Pakistan’s need for N-energy

NUCLEAR energy is a reliable source of electricity. It provides environment-friendly, stable electrical supply at low production cost and reasonable consumer prices. In December 2005, Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz reiterated the need to increase Pakistan’s electricity production through nuclear power by 8,800 MW in the next 15 years. Pakistan’s two nuclear power plants generate just 437 megawatt electricity (MWe). The first nuclear power plant, Karachi Nuclear Power Plant (Kanupp), established in 1971 with Canadian cooperation, generates 137 MWe. Chashma 1, situated near Mianwali, is designed and built by the China Atomic Energy Authority and generates 300 MWe.

Once completed, Chashma- Unit 2 will generate 325 MWe. The prime minister’s adviser on energy says that a study on Pakistan’s ideal energy mix is about to be launched to determine the ratio of different sources to meet our energy needs. “We need to diversify our energy sources to maximize the economic benefit and to ensure security of supply so that we do not become over dependent on any one source,” the adviser says.

Right now, the electricity sources include hydroelectric power, thermal power (oil and gas), nuclear power and coal.

The Hydrocarbon Development Institute of Pakistan’s Energy Yearbook 2004 places nuclear energy production for the year 2003-04 at 0.8 per cent and the Planning Commission places the projected nuclear energy demand at three per cent for 2020 to sustain an average annual GDP growth rate of 7.4 per cent.

Way back in 1993, a study done by the World Energy Council predicted that the demand for electricity would be the highest in the South Asian region by the year 2020.

This is where Pakistan needs the US. Out of the 443 nuclear power plants in 31 countries around the world, 103 are in just the United States. What makes the US an important source is not just its superpower status or role in the war on terror, but the fact that 79 per cent of the world’s reactors are based on two US light-water reactor designs. These contribute 88 per cent of the world’s nuclear capacity.

It is also a field in which much work is being done. According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, 24 new power plants in 10 countries are under construction. Nuclear power plants are the second largest source of electricity in America and supply about 20 per cent of the nation’s electricity each year. Overall, this source fulfilled 16 per cent of the world’s electricity production in 2003. The countries relying on this source for their electricity are: Lithuania (79.9 per cent), France (77.7 per cent), Slovakia (57.4 per cent), Belgium (55.5 per cent), Sweden (50 per cent), Ukraine (45.9 per cent), Slovenia (40.4 per cent), Republic of Korea (40 per cent), Switzerland (39.7 per cent) etc.

On July 18, 2005, the US and India reached a controversial agreement on full cooperation in the civil nuclear energy sector. Under the proposed arrangement, subject to Congressional approval:

— The US will provide full access to nuclear technology for peaceful nuclear energy.

— The US will adjust its domestic laws and policies.

— The US will not insist on India signing the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty.

— India will not relinquish its nuclear weapons nor sign the NPT as a non-nuclear weapon state and the US will not renegotiate the NPT.

— India will identify and separate civilian and military nuclear facilities.

— India will continue its unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing.

— The US will ask 43-members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) to treat India as an exceptional case and seek changes in NSG guidelines.

Ironically, the NSG was created in 1974 after India used the US heavy water, given for peaceful nuclear purposes, for the production of the bomb’s plutonium, and then tested the bomb, which demonstrated how nuclear technology transferred for peaceful purposes could be misused. The NSG implements guidelines for control of nuclear and nuclear-related exports. Objections have been raised to this preferential and exceptional treatment of one non-NPT and non-NSG member over the countries which are only seeking nuclear technology for civilian use.

In the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing held on November 2, 2005, Robert G. Joseph, under-secretary for arms control and international security, defended the Bush administration’s policy by saying that the agreement was not a triumph of “power politics” over non-proliferation principles. On November 18, 18 representatives of influential American arms control and non-proliferation think tanks submitted a letter outlining their objections to such a deal writing “On balance, India’s commitments under the current terms of the proposed arrangement do not justify making far-reaching exceptions to US law and international non-proliferation norms.” They questioned the move on following grounds:

— Reliability of India as a nuclear trading partner

— India could back out of its voluntary pledge to safeguard the civilian facilities citing national security.

