http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010\01\31\story_31-1-2010_pg3_1
Sunday, January 31, 2010 EDITORIAL: Afghanistan's future The London Conference on Afghanistan, though not a complete failure, has not been hailed as a successful moot either. The conference's communiqué said that the international community has renewed "their mutual commitment towards helping Afghanistan emerge as a secure, prosperous, and democratic nation...[the conference represents] a decisive step towards greater Afghan leadership to secure, stabilise and develop Afghanistan". As is usual with such high profile events, there are more promises but less deliverance. Whether the international community will deliver on its promises to the Afghan people remains to be seen, but on the face of it, the withdrawal of US led NATO forces does not bode too well for the future of Afghanistan. Participants at the conference agreed upon the appointment of an independent office to crack down on rampant corruption. It will have an international monitoring group of experts. President Hamid Karzai has been accused by both the Afghan people and his foreign patrons that he has not come down hard on the issue of corruption over the years. The Afghan government would now be provided with full assistance in combating corruption, nepotism and favouritism. An important outcome of the London moot was that the international community has stressed upon security transition in Afghanistan to take place as quickly as possible. NATO Secretary General said that 'transition' was not a code word for exit, but there will be an expansion of the Afghan security forces with the gradual transfer of responsibility to begin this year. However, the Afghan forces will not have any control over provinces with active presence of militants for the time being and will only be given control of 'soft' provinces. This may prove out to be a beginning in their training to take charge in the coming years. In view of the security problems being faced by the coalition forces, it did not come as a surprise when the London moot decided to reintegrate Taliban fighters into Afghan society. President Karzai vowed to reach out to "disenchanted brothers", meaning the Afghan Taliban. A trust fund has been created to mobilise the reintegration of the Taliban. Hardliners amongst the Taliban will not be part of the deal; a 'wedge' could be driven between the moderates and hardliners. Pakistan has always supported this policy of holding a dialogue with the Afghan Taliban. Over the past few months, Saudi Arabia has been holding peripheral negotiations with the Taliban leadership but the ISI wants to be the direct mediator between the Taliban and the international community. Given the past record of our intelligence agency, the Afghans and the West do not trust the ISI. The Taliban on the other hand have rejected the reconciliation offer, but Afghanistan's Interior Minister Hanif Atmar dismissed these reports by arguing that the Taliban do not have a monolithic organisation, thus one cannot make a generalised statement about what they are and what they want to do. He was optimistic about holding negotiations with the Taliban. Pakistan should be happy that the Indians were marginalised in Afghanistan despite the West's intentions to the contrary. Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi said that Afghanistan's six immediate neighbours, as well as China and Russia, felt no need for a "greater Indian role" in Afghanistan. The international community has pledged to increase the share of foreign aid to Afghanistan for rehabilitation and reconstruction purposes. This is the most important part for the people of Afghanistan. If the international community wants to win the hearts and minds of the Afghan people and take them out of the fold of extremist elements, it has to focus on bringing economic reforms in the war-torn country. An economically developed and politically stable Afghanistan will bring normalcy to the region in particular and the world in general. * SECOND EDITORIAL: A strategic blunder Pakistan's Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi's revelation that the plan to give arable land on lease is still intact should ring alarm bells. It seems that despite argument to the contrary, the foreign minister is committed to using his clout within the government to go ahead with a plan that is dubious at best. Rich countries that depend heavily on food imports are looking for lands in developing nations to ensure their food security in the coming years in the face of fluctuating prices of foodstuff in the international market. The foreign minister's argument that the land to be leased is fallow does not stand for a number of reasons. First, over 10 million hectares of land that is to be leased is situated in Southern Punjab and Sindh, the most water deficient areas. With already dwindling water supplies, which are projected to fall further in the coming years after the construction of Bhasha-Diamer dam, what guarantees can Pakistan give to the investing parties that it will ensure a constant water supply to sustain continuous output at the expense of dehydrating our own people and lands? Second, if the prospective investor will run their farms on minimum use of water through conservation techniques, then the same could be introduced into the farming sector by training the local farmers, thus creating employment opportunities in undeveloped rural areas and increasing our productivity. Third, news reports appeared last year that while selling the idea to prospective investors, when the issue of security arose, Pakistan floated the idea of raising a 100,000-strong force to provide protection to the leased farms. At a time when security forces cannot even protect the life and property of ordinary citizens from the militants, pledging security to 'foreign farms' seems to be a pie in the sky. Fourth, these leases are for an extended period of time. An increase in population during the time of lease would warrant that we bring more land under cultivation and increase our productivity. This inevitably leads to the fifth point that Pakistan's own food security is important. Every year, one or the other commodity flies from the market, which we have to buy at inflated prices from international traders when a cheaper alternative is to grow it at home. Not only producing our food at home is a tactical issue, in the coming year surplus food export may even become a profitable venture. In a scenario when prospects of climate change has sent everyone running for food security, whatever the prospective returns, it would be a massive strategic blunder to pledge our arable lands to foreign countries. * [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
