America and the Gulf to the South Asian diasporas. None of the private channels can afford to be labeled as biased. That is why they tend to remain neutral if they can. Rather, it has become very common for Pakistani and Indian TV channels to embark on joint productions, not just of soaps that are so popular on both sides of the border.

Now, let us talk of politicians. Does one really feel that most of them have vested interest against peace? Here again I will like to submit that politicians always require an issue to remain active. They have to find someone to blame for every wrong in the world. Till General Zia's and Indra Gandhi's era, or may be even much after that, the trend among politicians was to bash their counterparts across the border for anything that went wrong in their own constituency. Peace supporters were termed as traitors in that era and Kashmir was either the 'jugular vein' or the 'unimputable limb' in official documents. Opposing India in Pakistan and vice versa was considered to be a major vote winning factor. But the new breed of politicians as well as voters don't have as bitter partition memories as their older counterparts had and one finds that Kashmir no longer wins and loses elections in both the countries.

Another perception is that the status quo between India and Pakistan is in favour of certain players including defence forces as well as global powers who never want regional stability in South Asia. Though in India armed forces have remained subservient to the elected politicians, yet a strong defence was always considered to be the only remedy way to counter threats from Pakistan and China. This has always led the Indian parliament to approve enormous defence expenditure (that it subsequently led to various scams involving kickbacks was logical.)

In Pakistan, armed forces have had two jobs to deliver -- taking care of the 'external security issues' and 'helping out' the elected representatives in domestic governance (by relieving them of their responsibilities in the form of declared or undeclared martial law). Thus army has always remained superior to the parliament and the defence budget always out of bound for civil policy makers.

The situation in the sub-continent had been ideal for non-regional superpowers, especially the United States, which finds India and Pakistan as an ideal market to sell obsolete technology and ammunition. Furthermore, Pak-India tension indirectly supported US's interest in Afghan war when the Soviet Union still existed. For the jihadis, Afghanistan and Kashmir both were a route to secure assured heaven and martyrdom.

But things dramatically changed after September 11, 2001. Taliban, the then rulers of Afghanistan, had to bear the brunt of 9/11 and linkage between regional instability and terrorism became an issue for western scholars. Close links between mujahideen in Afghanistan and Kashmir and the ban on many jehadi outfits in Pakistan under the American pressure should be seen in this context. Six years down the road, one still doesn't see any signs of stability in Afghanistan. America is gradually adopting a policy to concentrate on the stability in periphery regions for long term stability in the centre -- that is, the Middle East. Apparently, there are general hints that both India and Pakistan should nurture peace in the region. Moreover, the American government will like to put a stop on China's ever-increasing trade and economic growth. A strong and stable South Asia can help the United States challenge the Chinese juggernaut.

The other factors that are compelling international/global players to foster peace between India and Pakistan are trade, globalisation and markets. The need for them to exploit/access Central Asian markets/resources through Pakistan/Afghanistan is becoming increasingly urgent given the growing international energy requirements and a steep sense of energy insecurity feeding on instability in energy-hit regions like the Middle East and Africa. This is clearly shown in how the Americans have reacted to two energy pipelines connecting South Asia with either Central Asia or the Gulf region. While Washington has been actively supporting Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan pipeline, its opposition to the Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline is too visible to be easily ignored. India's energy needs -- as well as its need to capture regional markets including that of Afghanistan -- should be also not underestimated.

India, because of these reasons and the American desire to treat it at power with China, may be feeling the urge for peace better than Pakistan does. Also, the fact that the size and strength of peace constituency is bigger in India than it is in Pakistan, makes the case for India not being as inimical to bilateral peace as it used to be in the past.

One more factor that gives the peace process another positive push is the personal influence of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Seen as someone who is not afraid of taking bold decisions, he is being banked upon for making landmark adjustments not just within Indian society but also with neighbours including India and Pakistan.

In Pakistan, General Pervez Musharraf is looking forward to his next term in presidency with his uniform on. Despite his best efforts, he has not been able to prove a reliable ally in war on terrorism for the United States. He is under continuous pressure to do more on this count. In an attempt to divert this pressure and promote the soft image of Pakistan, he is talking of innovative solutions on the Kashmir issue. There has always been some analysts who suggest that civil governments cannot dare solve the Kashmir issue, only a militaryman can. So, he must. Genuine opposition comprising of progressive leaders in exile has no choice but to support the general for his peace initiatives. Friendly opposition, that is, religious outfits, are too busy in securing their own governments in the Frontier and Balochistan. Other domestic issues like the Women Protection Act are consuming their energies too much to let them focus on Pakistan-India ties. As statements by Maulana Fazlur Rehman, the leader of the opposition in the National Assembly has shown, the bellicosity among Pakistani religious outfits is more focussed on America than on India. In fact, many senior leaders of religious political parties have of late spoken softly about Pakistan-India peace.

All ingredients for a long lasting peace are, therefore, in place. India, because of its economic priorities, energy crisis, and future growth; Pakistan, because of its domestic political situation; media for commercial concerns; and America because of its requirement to have stability in Afghanistan -- all these players seem to be well-paced to do their bit for a peaceful and prosperous South Asia.

