Pakistan: Shia carnage in Shikarpur

In the second attack of 2015 on a mosque of Shia sect in Shikarpur in Sindh over 60 people were martyred, the first attack was in Rawalpindi. Police has been prompt in terming it a suicide attack. 

Reuters reported that Jundullah, a splinter group of Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), which last year pledged support for the Islamic State group based in Syria and Iraq, claimed responsibility. “Our target was the Shia mosque ... They are our enemies,” said Jundullah spokesman Fahad Marwat

Residents of Sindh showed complete solidarity with the families who lost their near and dear. Sindh government announced a day of mourning in solidarity with the families of the victims and said the national flag would fly at half mast and compensation was also announced for the victims' families.

On the call of Majlis Wahdat-i-Muslimeen (MWM), a large number of men, women and children staged sit-in various parts of provincial capital as well as other cities. Protesters said that terrorists are roaming freely and the government has failed to protect citizens' lives.

MWM was joined by Sunni Ittehad Council, Sunni Alliance, Pakistan Muslim League - Quaid and the Pakistan Awami Tehreek. However, many of the political and religious parties remained completely aloof.

Over the years it has been alleged that Punjab offers the safe sanctuaries for militants but PML-N been denying it. In the aftermath of Shikarpur carnage, Federal Interior Minister Nisar Ali Khan has accepted presence of various militant groups and extremists in Punjab. 

According to the scanty information provided to media 14,000 individuals were hauled up for investigation; 341 allegedly involved in hate speech; 1,100 warned for misuse of loudspeakers; and 41 shops closed for distributing hate material. These numbers pertain to the recent National Action Plan initiated only but no one knows about those arrested and freed.

The revelations by the interior minister indicate a continuing unwillingness to be as forthright as possible. Virtually nothing has been done in over a decade to clamp down on extremist and militant outfits in the province. According to the minister the groups operating in the province have soared to 95, well above the nationally banned 72 groups that the interior ministry itself has listed.

His revelation prompts following questions rightly raised by Dawn in one of its editorial:

• Which groups comprise the list of 95 militant/extremist outfits
• Which additional groups have become active in Punjab?
• Who are the leaders of these groups?
• Where do they operate?
• What is their reach?
• Who funds them?
• Which madressahs, mosques or religious networks are they tied to?
• What attacks have they carried out?
• And, perhaps most relevantly, what types of attacks are they suspected of planning?

In any investigation, first the motive of crime has to be determined. Police by declaring this a suicide attack has freed itself and Reuters report involving Jundullah is likely to mislead further investigation. Linking Jundullah with TTP is totally misleading as these two groups have nothing in common.
 

While it is almost impossible to deny foreign involvement in such incidences, the real operators are certainly Pakistanis or those coming from other countries having found safe sanctuaries in Pakistan.

One has all the reasons to believe that most of the extremist outfits have bases in KPK, Punjab and Baluchistan

While these operators may kill hundreds of innocent people in those provinces to spread terrorism, killings in Sindh are aimed at making Pakistan economically weaker.

As such the interfaith harmony is at its peak in Sindh and Shia-Sunni rift is not a local phenomenon. Many in Sindh believe that sectarian killing in the province is done by groups based in other provinces.

Tale of two ports Chabahar and Gwadar

Lately two ports, namely Gawadar and Chabahar, have emerged on Makran coast that are located at a distance of about 70 kilometers. One is located in Baluchistan province of Pakistan and other is also situated in Sistan-Baluchistan province of Iran. Both the ports have been constructed with the stated objective of finding efficient and cost effective routes to energy-rich Central Asian countries passing through Afghanistan.

The point to be explored is that both the ports have been constructed by two rivals, China and India, one an accepted world super power and the other a self-proclaimed regional super power. The story is not as simple as being narrated because the United States is fully supporting India in establishing its hegemony in the region by not taking any action against India for supporting Iran facing economic sanctions for more than three decades.

