fatman17
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 32,563
- Reaction score
- 98
- Country
- Location
Pipeline or pipedream?
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Zafar Hilaly
When America and China were at daggers drawn in the 50s and 60s American officials were aghast that Pakistan, an American ally (vide our membership of SEATO and the Baghdad Pact), had the temerity to befriend China. John Foster Dulles, a notorious Cold War creature, was in fits. He threatened to rain fire and brimstone on Pakistan. Astonishingly, we held firm and in the process earned the respect of China, which thereafter warmed to us and the rest, as they say, is history.
Yesterday Robert Blake, an American assistant secretary, who is not even an imitation Dulles, did the same, in so many words, when he said "we do not think it is the right time for this (the Iran- Pakistan pipeline) kind of cooperation with Iran" and suggested that "Pakistan should seek other alternatives". The reason, of course, is America's desire that no country have any truck with Iran until the dispute over Iran's nuclear programme is resolved. The fact that the pipeline is indispensable for Pakistan, in view of our growing energy requirements, mattered not a pitcher of warm spit to Mr Blake. Nor was he bothered about the fallout that scrapping the contract would have had on relations between two hitherto friendly neighbours. But then, why should he, when it comes to protecting his country's interests? America's "cold, untroubled heart of stone never muses on sorrow except her own".
Happily Foreign Minister Qureshi worked up the courage to reject Mr Blake's gratuitous advice. Mr Blake must have thought that Pakistan, being a client state, would obey his firman. However, as he will come to learn, the times are changing, so much so that even Hamid Karzai, America's satrap in Kabul, can bite the hand that feeds him with impunity.
In any case it is not as if the Pak-Iran pipeline will start pumping tomorrow the 750 million cubic feet of gas that it is expected to supply daily. Even if construction were to start today the project would take five years to complete. And, that too, may not be possible because we are finding it difficult to scrape up the billions needed to construct the pipeline. Moreover, it is unlikely that the US-Iran standoff will continue indefinitely. Neither country can afford to let it spin out longer than another three years. Impending UN sanctions will hurt Iran, however much Iran may claim to the contrary. In any case, the self-imposed timeline that the Americans have in mind to prevent Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon capability does not extend beyond that. Something, therefore, will have to give and hence, for the meek-hearted amongst us, to jump to answer Mr Blake's summons would have been premature. In fact, if the nuclear issue is resolved satisfactorily, we may even have an American company bidding to finance and lay the pipeline. And if, God forbid, the present standoff ends in war then the project will anyhow become moot.
Nor should we be misled by American offers to consider "alternative" sources. The possibilities of a civilian nuclear deal with the US are remote. Congress is unlikely to entertain the prospect given our poor proliferation record. In any case, our demand for gas by 2014 will reach 8 billion cubic feet per day, whereas, at the moment, production is less than 4 billion cubic feet per day. Even if we include gas from Iran, and from the one LNG plant that is in the offing, there will still be an estimated shortfall of 2-3 billion cubic feet of gas per day by 2013-14. So great are our needs that we need to import gas wherever it is available and, as luck has it, it is located next door -- not to do so would be idiotic.
The energy crisis Pakistan confronts has proved devastating for the economy and, along with cancelled orders on account of the recession, has brought about a near meltdown. The impact on the daily lives of the populace is no less severe. The figures speak for themselves. The electricity shortage has now reached 4,000MW and nearly 40% of the populace have to make do without electricity. Only 18% of the populace have access to pipeline gas for cooking and heating. Merely by converting from oil to gas piped from Iran our existing power facilities would add 25% more to their power output owing to the enhanced efficiency of generators powered by gas. Hence, Iranian gas is a vital need. Such an agreement should, in fact, have been concluded much earlier, and probably would have been, had our leaders a mite more sense.