It is in this context that common citizens and masses both in Pakistan and India are looking forward to a long lasting peace. They will not like unseen forces to hamper peace process once again. They are looking for a different South Asia -- a new South which is premised on the axiom that every single individual on earth has both the potential and the right to live a decent life; a new South Asia that is prosperous and free from the clutches of poverty and despair; a new South Asia is a celebration of diversity, the home of most diverse and colourful human society in the world.

Across cultures and civilizations, experiences and movements have shown that even the poorest of the poor can work to bring about their own development. This is an opportunity for the leaders of the two countries to shun the tainted practice of hegemony and oppression in the name of religions, ethnicity, caste and culture. A new South Asia and its dynamic millions cannot simply wait on the sideline for ages to realise their dreams or a democratic, decentralised political system which gives everyone their rights as citizens at the same time respecting their differences as individuals, as communities and as nations.

Dr Abid Qaiyum Suleri is an Islamabad-based policy analyst and columnist. He can be is contacted at Suleri@sdpi.org

Pakistan's recent agriculture proposal at the World Trade Organization (WTO) can harm agriculture, more especially the farmers in the country. Pakistan has made up its mind to relax its position on the Special Products (SPs) in the future negotiations on the Agreement on Agriculture (AoA). The current position of G-33, that Pakistan is a member of, is that 20 per cent of the tariff lines should be exempted from sharp tariff reductions. These Special Products (SPs) are crucial from the point of view of the country's food security, rural development and livelihood security. The proposal discussed by Pakistan at various forums informally as well as by the Cairns group (a group of exporters of agriculture products).

One of the key issues in negotiations at the WTO that kept talks suspended recently is the flexibilities in market access. Developing countries, led by G-33, have articulated their position on SPs and the Special Safeguard Mechanism (SSM) in restricting market access. But this position may change in the wake of an imminent deal between the United States and the European Union on agriculture. If this happens, G-33 will have to step back from its position of exempting 20 per cent tariff lines.

Pakistan believes that there is no solid proposal on SPs on table except the extreme positions of G-33 (20 per cent tariff lines) and the United States (5 tariff lines). Pakistan, therefore, genuinely feels that there should be some balancing proposal in order to have some progress on the issue. Pakistan also believes that as far as its interests are concerned, the difference between bound rates for agricultural products (average 101 per cent) and the applied rates is so high that country's tariff structure will be hardly effected even if the G-20 formula for 40 per cent cut cut in tariff is applied.

On the other hand, Pakistan also expects to have surplus production in several agricultural products such as milk, horticultural products, citrus fruit, potato, tomato and onion etc. The country does not want the other countries to apply SPs extensively. Otherwise, Pakistan may face difficulties in finding export markets in the South.

The critics, however, believe that proposal on SPs by Pakistan is too far from the G-33's position and actually supports the US position. The proposal suggests that Special Products (SPs) be ranked according to a scoring system based on the importance of a product under a specific indicator -- that is, food security, rural development or livelihood security. Member countries may agree on a benchmark score. All products scoring more than the benchmark should be eligible for designation as SPs.

Taking the case of Pakistan, the proposal takes 15 agricultural products that are important in terms of food security, livelihoods and rural development. These crops are cotton, wheat, rice, potato, sugar, edible oil, tomato, onion, citrus fruit (kinoo), apple, tea, beef, mutton, poultry and milk. But the proposal ignores other products of regional importance such as maize, gram, groundnut, chilli, banana, vegetables, hides and skins etc.

Among the prioritised crops, the proposal says that only rice has high regional importance from the food security perspective while rice, tomato, onion, citrus, apple and tea have high regional importance from the livelihood perspective. As regards rural development, the proposal categorises six products (cotton, potato, tomato, citrus, apple, milk) as highly important because of their potential for value addition.

While grading products by the three indicators, the proposal says that wheat and rice have maximum aggregate score (21) followed by citrus (16), apple (15) edible oil (14), tomato (14), milk (14), cotton (13), sugar (13), onion (13), tea (12), potato (11), beef & mutton (9) and poultry (8).

Based on this criterion, it appears that Pakistan will only be able designate five crops (wheat, rice, citrus, apple and edible oils) as SPs. All other important crops with strong export potential may be excluded from the list of SPs and will be subject to sharp tariff reduction. The critics also fear that these reductions will actually go beyond the current applied tariffs in Pakistan.

The designation of SPs is, in fact, one of the crucial development instruments in trade for developing countries and for Pakistani farmers. It is the basic trade safety net that should go a long way in providing a country legitimate time and policy space to adjust to the multilateral trading framework. The SPs proposal by Pakistan provides little hope to Pakistani farmers. Already, Chinese products are threatening many local sensitive agricultural products. Pakistani proposal, if accepted, will give free hand to the rest of the countries, including India, to stop our farmers from growing anything except the designated SPs.