— Mechanisms that are in place for monitoring and evaluating the civilian sites and export controls. How would the US verify Indian nonproliferation commitments beyond IAEA safeguards?

— The supply of nuclear fuel to India would free-up its existing stockpile and capacity to produce highly enriched uranium and plutonium for weapons.

— Indian fissile material production for weapons needs to be cut-off.

— Strict and verifiable control has been an incentive for non-nuclear weapon states to pursue peaceful nuclear technology and forgo nuclear weapon path. If non-NPT members receive civil nuclear assistance under less rigorous terms, it will undermine international efforts against Iran for greater transparency of its fuel cycle plans.

The agreement is subject to Congressional approval, but it raises possibilities for countries like Pakistan. Michael Krepon, head and founder of Henry L. Stimson Centre, believes that the US should not make distinction between good and bad states as it will seriously damage domestic laws and international treaties. He wrote in an email “The Bush administration’s approach is that it proposes a country-specific exemption to the rules of nuclear commerce.

The administration and the Congress work together to set standards that would allow for the relaxation of nuclear commerce in special cases. When any country meets those standards, it can gain the benefits of nuclear commerce. These standards might not be met by India or Pakistan or Iran. Or they might be met by India today and Pakistan tomorrow. The standards should provide incentives for countries such as Pakistan to improve their poor records of proliferation. For example, Pakistan has had very lax export controls. If it demonstrates excellent export controls, and does not permit illicit nuclear commerce coming into or out of Pakistan for X number of years, it could qualify for help in civil nuclear commerce.”

During the latter years of the Clinton administration, the US laid out non-proliferation benchmarks for both India and Pakistan. These included:

— Halting further nuclear testing and signing and ratifying the CTBT.

— Halting fissile material production and pursuing FMCT negotiations.

— Refraining from deploying nuclear weapons and testing ballistic missiles.

— Restricting any and all exportation of nuclear material or technologies.

Neither India nor Pakistan are signatories to the CTBT or NPT. However, India has not been accused of or involved in proliferation of nuclear material and hence can boast of being more responsible in nuclear matters. While in Pakistan’s case, in February 2004, Dr A. Q. Khan confessed to involvement in the proliferation network on national television. The president of the Islamabad-based think tank Institute of Regional Studies (IRS), Lt-Gen. Jamshed Ayaz refutes the comparison saying, “Whatever happened (in Pakistan) has happened. The system has been tightened and the proliferation was act of a sole individual (Dr A. Q. Khan). Civil nuclear technology is the right of every country. They are helping India, while India has helped both Iraq and Iran. It has not even signed the NPT.”

Pakistan is among the world’s leading recipients of US aid. According a to Congressional brief on Pakistan-US relations (Oct 2005), Pakistan will receive about $3.4 billion in direct US assistance for 2002-06. Almost half of this ($1.5 billion) is security-related aid. After October 2001, all nuclear-related sanctions on India and Pakistan were removed. However, pending legislation in the 109th Congress includes H.R. 1553, which would prohibit the provision of military equipment to Pakistan unless the president can certify that Pakistan has halted all proliferation activities and is fully sharing all information relevant to the A.Q. Khan network.

Pakistan needs to reshape its domestic nuclear policy which comes under military, and hence no-negotiable, and no-discussion apparatus. Is Pakistan ready to enhance its civil nuclear programme at the cost of its military nuclear programme? All over the world, military uranium is being shifted for use in commercial power generation. The energy in one uranium fuel pellet — which is the size of the little finger — is equivalent to 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas which means that a relatively small amount of uranium is used for mass electric production. According to the Australian Uranium Information Centre, a typical 1000MWe reactor can provide enough electricity for a modern city of approximately one million people. Naturally found mineral uranium is enriched four per cent to get electric nuclear energy.