Moreover, the political fallout of a decision to scrap the agreement with Iran would be grave and long lasting. Iran and Pakistan have never really warmed to the other in the way that China or Turkey have to Pakistan. True, the Shah had great regard for Pakistan's leaders and Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto was an intimate of the Iranian Royal family. And during our wars with India the Shah did offer tangible support. But who can forget the Shah's boast in 1971 that in the event of Pakistan disintegrating Iran would seize Balochistan? Or that, as Iran's coffers overflowed with petro- dollars, following the 1973 oil boycott, the Shah's megalomania increased and "big brother" Pakistan of 1947 was viewed and treated as the proverbial "poorer cousin" by 1977? The innate sense of racial superiority, never far from the surface among high-born Persians, also boiled over. Considering Persians a race apart, the Shah went as far as to offer anyone in Pakistan of Persian descent Iranian nationality. And when the brothers Agha Shahi and Agha Hilaly declined the "honour" he was genuinely astonished. It never occurred to the King of Kings that it was they who felt insulted by his offer which implicitly questioned their loyalty to Pakistan.
Imam Khomeini of course found it impossible to hide his distaste of Zia-ul-Haq going as far as to ask a delegation of army officers, who called on him at Qum in 1979, to overthrow the usurper. In return Zia, a Salafist, identified himself with the Saudis and ever since relations between Iran and Pakistan have been vexed. At one time the two countries were engaged in a proxy war in Afghanistan with Iran backing the Northern Alliance and Pakistan the Taliban. Relations have improved but not all that much. Iran remains wary of Pakistan's American connection. Nevertheless, Iran has been mostly circumspect in cultivating Pakistan's Shias although her exuberance, now and then, does spill over.
That said, scrapping an agreement concluded after long and tortuous negotiations, purely to please the Americans, would have understandably been considered a gratuitous insult by Iran and one timed deliberately and spitefully to further isolate Iran. It would have almost certainly propelled Iran further towards India, strengthened the sectarian divide within Pakistan, invited Iranian interference and made an eventual settlement in Afghanistan more remote.
In view of the ramifications and the negative impact of such a move on Iran-Pakistan relations, the foreign minister was wise to speak out and scotch the possibility of any such move. It may also be worth the foreign minister's while, when he next sidles up to Hilary Clinton and inclines his head to mention in her ear that Pakistan has not only no intention of scrapping the agreement on the pipeline with Iran but plans to work assiduously to improve relations with Iran. And, just as we did not budge when similarly advised by America to shun China, we have no intentions of being guided in our relationship with Iran by American preferences. The hallmark of a self-respecting nation is what she does and not what others do or threaten to do.
The writer is a former ambassador. Email: charles123it@hotmail.com
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Zafar Hilaly
When America and China were at daggers drawn in the 50s and 60s American officials were aghast that Pakistan, an American ally (vide our membership of SEATO and the Baghdad Pact), had the temerity to befriend China. John Foster Dulles, a notorious Cold War creature, was in fits. He threatened to rain fire and brimstone on Pakistan. Astonishingly, we held firm and in the process earned the respect of China, which thereafter warmed to us and the rest, as they say, is history.
Yesterday Robert Blake, an American assistant secretary, who is not even an imitation Dulles, did the same, in so many words, when he said "we do not think it is the right time for this (the Iran- Pakistan pipeline) kind of cooperation with Iran" and suggested that "Pakistan should seek other alternatives". The reason, of course, is America's desire that no country have any truck with Iran until the dispute over Iran's nuclear programme is resolved. The fact that the pipeline is indispensable for Pakistan, in view of our growing energy requirements, mattered not a pitcher of warm spit to Mr Blake. Nor was he bothered about the fallout that scrapping the contract would have had on relations between two hitherto friendly neighbours. But then, why should he, when it comes to protecting his country's interests? America's "cold, untroubled heart of stone never muses on sorrow except her own".
Happily Foreign Minister Qureshi worked up the courage to reject Mr Blake's gratuitous advice. Mr Blake must have thought that Pakistan, being a client state, would obey his firman. However, as he will come to learn, the times are changing, so much so that even Hamid Karzai, America's satrap in Kabul, can bite the hand that feeds him with impunity.
In any case it is not as if the Pak-Iran pipeline will start pumping tomorrow the 750 million cubic feet of gas that it is expected to supply daily. Even if construction were to start today the project would take five years to complete. And, that too, may not be possible because we are finding it difficult to scrape up the billions needed to construct the pipeline. Moreover, it is unlikely that the US-Iran standoff will continue indefinitely. Neither country can afford to let it spin out longer than another three years. Impending UN sanctions will hurt Iran, however much Iran may claim to the contrary. In any case, the self-imposed timeline that the Americans have in mind to prevent Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon capability does not extend beyond that. Something, therefore, will have to give and hence, for the meek-hearted amongst us, to jump to answer Mr Blake's summons would have been premature. In fact, if the nuclear issue is resolved satisfactorily, we may even have an American company bidding to finance and lay the pipeline. And if, God forbid, the present standoff ends in war then the project will anyhow become moot.