Seemingly, Pakistan is attempting to bridge the gap between the G-33 stance and that of the US, but the critics believe that the proposal is quite far from the G-33 position as well as does not take into consideration the development needs of the poor countries. As mentioned earlier, the expected US/EU deal is likely to put pressure on G-33 for a compromise on the issue. G-33 member countries, therefore, need more unity at the moment to resist these pressures. Pakistan should rather show solidarity with G-33 and tackle the pressures from the US by using the combined pressures of G-33 and G-20. Pakistan should be cautious, because any limiting criteria or exclusion of products as proposed by Thailand and Malaysia can dilute the privilege the developing countries now have of designating as many products as SPs as they require. Many countries may not be able to designate even a single product based on the criteria proposed by Pakistan.

Pakistan's stance that the excessive application of SPs can hurt it in finding export markets also seems irrelevant because SPs are not forever. We have only 11 products that we export at the moment and 80 per cent of them goes to the developed country markets. We are rather loosing market in the developing countries, especially the market of mango and citrus because of high cost of production, inadequate storage facilities and faulty trade facilitations. Similarly food import is already on increase. Many farmers are leaving their ancestral profession and, hence, there are little chances that Pakistan will start growing huge surpluses in near future.

As compared to designating products on the basis of data, concessions on percentage basis is fine with all poor countries as most of these countries, including Pakistan, lack proper data. Concessions on percentage basis also gives us the option to assess the impact of trade flows and in cases where short-term import surges cause serious instability in prices, developing countries will have the flexibility to shift the lines categorised as SPs. The proposal of limiting SPs to a few lines was not in any way endorsed in Hong Kong. Rather it was percentage of products that was endorsed during the Sixth Ministerial Meeting of WTO there. Developing countries were granted the privilege of self-designating an appropriate percentage of agricultural products with flexibility to avoid strict reduction commitments based on the criteria of food security, livelihood security and rural development needs.

Before and during the Doha ministerial meeting, Pakistan was the champion of the Development Box and SPs, getting support from majority developing countries. We know that something happened during the Doha meeting and Pakistan started stepping back from its proposals made for the Development Box.

Though Pakistan claims that the proposal on SPS will be its third attempt to accelerate the Doha Round including its earlier initiatives for trade facilitation and Non-Agriculture Market Access (NAMA), other circles show concerns that Pakistan, in the meantime, has rather been weakening resistance movements of development countries in the WTO. As compared to the developing countries, rich member countries are quite happy with the Pakistani proposal.

Tahir Hasnain is the director of an Islamabad-based civil society initiative Economic Justice and Development Organization (EJAD). He can be reached at tahir@ejad.org.pk

While more than two-thirds of Punjab's 90 million population is living without drinking water, the government every year is spending three times as much money on building roads as it did in the past. The fact does not help that most parts of the province already have reasonably developed road infrastructure.

Social and economic development indicators of Punjab (obtained from the government departments) show that the province is close to achieving the required level of development in terms of roads (as set by the World Bank) but lags far behind in providing people with clean drinking water, basic medical care and literacy and education.

As is shown in the table, Punjab is the most backward province in terms of availability of clean water. The gap between what the government has achieved and the target set by the millennium goals is enormous. Punjab has achieved only 26 per cent of what it should have according to the millennium goals. Compare this with the fact that the gap between achievement and target is only 30 per cent when it comes to building roads. According to the statistics compiled by the provincial government, the province has the most developed road infrastructure in the country having built 70 per cent of the roads it needed to built under the millennium goals.

Official statistics reveal that the average road density in the province (roads per square kilometre of the area) is 0.35 kilometres, close to the World Bank's standard of 0.50 kilometres. In fact, in more than half the districts, road density has crossed the level set by the World Bank.

The same statistics (for 2005) show that more than two-thirds of the province's population does not have access to safe drinking water whereas Punjab needs to provide safe drinking water to 93 per cent of its population by 2015 if it were to meet the millennium development goals.

Similarly, about 60 per cent people in the province have no sewerage and drainage facilities, though according to the millennium development goals, 90 per cent of them should have the two facilities by 2015.

Some other statistics are equally worrisome. On average 77 infants out of 1000 die at the time of birth (generally called infant mortality rate) in the province against the UN goal of 40. Only 54 per cent population of the province (aged 10 years and above) is literate against the UN target of 88 per cent and the net primary enrolment stands at a meagre 51 per cent of the school age population.

When these statistics are put against budget allocations in the province, a very skewed picture emerges. It favours building roads than providing other facilities like safe drinking water and education. The current budget (2006-07) allocates Rs 40 billion on building roads but it allocates only 15 billion for the provision of drinking water facilities. This fiscal year, the provincial government has in fact allocated 14 per cent of its total budget outlay on building 1900 km long new roads and upgrading and repairing the existing 1000 km long roads.

The development pattern in the province is skewed for another reason too. The provincial government is spending more money in those parts of the province which are way ahead of other areas in terms of development. The former consist of the central districts of the province whereas the latter comprise its southern districts.

One instance of this development pattern is the proposed construction of Lahore-Sialkot motorway, smack in the middle of the province. The two cities are already linked with each other through a reasonably good road, at least half of which is a dual carriage highway. Another striking example of this pattern is the recently-built expressway between Faisalabad and Lahore in addition to a six-lane motorway that connects the two cities.

