Pakistan and Afghanistan have signed a trade deal that negotiators claim was premised on political, instead of on technical/economic considerations. The political considerations do not refer to domestic politics, but are a component of US objectives in the region, which include enhancing trade between Afghanistan and India requiring the opening of the Wahgah border.
This claim, for most Pakistanis, was amply demonstrated when the accord between Commerce Minister Makhdoom Amin Fahim and his Afghan counterpart Anwarul Haq Ahady, which had run into several technical snags a day previously, was signed in the early hours of Sunday with a smiling Prime Minister Gilani and a benevolent Hillary Clinton, as well as Richard Holbrooke, looking on.
Technical considerations that refer to ensuring Pakistan's economic interests are safeguarded and that no adverse impact of a trade deal with Afghanistan be felt in this country. In this context, the principle of reciprocity must be adhered to, where possible. Thus, if Afghan truckers are allowed to carry their exports to India up to the Wahgah border, then Pakistani truckers must also be allowed to carry our exports and imports, to and from Central Asia, through Afghanistan territory.
The Tajik Ambassador to Pakistan had revealed, in an exclusive interview to Business Recorder, that Pakistan exports 50,000 tons of cement to his country which, due to Afghan truckers' mark-up, is sold at three times its price in Tajikistan; or in other words, the danger is that our cement exports to Tajikistan may become uncompetitive in time as other countries within the region begin to export cheaper cement.
In addition, the Pak-Afghan deal does not specify that all Afghan exports would be in containers, a fact that would limit the transport of Indian goods through the Wahgah border. Fruits and vegetables, it has been revealed, would be in open trucks. Considering that Afghanistan's traditional exports are consumer items, it is safe to assume that most of the goods would be transported in open trucks to the Wahgah border, and may return with Indian products that may well be, unless properly and continuously checked, sold within Pakistan, en route, as well as in Afghanistan. In other words, smuggling, the main bone of contention between Islamabad and Kabul, may well be enhanced and not curtailed due to the recent deal and there are no adequate mitigating clauses in the agreement that deal with this legitimate concern of Pakistan's industry.
However, the establishment, as is well known, has been against the opening of this trade route for reasons ranging from the distinct possibility of a massive increase in smuggling across Pakistan's already porous eastern and western border, which would have negative implications on our industrial output as well as on employment opportunities, to neutralising Pakistan's major bargaining chip, vis-a-vis the Composite Dialogue with India that remains a non-starter. Resistance by the establishment, according to many analysts, is responsible for the Government of Pakistan's decision to refuse to grant Indian goods passage to Afghanistan through the Wahgah border, but according to reports, the deal does note that this issue maybe opened at some future date, though the future date is not mentioned.
Be that as it may, many argue that as the nearest country with a port, Pakistan has certain responsibilities, under international law, towards a landlocked Afghanistan, which include facilitating the movement of its exports and imports. That is not in debate, however, it must be acknowledged that Pakistan, fully cognisant of its responsibilities under international law, has been allowing Afghan exports and imports to pass through Pakistan at a great economic cost to itself.
This deal would further increase our costs. The industrial community, members of the opposition as well as economists, including a former Finance Minister, have condemned the deal. Information Minister Qamar Zaman Kaira has stated that the deal itself has not been signed yet, only an agreement to sign the deal has been signed. One would hope that the government seeks the stakeholders' input as well as the parliament's approval for this deal prior to signing it.
Comments
Comments are closed.