The largest uranium reserves in the world are found in: Kazakhstan, Australia, South Africa, the US, Canada, the Russian Federation, Brazil, Namibia and Uzbekistan. The largest uranium producers in the world are Canada, Australia, Nigeria, Namibia, the US, Russia, Uzbekistan and South Africa. According to the World Energy Council Survey of Energy Sources (2001), nearly all of the 21 uranium-producing countries provide official reports of annual production, but China, India and Pakistan do not provide official reports.

Hence, the US — India pact in the civilian nuclear sector will also shape Pakistan’s foreign, domestic and defence policies.

Major-General Shaukat Sultan, director general, ISPR, categorically outlines the country’s goals “We will discuss (civil nuclear technology) with all countries that can provide this technology to us. We will address their concerns but not if they are unilaterally applied to Pakistan. Compromises are never made in the realm of national security. We need to see whether conditions are being unilaterally applied to Pakistan or universally. Even in universal application where does Pakistan figure? As long as it’s not discriminatory we will consider it.”

Women say ‘no’ to war and violence

MARCH 8 is International Women’s Day which is generally an occasion for stock taking on the status of women. As the world has moved towards a violent future and governments have focused more on what they term national security in the military context, they have lost sight of the issues that actually form the basis of true security — human rights, social justice, education, liberty, health care and the quality of life provided to the people. As such the women’s cause has also come to be overwritten by security issues.

As a result women’s movements worldwide have undergone a shift in paradigm and they have taken up causes which are not really gender-specific. They are now fighting for issues that affect men and women equally. If women are in the lead it is because they are mobilized and have developed the art of protesting in such a way as to make the maximum impact. At no stage have women tried to exclude men who have always been invited to join hands with them to struggle for a cause that is of concern to both.

On women’s day 2006, the focus is on peace. This is not surprising, given the numerous wars that are being waged in different parts of the world today and the violence that has destabilized many states and threatens to devastate mankind itself. Women are now mobilizing for peace and since this is just the beginning one cannot say if they will succeed. A significant effort has been made by a group in the United States calling itself Codepink which has launched the “Women Say No to War” campaign. The war in Iraq and the American military presence in that country that has taken 32,000 lives in the last three years has had a profound impact on women not just in Iraq but also in the US.

Codepink, which was set up in November 2002, says it is bringing over a delegation of Iraqi women to the United States for women’s day to talk of the destruction war causes. All these women have been affected by the war unleashed by the US. Ironically, two women whose families were shot dead by American soldiers have been denied visas on the ground that they do not have enough family members in Iraq to ensure that they would return home. Codepink is also collecting signatures for an appeal in which women from the United States, Iraq, and all over the world declare that they “have had enough of the senseless war in Iraq and the cruel attacks on civilians around the world.” They go on to say, “We’ve buried too many of our loved ones. We’ve seen too many lives crippled forever by physical and mental wounds. We’ve watched in horror as our precious resources are poured into war while our families’ basic needs of food, shelter, education and health care go unmet. We’ve had enough of living in constant fear of violence and seeing the growing cancer of hatred and intolerance seep into our homes and communities.”

Demanding an end to the bloodshed and the destruction in Iraq that is perpetuating an endless cycle of violence, they call “for a shift from the military model to a conflict-resolution model” that includes the withdrawal of all foreign troops and foreign fighters from Iraq, negotiations to reincorporate fully disenfranchised Iraqis into Iraqi society, the full representation of women in the peacemaking process, Iraqi control of its oil and other resources, a massive reconstruction effort that prioritizes Iraqi contractors, and draws upon financial resources of the countries responsible for the invasion and occupation of Iraq, and the consideration of a temporary international peacekeeping force for Iraq that is truly multilateral.