In the central districts of the province, road density is already far ahead of the required level. In Lahore, for example, road density is 0.73 km per square km of the area of the district and in Sialkot it is 0.56 km per one square km.

Central Punjab comprises of 17 districts which include Faisalabad, Toba Tek Singh, Jhang, Gujranwala, Gujrat, Mandi Bahauddin, Hafizabad, Sialkot, Narowal, Lahore, Kasur, Sheikhupura/Nankana, Okara, Pakpattan and Sahiwal.

Not just these central districts, north Punjab too has crossed the required level of road development. Average road density in this part of the province -- comprising the districts of Rawalpindi, Attock, Jhelum, Chakwal, Sargodha, Khushab, Mianwali, and Bhakkar -- is 0.53 km per square km.

The only part of the province which lags in terms of road density is southern Punjab. Average road density in the 10 districts of South Punjab -- Bahawalpur, Bahawalnagar, Rahim Yar Khan, Multan, Khanewal, Lodhran, Dera Ghazi Khan, Rajanpur, Muzaffargarh and Layyah -- is only 0.3 km per square km.

As the statistics given below show there is not a single indicator in which 10 districts of southern Punjab come close to northern and central districts of the province which consume a lion's share of the provincial resources.

This disparity, however, is not limited to being among the various regions of the province. Even within one region, some areas are more developed than the others. From among the northern Punjab districts, Sargodha, Khushab and Bhakkar fall in the most deprived parts of the province in some respects. In Bhakkar, for example, only three per cent people have access to clean drinking water and in Sargodha 85 per cent people do without safe drinking water.

Even within the central districts, areas like Sahiwal, Pakpattan and Vehari are not as developed as other districts in the region. These three districts have the highest infant mortality rate in the province and less than 10 per cent of their population has access to safe drinking water.

Following is a summary of Punjab's progress on five major components of the United Nations' Millennium Development Goals.

1. Access to safe piped water

According to the millennium development goals, 93 per cent of the population of a region should have access to safe drinking water by 2015. In Punjab, only 24 per cent of the population has access to safe drinking water. In five districts in the Punjab only 5 per cent or even less than 5 per cent of the population has access to piped water. These include Muzaffargarh, Multan, Khanewal, Layyah and Bhakkar. Layyah is at the lowest in terms of access to safe water where less than one per cent of the population gets safe water to drink.

In ten districts in the province, only five to 10 per cent people have access to safe drinking water. These include two southern districts of Lodhran and Rajanpur, and five districts of central Punjab -- Mandi Bahauddin, Hafizabad, Jhang, Sahiwal and Pakpattan.

2. Sewerage and drainage

According to the millennium development goals, 90 percent of the population must avail sewerage and drainage facility by 2015. In Punjab, on average 58 per cent people have these facilities, according to official statistics, though the reality is far from being as rosy as these statistics suggest.

One possible explanation of this seemingly high percentage of people having access to sewerage and drainage can be the availability of these facilities in densely populated cities like Lahore where 94 per cent of the population is said to have sewerage facilities. It is quite a different affair if the quality of these facilities is any good.

But average figures for sewerage and drainage mark striking regional disparities. In Rajanpur, Muzaffargarh, and Layyah districts, 70 per cent or more of local population does not have these facilities. In seven other districts, Jhang, Narowal, Lodhran, Pakpattan, Okara, Hafizabad and Khushab, 50-60 per cent or more of local population is living without sewerage and drainage. In a major city Rawalpindi, 30 per cent people live without sewerage and drainage.

3. Infant mortality rate

According to the millennium development goals, infant mortality rate should not be more than 40 per 1000 births by 2015. In 2004, according to Punjab's official statistics, average infant mortality rate in the province was 77 per 1000.

Pakpattan is the most backward district in this respect with an infant mortality rate of 127 per 1000 births. Next comes Vehari, with 114 infant deaths per 1000 births.

Five most backward districts in this sector are as follows: Pakpattan, Khanewal, Sahiwal, Lodhran and Okara. In all these areas, more than 100 infants, out of 1000, die at the time of birth.

According to official statistics, in at least 19 districts in the province more than 70 infants die at the time of the birth from among every 1000 newborns. These 19 districts (in descending order of backwardness) are Bhakkar, Toba Tek Singh, Mianwali, Hafizabad, Vehari, Dera Ghazi Khan, Layyah, Rajanpur, Muzaffargarh, Multan, Sheikhupura (including Nankana), Jhang, Bahawalpur, Kasur, Sargodha, Rahim Yar Khan, Bahawalnagar and Gujranwala.

Only one district of the province, Sialkot, comes close to the United Nations' standards with an infant mortality rate of 36 for 1000 births.

4. Literacy

Punjab is not as literate as official media campaigns try to make it. For the last four years, the government has been spending about Rs 300 million every year on media advertisements to project the province's education spending that comes from the World Bank as a loan.

