The governments of Pakistan and Afghanistan signed what is being referred to as the minutes on an agreement to controversial clauses in the US-Afghan-backed proposed Afghan-Pakistan Transit Trade Agreement (APTTA) that has yet to be signed, amidst much fanfare.
A smiling Gilani looked on flanked by Hillary Clinton and Richard Holbrooke as Commerce Minister Makhdoom Amin Fahim and his Afghan counterpart Ahady signed the document. President Karzai was at the time in Kabul, preparing for the first multi-donor conference to be held in Kabul ever. And in his speech at the conference, he hailed the signing of the accord as did the accord's other sponsors, President Obama and Hillary Clinton.
This signing ceremony is a historic first for two broad reasons. First, it is the first-ever high-level signature on minutes rather than on an agreement itself. The reason is fairly obvious: US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had about enough of what she no doubt considered as Pakistani government's recalcitrance in resisting a deal that specifically furthered the US interests in the region. The question is how can the APTTA benefit the US? The obvious answer is it cannot other than, perhaps, promoting her regional objectives through benefiting one satellite state namely Karzai's Afghanistan and one ally namely India. Skeptics argue that the prospect of 1.5 billion dollars assistance under the Kerry-Lugar package, the release of US funds under the Coalition Support Fund as well as continued US support to the country's military and civilian infrastructure may have been used as leverage to ensure compliance. And second it is a historic first where the Pakistani government appears to be intent on signing an agreement that is being opposed by the country's politicians as well as the business community as one that compromises our economic interests quite blatantly.
Failure to meet the first Clinton deadline for finalisation of the APTTA - December of 2009 - was, no doubt, attributed to our 'technical experts' who wanted a guarantee from the Afghan government that goods destined for Afghanistan, did not find their way back into Pakistan through smuggling, an activity that has continued to thrive since APTTA was first signed in 1965.
The government of Pakistan insists that the new deal specifies that containers would be the preferred form of packaging, which would ensure that goods along the way are not off loaded in Pakistan. However, consumer items, fruits and vegetables, would be transported in sealed containers, apparently not that difficult to break, especially given the nature and extent of smuggling activity in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. The trucks would be monitored by chips, which have yet to be purchased by the two countries, and their effectiveness in combating sustained levels of smuggling has yet to be proven. What will happen during the interim period, ie before the two countries actually purchase the chips, is not known.
In addition, granting the Afghan truckers the right to operate in Pakistan has raised the distinct possibility of compromising our security not only with respect to the smuggling of arms and ammunition to armed militias within Pakistan, but also smuggling of narcotics. This week past showed Pakistani customs officials, apprehending Afghan truckers smuggling heroin inside lapis lazuli stones destined for Jaipur.
The obvious security implications for Pakistan with respect to the APTTA, led to a senior Commerce Ministry official's revelation that the country's armed forces and intelligence agencies were on board.
According to sources, the country's defence forces were taken into confidence prior to signing on the minutes, but the sources maintain that some of their reservations remain. The primary reservation, one would have assumed, was to bar the flow of Indian goods to Afghanistan through Pakistan road network, a fact that would have security implications as charges of Indian involvement in Balochistan remain. From an economic perspective, our exports would decline as Afghan demand for Pakistani products may well decline and so would our tax collections.
What is also a major source of concern for Pakistani truckers is that not only will they lose this lucrative trade route within Pakistan, but they have not been granted the right to ply Afghan roads en route to carry out trade with the Central Asian Republics. Reciprocity was clearly the need which the Pakistan government has obviously not insisted on.
Subsequent to the signing of the minutes, there was a hue and cry within the country about the likely negative economic fallout on Pakistan. So far the PPP-led federal government has acted true to form: it is vociferously defending the agreement by insisting that it is in Pakistan's interests and that Pakistan has been careful not to allow India the use of Pakistani roads to export to Afghanistan.
The separate note that allows for consideration by the Pakistan government to allow India to use our roads to export to Afghanistan at a later stage is not being mentioned. And what is extremely unfortunate is the claim by Kaira, the Minister of Information, that the deal itself is not signed yet - a statement reminiscent of President Zardari's reference to a signed political deal with Nawaz Sharif as not being the Quran. Hence Kaira's statement must surely have sent shock waves all the way to Washington DC via Delhi and Kabul. Or, perhaps, it did not as the government, no doubt, continues to appease Washington's concerns in this regard.
The current follow up on the signing has been the registration of a case in the Lahore High Court, challenging the APTTA as well as the request by the Punjab government to provide a copy of the deal. At this point, no doubt the federal government would insist that the agreement itself is yet to be signed, but it is precisely such an embarrassing situation that a government must guard against: being compelled by national opinion to go back on its word to the sole superpower as well as a neighbour and all because it did not deem it appropriate to take its own technical experts on board.
If the purpose of the singing was to lower the temperature of the Obama administration, then surely it is by now clear that this has not been achieved: Clinton during her recent visit referred to a trust deceit with Pakistan, Holbrooke wants greater action against the Haqqani network, and India and the US have signed an anti-terror pact. The general consensus of the people of this country is that we remain on the back foot in spite of granting a major concession that would hurt our economic interests and may well compromise our security further.
There is one question that the government must be compelled to respond to in the National Assembly: if we can compromise our economic and security concerns through the US pressure, why indeed would India or Afghanistan agree to hold direct talks with us? Why indeed!
Comments
Comments are closed.