Is this to be the beginning of a new peace movement, albeit this time with international dimensions? Communication technology has made this possible. Although the desire for peace recognises no borders and embraces many generations, races, ethnicities, religions and political persuasions, in the final analysis every society will have to pressure its own government to act and negotiate a political settlement with its adversaries.

This is not an easy assignment. Take the case of Pakistan. The conflict that has devoured this country in the last few years has created paradoxes for the peace activists, with mainly women in the forefront. Considering the suffering war has caused and how its impact has been felt by women, one feels that the demand for peace should have been stronger, louder and universal. It has not been. Just before America invaded Iraq in March 2003 and a peace movement took the world by storm, male and female voices were raised in Pakistan for peace in Iraq. Vigils were held and demonstrations staged against the war. But after the invasion when violence became endemic in Iraq, attention drifted and Iraq was forgotten.

The following year the India-Pakistan composite dialogue was launched and this front became the focus of attention. This was important because the dialogue owes a lot to second track diplomacy that women along with men from both countries had conducted for nearly a decade. But the fact is that the women’s movement in Pakistan failed to make that impact on peace that it was capable of making.

Women played a significant political role in the 1980s, when a ruthless and misogynist military dictator ruled the roost. Their movement appears to have run out of steam. Initially, it was strongly focused on women’s rights issues, its aim being to raise the status of women in the country and safeguard their legal, economic and family interests. But gradually the struggle was broadened to include in its scope wider issues which affect women as well as men.

It was at this stage that the struggle for women’s rights began to lose its momentum. Many of the activists moved on to focus on issues that had a bearing on women but were quite diverse such as human rights, economic imperialism, democracy and peace. This had its advantages but with the shift in focus the women’s rights agenda has remained incomplete. Since many serious problems that have been recognised as being of a fundamental nature in respect of the status of women have remained unresolved, women have not been truly empowered. Neither has the consciousness been created in women that peace and the struggle against violence has a direct bearing on their life. If the primacy of this had been generally recognised women would not have been divided on the peace agenda.

In Pakistan, peace is perceived in two contexts. One is its international dimension, notably, normalising relations with India, resolving the Kashmir problem and conciliating the parties confronting each other across the Durand Line. All these have a bearing for the lives of the people in Pakistan because these are issues that can bring about radical changes in the politics and economics of the country. It may be recalled how the Soviet intervention and the civil war in Afghanistan and the jihad waged from Pakistan’s soil transformed life in this country.

The second dimension of peace is in the domestic context. The emergence of the Islamist parties and their willingness to resort to violence and bloodshed to achieve their goals have far reaching implications for our society. It is beyond belief that the gravity of these developments has not been understood by women generally. In fact, many of them are willing to support parties which as a matter of policy take recourse to violence. Hence the deep polarisation in our society on the issue of peace.

While peace in this context has an ideological aspect, no one should hesitate to condemn violence per se. Take for example domestic violence which is a manifestation of an undesirable pattern of behaviour “rooted in the structural relationships of power, domination and privilege which exist between women and men” (to quote Miranda Davies in Women and Violence).

On this issue too which is so widely prevalent there is no consensus. Although it can lead to injury and death, yet it has not been possible for the National Assembly to adopt the Prevention of Domestic Violence Bill, 2004 that seeks to provide a legal remedy to women victims of domestic violence. It is over a year that it was introduced in the National Assembly. We still have a long way to go before our men and women will understand the importance of peace.

Praying for Pakistan

OUR top leaders always talk a lot about self-reliance. They go regularly to Makkah and Medina and pray tearfully (as reported by our press) for the country’s unity, safety and progress.

We are taught that the Almighty’s ways are inscrutable, and that no one can claim to understand why He punishes some and rewards others; why apparently saintly men and women suffer and those patently satanic flourish. But there is also such a thing as commonsense with which He has equipped the human mind.