Nor should we be misled by American offers to consider "alternative" sources. The possibilities of a civilian nuclear deal with the US are remote. Congress is unlikely to entertain the prospect given our poor proliferation record. In any case, our demand for gas by 2014 will reach 8 billion cubic feet per day, whereas, at the moment, production is less than 4 billion cubic feet per day. Even if we include gas from Iran, and from the one LNG plant that is in the offing, there will still be an estimated shortfall of 2-3 billion cubic feet of gas per day by 2013-14. So great are our needs that we need to import gas wherever it is available and, as luck has it, it is located next door -- not to do so would be idiotic.
The energy crisis Pakistan confronts has proved devastating for the economy and, along with cancelled orders on account of the recession, has brought about a near meltdown. The impact on the daily lives of the populace is no less severe. The figures speak for themselves. The electricity shortage has now reached 4,000MW and nearly 40% of the populace have to make do without electricity. Only 18% of the populace have access to pipeline gas for cooking and heating. Merely by converting from oil to gas piped from Iran our existing power facilities would add 25% more to their power output owing to the enhanced efficiency of generators powered by gas. Hence, Iranian gas is a vital need. Such an agreement should, in fact, have been concluded much earlier, and probably would have been, had our leaders a mite more sense.
Moreover, the political fallout of a decision to scrap the agreement with Iran would be grave and long lasting. Iran and Pakistan have never really warmed to the other in the way that China or Turkey have to Pakistan. True, the Shah had great regard for Pakistan's leaders and Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto was an intimate of the Iranian Royal family. And during our wars with India the Shah did offer tangible support. But who can forget the Shah's boast in 1971 that in the event of Pakistan disintegrating Iran would seize Balochistan? Or that, as Iran's coffers overflowed with petro- dollars, following the 1973 oil boycott, the Shah's megalomania increased and "big brother" Pakistan of 1947 was viewed and treated as the proverbial "poorer cousin" by 1977? The innate sense of racial superiority, never far from the surface among high-born Persians, also boiled over. Considering Persians a race apart, the Shah went as far as to offer anyone in Pakistan of Persian descent Iranian nationality. And when the brothers Agha Shahi and Agha Hilaly declined the "honour" he was genuinely astonished. It never occurred to the King of Kings that it was they who felt insulted by his offer which implicitly questioned their loyalty to Pakistan.
Imam Khomeini of course found it impossible to hide his distaste of Zia-ul-Haq going as far as to ask a delegation of army officers, who called on him at Qum in 1979, to overthrow the usurper. In return Zia, a Salafist, identified himself with the Saudis and ever since relations between Iran and Pakistan have been vexed. At one time the two countries were engaged in a proxy war in Afghanistan with Iran backing the Northern Alliance and Pakistan the Taliban. Relations have improved but not all that much. Iran remains wary of Pakistan's American connection. Nevertheless, Iran has been mostly circumspect in cultivating Pakistan's Shias although her exuberance, now and then, does spill over.
That said, scrapping an agreement concluded after long and tortuous negotiations, purely to please the Americans, would have understandably been considered a gratuitous insult by Iran and one timed deliberately and spitefully to further isolate Iran. It would have almost certainly propelled Iran further towards India, strengthened the sectarian divide within Pakistan, invited Iranian interference and made an eventual settlement in Afghanistan more remote.
In view of the ramifications and the negative impact of such a move on Iran-Pakistan relations, the foreign minister was wise to speak out and scotch the possibility of any such move. It may also be worth the foreign minister's while, when he next sidles up to Hilary Clinton and inclines his head to mention in her ear that Pakistan has not only no intention of scrapping the agreement on the pipeline with Iran but plans to work assiduously to improve relations with Iran. And, just as we did not budge when similarly advised by America to shun China, we have no intentions of being guided in our relationship with Iran by American preferences. The hallmark of a self-respecting nation is what she does and not what others do or threaten to do.
The writer is a former ambassador. Email: charles123it@hotmail.com