But the ground realities show that the situation has hardly been good even at the big city-districts like Lahore and Rawalpindi. Both the districts fall well short of meeting the millennium development goal for literacy, according to which required literacy rate for those aged 10 years and above is 88 per cent. Rawalpindi, though having the province's highest literacy rate of 78 per cent, still needs to do something to achieve the millennium development goal whereas in Lahore, with a literacy rate of 74 per cent, things are not even that good. Though in districts like Sialkot, literacy rate is as high as 70 per cent, the average rate for the province is a scant 54 per cent.

This rather low average is obtained because of the pathetically low literacy rates in districts other than those mentioned above. In Multan, with a literacy rate of merely 46 per cent, the biggest city-district in southern Punjab, more than half of the population is illiterate. In four other districts -- Dera Ghazi Khan, Bahawalpur, Muzaffargarh and Rajanpur -- more than sixty per cent people are illiterate. Eight other districts where 50 per cent to 60 per cent people are illiterate are Kasur, Rahim Yar Khan, Vehari, Bahawalnagar, Layyah, Multan, Jhang and Sheikhupura (including Nankana).

5. Roads

According to the World Bank standards, half-a-kilometer-long road per one square kilometre area is the required level of road development. According to official statistics for 2004, in Punjab, on average, more than one-thirds of a kilometre of roads exists for every square kilometre of the area of the province. Put differently, for every 1000 people, Punjab has 0.85 km long roads.

In the last two years, officials say road density in the province has touched 0.4 kilometre per one square kilometre. The province's average, therefore, is very close to what makes a region developed in terms of roads, though southern parts of the province are still quite backward in this regard as is shown in the table. The most backward districts of the province have a road density of 0.20 kilometre to 0.30 kilometre. These districts are Layyah, Khushab, Attock, Bhakkar, Attock, Rahim Yar Khan, Bahawalnagar, Mianwali and Muzaffargarh.

Sector North central South

Roads(km) 0.39 0.50 0.29

Literacy (%) 60 55 41

Infant Mortality (per 1000) 70 74 85

Safe water (%) 33 17 11

Sewerage (%) 57 60 37

Sectoral Disparity

Sector Punjab Average Standard Gap

Roads(km) 0.35 0.50 30 per cent

Literacy (%) 54 88 38 per cent

Infant Mortality

Rate( per 1000) 77 40 49 per cent

Safe water (%) 24 93 74 per cent

Sewerage (%) 58 90 36 per cent

It has long been widely believed that US President George W Bush's real constituency is Big Oil, America's energy industry. Bush, Vice-President Dick Cheney and several other senior officials in the Bush administration have had close ties to American oil and gas companies that go back to the days when Bush and Cheney were oil businessmen in Texas.

Before joining Bush as his running mate in the 2000 presidential campaign, Cheney spent five years as the highly paid CEO of Houston-based Halliburton Corporation, the world's biggest oil services company. He earned $ 49 million in his five years (1995-2000) as Halliburton's CEO.

When he left Halliburton in July 2000 to become Bush's running mate, Cheney received a $ 37 million severance package from the company. As US vice-president, he still receives $ 150,000 a year from the company under a deferred payment arrangement. He also has $ 18 million worth of stock options in the company.

If he were to exercise those options today and sell his shares at the current market price of Halliburton stock, he would earn $ 59 million, giving him a windfall profit of $ 41 million. With a current net worth in excess of $ 150 million, Cheney is the richest member of the Bush administration. Cashing in his stock options in Halliburton would make him even richer.

Halliburton was a major contributor of cash to Bush's presidential campaign. After the United States invaded Iraq in March 2003, the Bush administration -- in a move that smacked of payback time -- awarded more than $ 12 billion worth of reconstruction and other contracts in Iraq to Halliburton and its construction subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root through a manifestly non-transparent no-bid process.

Since then the Bush administration has awarded additional billions of dollars worth of government contracts to Halliburton, enabling the company to earn profits that have been as high as 270 per cent in some quarterly periods. These huge profits have boosted the market price of Halliburton's stock several fold from its pre-Iraq war level. In the process, Cheney's stock options in Halliburton have also increased several times in value.

As a young man, Bush, too, started his career in Texas as an oil man, investing in several start-up oil companies, including Harken Energy. He later developed close links with Kenneth Lay, the founder and first CEO of Enron, another Houston-based energy company. Ken Lay, other Enron executives and the company itself were major cash contributors to Bush's Texas gubernatorial campaign in 1994 and later to his 2000 presidential campaign.

In those days, Bush was on very friendly terms with Lay and used to call Lay 'Kenny Boy'. After Enron collapsed in the autumn of 2001 and filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on December 1 that year, Bush tried to distance himself from Lay. When White House reporters questioned him about his relationship with 'Kenny Boy', Bush had the brazen-faced effrontery to say, 'Kenny who?'

Lay, Enron's Chief Financial Officer Jeffrey Skilling and several other Enron executives were later indicted for criminal fraud for their role in Enron's collapse. In January this year, a Houston court found Lay and Skilling guilty as charged and sentenced them to long prison terms. Skilling is now doing jail time, but Lay died of a heart attack in July this year before he could be sent to prison.