Afghan transit trade has been passing through Pakistan since independence. Arms, ammunition and combat forces also used this route when USSR attacked Afghanistan and also when the United States attached Afghanistan in the aftermath of 9/11. While this route has been used for supplies for combat forces for more than four decades, the need was felt for developing another route that could provide easy access to landlocked countries to ‘warm waters’.

Since the United States could not construct an alternative rout passing through Iran at its own, it encouraged India to support Iran, facing economic sanctions for more than three decades, in building a port outside Strait of Hormuz and link it with Central Asian states via Afghanistan.

The work on both the ports started around the same time. While the rulers in Pakistan remained engrossed in ‘war against terror’ and didn’t raise any objection on Indian involvement in an Iranian port, India remained critical of Chinese involvement in Gwadar. On almost every forum India tries to prove that Chinese involvement in Gwadar is a threat for its (Indian) existence.

The plea taken by India is that Indian Ocean should remain ‘arms free’. However, navies of almost all the major powers are present in the area to protect their maritime trade. It is on record that almost 60% of global maritime trade passes through Indian Ocean. It may not be wrong to say that in the name of protecting their maritime trade certain countries have deployed their submarines and aircraft carriers in the Indian Ocean, which could become a ground for proxy war.

Pakistan has over 1,200 kilometer long coastal line, which offers the country opportunities to establish Special Economic Zones and attract huge foreign investment. However, presence of insurgent and resistance groups in Baluchistan has kept foreign investors away from Pakistan. Fallout of the war going on in the neighborhood is that some of the militant groups have found safe havens in the province.

There is also a loud talk about creation of ‘Greater Baluchistan’ comprising of one slice each from Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Since India has played a major role in turning East Pakistan into Bangladesh, keeping an eye on its involvement in Chabahar, growing insurgency in Baluchistan and armed conflicts at Pak Iran border is necessary.

US to stay in Afghanistan beyond 2014

I wrote a blog as back as in August 2012 raising a question, will US pull troops out of Afghanistan? My gut feeling even at that time was that the troops would not be pulled out for one or the reason. I recently read an article which substantiates my point of view. I have all the reasons to believe that point of view of author is right.

The basic premise of author is that after 13 years of war, President Barack Obama has declared the end of U.S. combat operations in Afghanistan. “Our combat mission in Afghanistan is ending, and the longest war in American history is coming to a responsible conclusion,'” Obama said in a statement from Honolulu, where he is spending his Christmas vacation. But that should not be taken to mean that there will be no U.S. forces in the country, nor that they will not be engaged in warfare in the New Year.  He mentioned five reasons for the retention of US troops that are:

Afghanistan wants help

American troops will remain in Afghanistan for more time. A day after his oath taking Afghan President Mohammed Ashraf Ghani signed a bilateral security agreement with the U.S., extending the American military presence in his country beyond 2014. Obama has announced plans for a phased withdrawal of troops over the next two years that will leave about 5,500 there by the end of 2015 and 1,000 by the beginning of 2017.

Withdrawals are already delayed

The New Year has begun with as many as 10,800 American troops still in Afghanistan, or about 1,000 more than Obama had planned. Departing Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, who announced the withdrawal slowdown earlier, said delays in Afghanistan's election process and in the signing of the security agreement left allies unable to commit enough troops in time. While the extra American troops may stay only for several months, the need for them underscores continuing tensions between military commanders worried that Afghan forces aren't ready to stave off the Taliban and a president determined to keep his promise to end the war on schedule.

Afghan training continues

While the U.S. and allied combat mission is officially over, American troops who stay on will spend the next two years training and advising Afghan forces. The Afghans also still need aviation and intelligence support that the U.S. will provide in 2015. That role could still put U.S. troops in combat as a Taliban offensive is under way. Kabul, once among the most secure cities, has been the scene of daily bombings lately.

The War on Terror isn't over

The U.S. forces are still conducting counterterrorism operations. As part of their redefined mission for the next two years, Americans will focus on terrorist threats that may be posed by Taliban leaders or remnants of al-Qaeda. Those operations could still risk combat casualties, albeit in smaller numbers.