This commonsense tells us, whether we are Muslims or non-Muslims, that unless we put food into our mouths He is not going to do it for us and we can starve to death, howsoever pious we may otherwise be. Similarly, unless we do something positive and concrete to improve our ways, and do it honestly and sincerely, God is not going to underwrite our well-being as a nation merely because we are Muslims.

Let us not forget that Allah has so far ensured the safety and prosperity of Israel and India — the lands of the Yahood-o-Hunood, the Jews and Hindus — of whom (according to some of us) he strongly disapproves.

You will be surprised how many in Pakistan believe that this country carries the status of “most favoured nation” in the eyes of the Almighty, and that is why we are still there despite our sins of omission and commission. The question is how long is He going to tolerate our bad, sinful and criminal ways? For there is no doubt now that morally, spiritually and intellectually we have all but reached the nadir of sloth, degradation and depravity, as much in our thoughts as in our utterances and deeds.

It is a common view within the country that there are no decent values and noble standards left, and that corruption, both of mind and of money, has replaced all good traditions and revered practices. Can we still claim to follow Islam when we no longer regard its tenets and principles as sacred, except in lip service and hypocrisy? Since we believe that Islam is the one true faith prescribed by God, I think it would be the height of lunacy to expect that God will forgive us for what we are doing to it. “Strong words, these,” you will say, and ask yourself, “I wonder what makes man so angry and disgusted.”

One of the things I can say in explanation (just one of them, as an example of hypocrisy) is the news report we receive every year from Makkah when the topmost leader of the country goes there and participates in the ritual washing of the Kaaba at the invitation of the Saudi government. Invariably an official handout is issued about the event, and the leader who joins the ritual washing is quoted as saying that, during the ceremony, he had prayed for the solidarity and well-being of Pakistan.

What we do not know is whether the handout-issuing man had pointedly asked the leader what he prayed for, or did the latter volunteer the information himself. In either case Pakistan could not have been the sole subject of his supplication to Allah in the Kaaba. Why didn’t he say he had prayed for his own health, wealth and happiness and those of his near and dear ones, for his political stability and for increase in his lands and property and financial assets, and also prayed for Pakistan? Why turn his prayer into a favour that he had done to his motherland?

Prayer is supposed to be a strictly private communion between man and his Maker. Why do pressmen have to be told about its contents? Must praying for Pakistan be publicised to show what we are doing for our motherland? It is as if the leader was saying, “I have today prayed for the safety and security of Pakistan. Everything will be OK from now. Don’t worry.”

When the former presidents and prime ministers or leaders of the opposition performed umra, and when they raised their hands in devotion at various shrines, did they purposely go there to seek the Almighty’s protection and benediction for Pakistan? Was that their only intention, to ask Him to guard their country against disruption, disunity and disintegration? Nothing else? There was no selfish prayer involved?

I refuse to believe this. Everyone of us bows before the Almighty for his personal and private needs, whether this bowing in prayer is in the privacy of one’s home or under the glare of TV lights. Pakistan only features incidentally (if it does at all) in these invocations to God.

Despite the prayerful whining of our leaders during the past so many years, Pakistan has continued to degenerate in every way, and we have allowed our morals to deteriorate faster than the speed of sound. The plain fact is that prayers for Pakistan have to be accompanied by good actions, noble deeds, and a selfless attitude to national issues and solid work before they can be expected to show results. Remember the childhood lesson? “God helps those who help themselves.”

If the action is not there, prayers are just cries in the wilderness and as meaningless as the one I heard from the imam of our local mosque last Friday. He cried, “Ya Allah, forgive all the sins and trespasses of all Muslims all over the world, dead or living!”

I can’t say anything about the Muslims who are dead, but one may ask: “Will Allah forgive sins and trespasses of the living if they are doing nothing to be good Muslims? Are you implying that they should go on having a jolly good time and God should go on overlooking their misdeeds? Is that what you understand by Islam?”

So, my friends, pray for Pakistan if you must, but for God’s sake do something practical and useful for the country too.