Soon after taking office as president in January 2001, Bush set up an energy task force headed by Cheney to draft a new energy policy for the US. During the drafting process, Cheney met several times with Lay and other Enron executives and incorporated many of their pro-Big Oil proposals into the new energy policy, which was formally announced by Bush in May 2001.

All this is convincing evidence of the fact that Big Oil is the Bush administration's real constituency. This view was reinforced by the fact that the code name initially chosen by the White House for the invasion of Iraq was 'Operation Iraqi Liberation'. But when White House officials realised that the acronym for that code name spelt 'O.I.L', they hurriedly changed the name to 'Operation Iraqi Freedom.'

Iraq has the world's second biggest oil reserves after Saudi Arabia. Now, there is talk coming out of Washington that the Bush administration is planning military action against Iran -- another major oil producer.

The biggest beneficiaries of the US invasion and occupation of Iraq have been American oil companies. The doubling of oil prices since 3003 is largely attributable to the uncertainty prevailing in the Middle East since the invasion of Iraq and the disruption in oil supplies from that country.

In recent months, however, oil prices have dropped to around $ 40 a barrel, from a record high of $ 72 a barrel in mid-2006, thus reducing, somewhat, the phenomenally high profits that American oil majors like Exxon-Mobil have been earning.

But if supplies from Iran are disrupted as a result of US military action against that country, international oil prices are likely to shoot up again and could soar to as much as $ 100 a barrel. Oil priced at that level would have American oil companies laughing even harder all the way to the bank. Consumers, of course, would be very badly hit. But, then, when has Big Oil ever cared about consumers.

The way the Bush administration has been going about things ever since the events of 9/11, the United States could end up waging war not just on the current two fronts (Iraq and Afghanistan) but on three fronts, from the Middle East and Asia all the way to Latin America. In the Bush administration's book, US interests seem to start and end with the interests of American Big Oil.

The United States is the world's biggest oil consumer, gobbling up more than 10 million barrels a day, and its own production is running out. This has made it increasingly dependent on imported oil. Over sixty per cent of the US's oil needs are now met by imports.

Already, the United States has spent billions upon billions of dollars protecting supplies of crude in remote corners of the world. Though the US leans heavily on stable sources like Canada, its biggest supplier, it is becoming increasingly dependent on oil supplies from several volatile nations. Saudi Arabia tops the list, followed by Venezuela and Mexico.

Bush administration officials fomented a military coup against Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez in April 2002 because they feared his populist politics, but ended up with egg on their faces when Chavez -- backed by massive populist support -- made a triumphant return to office only three days after the coup.

Chavez's re-election last month to another five-year term, and his determination to move Venezuela even further to the left by nationalising big chunks of the country's economy could trigger similar moves by other Latin American countries. That's not a denouement that would be to the Bush administration's liking, to put it mildly.

The only bit of silver lining in this expanding horizon of dark clouds is the fact that Bush has only two more years to go as president. The political fallout in America from Bush's disastrous Iraq policy has already made him something of a lame duck president and he is becoming more and more lame duck with each passing week, as the casualties from the worsening war in Iraq continue to mount.

Dr Abdul Mateen is one of the senior diplomats and academics of Pakistan. Born in 1932 in Mardan district of the North West Frontier Province (NWFP), he received his education from the Islamia College, Peshawar. Then he went abroad for higher studies and completed his doctorate in economics from the Bonn University in the then West Germany in 1956.

Dr Mateen has worked as Pakistan's mission at the United Nations as deputy permanent representative in 1972-73. He has also been the minister of Pakistan Embassy in Ankara.

An economist by training, Dr Mateen taught for a long time at the Department of Economics, University of Peshawar. He was later appointed as the vice-chancellor of the same university. Before that he had worked as the principal of the Islamia College, Peshawar.

Also, he has been at one time the senior executive director of the Agriculture Development Bank of Pakistan as well as working as the chief economist of the Frontier during 1970-72.

Dr Mateen has numerous publications to his credit including one book on industrialisation in the Frontier. Despite being quite old, Dr Mateen has not bid adieu to active life and is presently serving as a member of the federal Higher Education Commission, a member of NWFP Finance Commission, a member of the management committee of Pakistan Bait-ul-Mal and a member of NWFP Health Regulatory Authority.

The News Sunday recently had the opportunity of talking to him on issues ranging from international and domestic economic scene and Pakistan's foreign policy. Excerpts follow:

The News on Sunday: Every day we hear a lot of official pronouncements regarding economic growth, reforms and poverty alleviation. How do you view the situation?

Dr Abdul Mateen: The economy is witnessing rise in terms of Gross National Product. The per capital income has also increased. A horizontal economic advance predominantly driven by consumers and services is on. But the signs of socio-economic development marked by improvement in productivity, quality of performance and satisfaction of stakeholders are few and far between.

Even the growth is exogenously engineered. It is neither self-assured nor sustainable. It can turn out to be deceptive, diluting and obstructing development with the passage of time. The policy makers need to guard against looming dangers, risks and consequences of a still-born and abortive boom. The massive deficit in the balance of payment is alarming. The indiscriminate opening to transnational corporations, stringent conditions on the inflow of foreign assistance and inadequate attention to productive utilisation of remittance are causes of great concern and signs of prospective troubles.