The Taliban isn't done either

Shortly before declaring combat over, Obama quietly authorized continuation of some offensive air and ground operations in 2015 to protect any remaining U.S. forces, ensuring their right of self-defense. The Taliban and other militants have stepped up attacks across the country in recent weeks in an attempt to overthrow Ghani's new government. The violence has killed and wounded about 10,000 civilians in 2014, according to the United Nations. More than 2,300 Americans have died in the war, which began as an effort to oust the Taliban after 9/11 terrorist attacks on the U.S.. More than 20,000 U.S. troops have been wounded.

Greed and fear driving crude oil prices

It is becoming more evident that both the U.S. and OPEC members are falling prey to greed and fear.  All the producers want to pump more oil to retain their respective market share. While it seems almost impossible to boost demand, production at faster rate is creating glut. In the past hedge funds were prompt in enhancing their stake in oil but this time they seem least interested.

Does this mean they are also victim of fear and don’t see prices rebounding in the near future. It may not be wrong to say that many of the reports being published by the western media are opinion not the news. These reports suggest that the glut is because OPEC members are not willing to curtail production. However, there has been no suggestion that the U.S. should curtail production.

Having reach a point that OPEC may not be keen in reducing output and also read news that even geopolitics is not working, it was feared that oil countries suffering from turmoil would be the first to stop production. The fears came true as dispatches from Libya and Nigeria are almost halted.

Oil prices have already declined by almost 45 percent this year to a five-year low after OPEC producers including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq reduced prices and the International Energy Agency cut its estimate for global demand for the fourth time in five months.

People like Michael Lynch, President of Strategic Energy and Economic Research in Winchester, Massachusetts believe that prices are close to the bottom. Many readers consider this ‘disinformation’ because other still believe price could slip below US$40/barrel. This is a level which is certainly not liked by Shale oil producers, who have also started propagating that higher production is helping in bringing down cost of production.

 “This shows that there’s a lot of skepticism about the selloff and a feeling that prices should soon rebound,” John Kilduff, a partner at Again Capital LLC, a New York-based hedge fund that focuses on energy, informed and continued, “We’re seeing bargain hunting by investors of all stripes.”

OPEC will stand by its decision not to cut output even if oil drops to as low as US$40 a barrel and will wait at least three months before considering an emergency meeting, United Arab Emirates Energy Minister Suhail Al-Mazrouei said at a conference in Dubai. The 12-member group maintained its collective target of 30 million barrels a day at a Nov. 27 meeting in Vienna.

The slump in benchmark U.S. crude futures, is driving producers to move drill rigs to lower-cost fields. While there’s evidence of some rebalancing starting to occur in the market, many believe it isn’t sufficient.

There is growing impression that costs are falling nearly as fast as the price, which means oil producers can spend less to get the same or potentially even more in terms of production. While reductions in capex are coming faster than expected, it is unlikely to translate into less supply, despite that number of drill-rig has dropped as much as 20 percent.

 

Pak China Free Trade Agreement

Creation of WTO and arriving at the agreement to give all countries equal opportunities ushered a new era in international trade. Simultaneously, different trade groups emerged to ensure collective well-being. NAFTA was the first to emerge, that was followed by European Union (EU) and the story continued. From Pakistan’s perspective it is member of ECO and SAARC but both these blocs have remained muted.

RCD was broadened and given ECO name but remained of no consequence because of Iran facing economic sanctions for more than three decade. Turkey paid more attention to acquiring membership of EU than reviving ECO. Pakistan was engrossed in Afghan war and its internal conflicts due to the war going on in the backyard. SAARC remained ineffective due to Indian hegemony. Under the prevailing scenario Pakistan had no option but to enter into bilateral preferential trade and free trade agreements. Out of these the most important is Pak-China Free Trade Agreement.

