Wheat export barred
Thursday, 21 May, 2009
IN a positive move, the Economic Coordination Committee has rejected the food ministry’s request to allow the export of wheat. For its part, the food ministry has argued that initial surveys have indicated a bumper wheat crop this year and that given the lack of storage facilities in the country it makes sense to export the surplus and earn some foreign exchange rather than see a part of the crop go to waste. There is also the suspicion that in a year when the GDP growth rate is expected to barely cross two per cent and with the next budget around the corner, the possibility of wheat export could bump up preliminary GDP estimates. If farmers fear that there is a significant wheat surplus, they may rush their crop to the market earlier than usual and thus allow the government to claim a higher crop estimate and hence higher GDP growth at the time of the budget.
Thankfully though the ECC has resisted the food ministry’s demand. Past experience suggests that the decision to allow the export of wheat on the basis of estimates has proved disastrous for the country’s food security. There are two problems here. The first is the estimate of how much wheat is needed for domestic consumption. Placed at between 22 and 24 million tonnes, the measure does not take into account wheat smuggling out of Pakistan. Depending on the price of wheat elsewhere, relatively cheaper Pakistani wheat is smuggled across the porous border with Afghanistan and Iran and even to Central Asia and Dubai. Since the practice has proved difficult to stop, the estimate of how much wheat is needed domestically must incorporate the smuggling factor. The second problem is the estimate of wheat output: history suggests it is more an art than a science. This year the signs are all positive and a bumper crop is expected — upwards of 24 million tonnes versus last year’s dismal 21.8 million tonnes — but they are still only estimates. So to allow the export of wheat on the basis of estimates that historically have pegged local requirements at lower than actual and production at higher than actual would be irresponsible.
Besides, it is necessary to point out who will be the only guaranteed winners if wheat exports were allowed at this point in time: the small group of wheat exporters. The government may benefit in the short run from an unexpected inflow of foreign revenue, but it would do so at the risk of having to import wheat later, and possibly at a higher price, if the estimates do not pan out. And with food inflation still hovering near historic highs, consumers could face the double whammy of having good quality local wheat sent abroad now and then later having to buy lower quality imported wheat at a higher price.
************************************************** ********
‘Incoherent’ US policy
Thursday, 21 May, 2009
ACKNOWLEDGING mistakes is a prerequisite to building a healthy, honest relationship. Only then can a mutual vision be defined and pursued in the search of a better tomorrow. Pakistan and the United States have ostensibly been allies since the early days of the Cold War. America has pumped billions into this country in the form of cash and weapons and we, in turn, have readily done its bidding, most notably during the fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan. The US also bankrolled the Musharraf regime in the years following 9/11, a time marked by impressive economic ‘growth’ and a skin-deep sense of prosperity. Yet relations between the two have often been strained. Anti-American sentiment runs high among the general public and recent months also saw a marked souring of relations on the government-to-government level. Washington’s public criticism of Islamabad’s inaction in the fight against the Taliban did not go down well with Pakistan’s power brokers. Such censure, it was felt, would have been better voiced privately. The army brass was particularly irked by the repeated slurs cast on the ISI. Questioning not just the capacity but also the motives of the Pakistan military vis-à-vis the battle against militancy certainly did not help.
Things are different now, and for good reason. Pressure from America to do more may be a factor, but mostly it is the visible shift in public opinion that has allowed the government and its security apparatus to crack down hard on the Taliban. The much-needed Malakand operation clearly enjoys broad public and political support within the country. America’s tone too has softened visibly and there has been no shortage of praise for the ongoing operation. On Tuesday, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton again lamented America’s “incoherent” dealings with Pakistan over the last 30 years. She made it clear that Washington had abandoned Islamabad once the Soviets were forced to withdraw from Afghanistan. It was also implied that the US had supported military dictators instead of the people of Pakistan. Now, according to Ms Clinton, the US is busy building a “clear, honest” relationship with the popularly elected government in Pakistan. Also on Tuesday, she announced an additional $110m in emergency relief for persons displaced by the fighting in Malakand. The suffering in the region is acute and America has done well to extend a timely helping hand. Food from the US will win more friends among the people than the delivery of weapons to the army.
************************************************** ********
Obstinacy wins
Thursday, 21 May, 2009
IF it was a test of nerves and diplomatic skills, then clearly it is Benjamin Netanyahu’s intransigence which has won the first round of the “summit” talks with President Barack Obama. Notwithstanding all the power that America commands, neither Mr Obama nor the US officials the Israeli prime minister later met succeeded in making him give up his maximal position and work sincerely for peace. Even at the joint press conference with the American president at the White House, Mr Netanyahu made his obstinacy clear on the two issues that appeared vital to his American host — a two-state solution and a halt to the settlements. A two-state solution, Mr Obama said, was not only in the interest of the Palestinians but in the interest “of the United States, the Israelis and the international community”, and he demanded that further settlements be “stopped”. The American president must surely have felt embarrassed in front of the cameras when the Israeli leader did not have the courtesy to use the word “state” even once. He remained non-committal on the settlements. His obstinacy seemed well rewarded when Mr Obama praised Mr Netanyahu’s “historic” vision. In his subsequent meetings with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman John Kerry, Israel’s super hawk prime minister succeeded in sidetracking the two issues and, instead, focused his American interlocutors’ attention on Iran.
It is not clear what “vision” Mr Obama was talking about. During his first term as prime minister, Mr Netanyahu sabotaged the good work done by one of his predecessors, Yitzhak Rabin, and made a mess of the Oslo process. Now in his second term he is following a more vicious policy and has brazenly abandoned the two-state solution to which previous Israeli governments have been a party. His government has continued with the settlements and he insists that the Palestinian Authority recognise Israel as a “Jewish state” before talks with President Mahmoud Abbas can begin. One wonders what Mr Obama will tell the Muslim world when he makes his historic broadcast from Cairo on June 4. Mr Netanyahu has virtually torpedoed it.
************************************************** ********
OTHER VOICES - Middle East Press Resolution 1325
Thursday, 21 May, 2009
AFTER years and years of conflict and since its establishment decades ago, the United Nations Security Council realised that in order to achieve peace it needs to involve women in conflict resolution, and hence came UN resolution 1325 of year 2000…. Yet how much more time must we wait until such a resolution becomes known, popular and binding, especially among decision-makers who are mostly men?
Women are excellent peace makers because they … can see issues more objectively and are able to come up with decisions that really aim for peace and reconciliation…. But why aren’t there many women working in this field around the world, especially in the Middle East where conflict has become the norm? …. [L]adies from 12 countries [at a recent conference] spoke of a need for reconciliation to reach peace in the Middle East. Led by the Women Federation for World Peace, the 45 women have decided they want to bury the hatchet and become friends, because whatever differences they have are not going to stop them from working together. —(May 18)
Political shade
THE pilgrimage of Pope Benedict XVI, which he wished to stamp with a purely religious purpose, went off track after all. This happened because at some point the blend of religion and politics becomes inevitable, especially when such an esteemed figure as the head of the Catholic Church is involved.
The pontiff did visit the Dome of the Rock and took part in a religious dialogue attended by Muslim, Jewish and Christian clerics. But he also visited the memorial of the Holocaust. However, the pope did not visit Gaza, nor did he utter one single word about the Israeli ‘Holocaust’ in the besieged enclave….
The pope’s spiritual trip might well be understood, but the Israeli political agenda was quite evident. He could have struck a balance by referring one way or another to the suffering of the people of Palestine…. And yet despite this, the Israelis were not satisfied…. They wished for an apology…. The pope chose to ignore a living situation in the very land he was visiting…. —(May 16)