TNS: What do you make of an economic expansion which is not taking care of the interests of all the stakeholders?

AM: The globalisers are setting the stage. Reforms emanate from the agenda of G-8 (group of eight big economies) and tasks are assigned to transnational institutions to carry them out. The vision, mission and operational plans for the restructuring of international system as well as bilateral and multilateral relations is pushed and pulled by them. The blueprinted design is virtually dictated (by them to individual countries) and imposed through a variety of reward-punishment mechanisms. The third world countries -- having resource constraints, weak bargaining power and exposed to one-sided export manipulations -- tend to be entrapped by the reform packages. The rulers of underdeveloped states having little connectivity with and nominal feed-back force from within and unserviced by their own independent professionals are overwhelmed and swayed by donors, their conditions and by the investors. The framework for, standards of and regulatory set up for interventions indicated by the powerful, affluent and skillful operators are adopted regardless of their adverse ramifications. Pakistan is in the forefront of complying with systematic modifications, signalled by the World Bank, the World Trade Organization (WTO), and its friends and allies.

TNS: You have worked at Pakistan Mission to the United Nations. Did the mission play any role during your tenure to resolve the problems of international political economy that you are referring to?

AM: The Pakistan Mission to United Nations at that time consisted of a knowledgeable and artful team, receiving guidance from relatively autonomous, courageous and principled policy makers. We proactively joined hands with the Group of 77 in presenting the case of developing nations for the establishment of a New World Economic Order (NIEO) free of exploitation, assuring the rights and duties of states and creating the prospects for just and fair sharing of benefits arising from trade, investment and technological transfer. The increase in official development assistance for the poor countries and preferential access to the market of advanced countries with improvement in terms of business transactions and stabilisation in the prices of primary products were advocated as important variables for the initiation, acceleration and maintenance of commodities' sectors progress. The reduction of disparities in income, wealth and economic power of nations was projected to be in the best enlightened interest of the international community. By juxtaposing what was pleaded for then and what is done now in the name of a West-steered globalisation, we can identify the fault-lines and deficiencies. The tyranny of majority in the UN is replaced by subjugation of the vast membership of that organisation to the few. It is desirable to strike some balance between the two extremes.

TNS: Why do you think a majority of states and international institutions have become bystanders in the processes that effect their security as well as the implementation of universal values which can create orderly relations among states?

AM: The world has been transformed after the break up of the Soviet Union, the tragic events of 9/11 and the reversal of the normative march of history by the neo-conservatives having imperialistic ambitions. Meta-thinking, problem solving approaches and conciliatory resolution of conflicts have receded into the background. The UN is sidelined. It is not allowed to serve as effective forum for multilateral diplomacy, integrative negotiations and balancer or referee of divergent interests, claims and ideological or political predilections. The sole superpower led by one-track decision takers is at the helm of international affairs. The epicentre of planetary programming of security, identity and the form as well as substance of relations among states and with non-state actors is the United States. There is no reference to, consultation with and respect for the consul and voices of the wise, insightful and virtuous elites within or without the establishment. The heat coolers, re-railers and bridge builders are at a discount. Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) is frightened and leaderless. An apologetic posture is adopted by the Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC). The simmering resentment, hate and rage have landed mankind into the quagmire of violence. Pathologies, irrationalities and evils are caused and let loose to feed more sufferings, pains and miseries. The situation calls for involvement of UN, NAM and OIC to correct imbalances, minimise gaps and cope with crisis.

TNS: As you talk about an unjust international political/economic system, the situation is hardly any better within Pakistan. The National Finance Commission (NFC) has always been a thorny and polarising issue in Pakistan. Likewise, the distribution of net hydel profits and energy royalty issues have always been contentious. What is your opinion about these issues?

AM: Three ingredients in the formula for the distribution of fiscal resources among the provinces are of vital importance. These are the use of acceptable criteria of justice, equity and productive absorption capacity with effective utilisation of the funds received. The negotiation of and consensus on the weightage given to each yardstick is central to the resolution of divergent ideas and interests on the issue. Personally, I think population is a good indicator of justice. It can be given a weightage of 80 per cent. Equity is defined by fairness in the recognition of the state of underdevelopment and poverty of different areas. It is possible to accord it a weightage of 10 per cent with associated affirmative action. Performance is judged by the efficient utilisation of money on the basis of cost/benefit analysis and returns from the build up installations, infrastructure and standard delivery of service on the part of public sector organisations. A weightage of 10 per cent appears reasonable for the purposes of incentive on this count. Whenever an anomaly arises as a result of the application of the agreed formula, it can be rectified via special federal development programme for the affected areas and across the board subventions of the current budget deficit.

TNS: But the predominant view in Balochistan followed by Sindh and the Frontier is that people reject the distribution of resources on the basis of population...

AM: The problem is that even small provinces have never been given their due share on the basis of their share of population, what to talk of devising some new formula for resource distribution.