Let one point be kept in mind that China is the second largest economy of the world that has attracted huge investment from United States and also emerged as one of its main trading partners, as against this Pakistan was often labeled ‘failed state’ with nineties being called ‘lost decade’. Pakistan’s economy has virtually collapsed due to influx of Afghan refugees due to USSR attack on Afghanistan in late seventies, war going in the country for nearly four decades and country emerging as the worst victim of terrorism/militancy/extremism.

As foreign investment dried, Pakistan had to look for a friend who could help in strengthening the local infrastructure as well as manufacturing base. China, a time tested friend extended the support in building infrastructure and power plants. China also tried to revive trade through ‘all season’ KK highway, previously known as ‘Silk Route’, the oldest trade corridor.  There was substantial increase in bilateral trade between the two countries even prior to the signing of FTA, which has removed barriers to further smoothen the trade.

Pakistan and China signed FTA in 2006 and its scope was to broaden with the passage of time. Reviewing the ground realities after almost 8 years leaves a strange feeling. Certain groups having vested interest are making Pakistanis scared rather than preparing them for exploiting the opportunities. One needs to look at the discussions going on with a different perspective.

Some quarters are certainly unhappy with the time test cordial relationship between the two countries and wish to create hurdles. Be it the growing militancy in Chinese areas adjoining Pakistan or unrest in Baluchistan these are not isolated but planned moves to create disturbances in economic cooperation between the two countries. The much talked about hue and cry created by the businessmen having vested interest also needs to be seen in the same perspective.

Since early days Pakistan and China have enjoyed most cordial relationship. With the passage of time friendship has been further consolidated with China first building the silk route, establishing heavy mechanical and electrical complexes in Pakistan. The economic cooperation further consolidated with construction of Gwadar port and two nuclear power plants.

While some cynics term Chinese presence in Pakistan as a security threat, others very strongly believe that  economic cooperation between the two countries will usher new era based on ages old premise ‘Pakistan is a natural trade and energy corridor’.  The latest move to achieve this dream is construction of Gwadar to Kashgar road and rail links.

Over the years China remained a major buyer of textile intermediate goods and lately embarked upon acquiring stake in Pakistani textiles and clothing industry. The move was also seen with great suspicion but very few were able to accept it as part of the strategy followed by the developed countries. With manpower becoming scarce and expensive developed countries shift their labor-intensive manufacturing facilities to developing/least developed countries which continue to enjoy abundant cheap manpower.

It is being alleged that Pakistan has become a dumping ground for cheap and inferior quality Chinese products. This perception gets some credence when one visits Pakistani markets. However, no one can deny the fact that China is known for producing superior quality products which are bought by United States and European countries. Therefore, it may be said that Pakistani importers are deliberately buying cheap goods, which are mostly brought into the country through land route.

The fear that Chinese textiles and clothing industry would cause material injury to Pakistani manufacturers is partly true and partly a myth. Pakistani manufacturers of textiles and clothing compete in the global market with many countries including China. Those manufacturers have been able to compete which go for value addition and produce superior quality products. However, even the most efficient ones face eroding competitiveness because of some structural weaknesses i.e. higher electricity and gas tariffs, prolonged outages, poor law and order situation and above all negative perception about Pakistan.

It goes without saying that whenever two countries sign preferential or free trade agreements in the initial period negative list are prepared comprising of products that are sensitive for both the countries. Therefore, presence of negative lists should not of any surprise for Pakistanis. If Pakistani were not able to identify sensitive products the blame should not go to China.

The beauty of PCFTA agreement is that Pakistan should be buying more of machinery, raw materials and chemicals from China and supplying it goods in which it enjoys comparative advantage i.e. textiles and clothing, sports goods, surgical instruments and seafood (China is the biggest buyer of fish and other species which are not consumed in Pakistan).

China can become the biggest source for textile machinery and Pakistan by converting the entire cotton produced in the country into value added products become a major source of textiles and clothing for China. A fact must be kept in mind that Chinese manufacturers are shifting their manufacturing facilities or establishing manufacturing units in other countries. Pakistan enjoys the competitive advantage and energy shortage will also be overcome with Chinese investment in power plants in Pakistan.