TNS: What is your view on the distribution of net profit from power generation through hydel resources of the Frontier?

AM: The question of net hydel profit is already decided by an arbitrational tribunal. The government of NWFP has adopted a very realistic and pragmatic stance in accepting it. Intervention of the federal government is necessary to get it going. The royalty on oil, gas and other mineral resources is on the lower side. It will be prudent for purposes of national cohesion t raise it by 10 per cent to 15 per cent.

TNS: When you were at the Pakistan Mission to the UN, what was Pakistan's policy on Kashmir? Do you think there has been a shift in this policy since then?

AM: In our days at the UN, the stand on Kashmir was unequivocal. Four parties to the dispute were recognised: India, Pakistan, Kashmiris and the UN. They were expected to resolve the question of self-determination in a peaceful and just manner. The policy makers now seem to have retracted from the principled posture. Numerous options are sounded. No clear response is forthcoming from the occupying side. The people of Pakistan as well as the public of Kashmir is bewildered and feels betrayed.

Mankind has been too long in the business of conceiving and propagating models based on truthfulness only, and it was the decisive intervention of empiricism that created a niche for truth. Truth remains relative, but probably only in relation to times and ontological development of societies and not necessarily in relation to traditional cultures or individual dispositions. It also needs to be underlined that truth and truthfulness are not mutually exclusive. By pitching truthfulness against truth, an impression can be created that modernity's anxiety about universal truths is intrinsically devoid of truthfulness. Marx, Michelson-Morley, and Penrose cannot be accused of being untruthful even when at some point in future time their findings are decisively challenged. In my view the problem arises when some of the proponents of modernity, consciously or unconsciously, start being selective in their analyses and prescriptions. For instance, if it can be demonstrated that capitalism will always lead to social and international conflicts and still some societies benefiting from capitalism overlook its adverse consequences because it suits their interests, these societies will be selective in their analysis. Such selective analyses can be and should be called untruthful and that is what needs to be avoided. But it does not necessarily mean that the entire project of modernity is based on an absence of truthfulness. Modernity's singular contribution to human welfare has been to expose the futility of thought models that have no correlation with empirical evidence, albeit presented and practised truthfully by the Abrahams, Aristotles and Nietzsches of this world.

Can we ever doubt the truthfulness of Dr Israr, or the Talibans for that matter, when they prescribe and propagate a development model which they in all solemnity consider best for humanity? Or can there be a doubt about their interest in the welfare of the people they prescribe the model for? And why should we only blame the current Muslim thought and practices? Look, for example, at the Mexican voodoo magic based paradigms where their truthful interpretation of a personal cosmology makes them oblivious of what is happening around individuals. They are certainly at peace with themselves with no desire whatsoever to be entangled in the take-offs and peripheries and equitable distribution of justice.

In Karachi, near the Regent Plaza there is a green patch which should normally have been a paved footpath. A passerby can commonly see there men in makeshift underwears washing clothes and taking bath on the side of a small opening in the ground in which fresh water is coming from somewhere. Next to them are men gossiping and another few sleeping on the grass in the open. Right at the edge of the green patch and just before the entrance of a hotel was a big billboard advertising Bed & Bath Collections. The complete abandon of the ones bathing and the total serenity on the faces of the gossipers, not to mention the sound sleep of the squatters, sets one thinking of the post-development relativistic models and ones first reaction is that "absence of alternative lends immense clarity".

Probably at the end of the day it is the perception paradigm that needs to be looked into. It is one thing for the thoughtful people in prosperous societies to think of the plight of the deprived, and come up with emotionally consoling explanations. But it may be quite different for others who grew up with the consciousness of various points of existence.

Appreciation of the participation of an ant in the grand dance of life is something that has been interwoven in my awareness of the world around. And at all times when one looks at some endeavor or facet of existence one cannot escape this awareness. To be honest one actually struggles to be at peace with this appreciation because it smacks of condescension. What one cannot recommend for oneself, one is not at ease with prescribing the same for the 'other'. One is constrained to look at all the relativistic models with some suspicion.

Just because we have not been able to create equal opportunities for all, should we start respecting and even glamourising the states of being resulting from the absence of opportunities? Granted, that when the potential of a promise cannot be realised, there is likelihood that the promise itself will disturb the peace and harmony of the condition when it is not there. Does that mean that every other is left to his/her own devices and every one be condemned to reinvent his/her own wheel? Is there evidence that every one likes and needs to use the wheel or are there still those who would like to build their temples by dragging the boulders with ropes tied to their shoulders?

Should one shy away from finding ways and means to enable them (the ignorant, the illiterate) to aspire for improvement in better quality of life on the pretext that if they became aware, and they cannot have access to better goods, their tranquility and peace with the conditions of their existence would be gone forever? And since one cannot presently find a way to enable them, should one start developing constructs to convince them that theirs is a different (and may be better) reality and that it may not necessarily be proper to pursue the chimera of others' reality which apparently seems very tempting?

Is it that we have lost all hope in human endeavor and in the promise of human ability to develop an equitable system of distributive justice that we are constrained to redefine the very concept of justice? Thinkers of the world, unite!