China is the second largest crude oil consuming country after United States. It buys oil from Iran and other countries which is taken by ships through long route. Pakistan has attained self sufficiency in some POL products and output can be further enhanced by operating refineries at optimum capacity utilization. Two pipelines (one for black oil and other for white oil) and mid country refinery, PARCO, can become a major source of POL products for those parts of China which enjoy common border with Pakistan.

Bilateral trade between China and Pakistan is only a fraction of trade between China and India. Exports from India have increased because of supporting policies of the government. As against this Pakistani exporters look for the crutches like textile quota, GSP and cotton at below international prices but are hardly ready to bring efficiency, economy of scale, synergy through BMR/expansion.

In Pakistan many of spinning mills have 14,400 or even lesser spindles, which don’t make economically viable units. Bulk of cloth is produced on power looms and processed in obsolete plants; the result is inferior quality and high cost of production.

Analysis of ginning factories also shows that cotton staple is damaged due to use of outdated/obsolete machinery. The result is that cotton that is capable of producing 30 and above counts of yarn ends up in producing coarse counts of yarn, this is waste of resource.

The purpose of mentioning a few examples is that if the country is serious in attracting foreign invest, be it from China or any other country the required steps are: 1) creating enabling environment, 2) encouraging local investment, 3) promoting joint ventures and above all changing the existing negative perception about the country.

It is encouraging that China has shown keen interest in investing in Pakistan. Signing of MoUs may be the first step, but executing the projects is most crucial. The response to the recent IPO of Engro Powergen, enjoying Chinese support  is just the tip of iceberg. Chinese investment in infrastructure will certainly help in the creation of enabling environment but Pakistan has to be developed as trade and energy corridor.

 

Declining oil prices: Boon or bane

After having posted a blog titled ‘Winners and losers of oil war’ on November 22, 2014, I kept on searching my soul. I felt embarrassed for talking about the oil producers only and ignoring the consumers altogether. It also dawned that both United States and Saudi Arabia have kept oil prices high to achieve their own selfish motives. It may also be said that Saudi Arabia are an accomplice in this crime against humanity because common men were the worst hit.

Saudi Arabia has nurtured its own worst enemy in oil trade. The largest oil producing country failed in realizing that prices were kept high to enable shale oil and gas production economically viable in the United States. Saudis were looking on one side of the coin, extra petro dollars to finance their lavish spending and never thought that one day United States would become their worst competitors, may be, because many in this world fail to look beyond their nose and Arabs were no exception.

As all and sundry know that media is controlled by west, particularly the Zionists, it is trying to create an impression that Saudi Arabia has initiated oil war against United States. While all the report suggests that OPEC should curtail production none has pointed out that United States should curtail its output.

Global media has also not being honest as it talks very little about the benefits of nearly 40% decline in oil prices. Many non-oil producing countries that were victim of high oil prices have witnessed signs of improvement in their economies. Industries like airlines and shipping have wiped-out huge accumulated losses and inflation around the world has come down.

Reduction in oil prices has also opened the Pandora Box that many of the governments have been keeping POL prices high to earn extra revenue. One of the reports has exposed that in United Kingdom retail price of motor gasoline include one-third tax. Such countries may also feel upset with the decline in crude oil price. The British government may not be alone; dozens of other countries may also be doing the same.

The time has come to decide if the interest of a few monarchs and oil tycoons is important or the millions of people deserve a better life. Oil politics has led to wars in many countries the most naked examples being Iraq, Sudan, Nigeria, Iran and Libya. One point has to be kept in mind that higher oil prices have made lives of millions of people miserable.

May be, the time has come to establish a global regulatory authority to oversee, monitor and control crude oil production and prices. No country should be allowed to protect the interest of a few oil producing companies only. If some of the shale oil producers could sell oil below US$50 a barrel and make profit why should inefficient companies be allowed to thrive by ripping off millions of people around the world.