Pakistan crisis - Central News Hub

Fuel crisis cripples Pakistan

Cash-strapped Pakistan could go dry on the fuel front soon. Such an unenviable situation, analysts point out, is caused by its bad foreign policy choices made amidst domestic political turmoil and economic crisis. Pakistan is a net loser in fuel oil imports at a time the Ukraine conflict has worsened the situation for most economies globally … writes Dr Sakariya Kareem

Pakistan is in a fix over its dwindling oil stocks wherein the fuel it imports is smuggled to Afghanistan even as its “informal trade” on oil with Iran, another neighbour, is thriving. A net oil importer, it has been able to stave off the fuel crisis because demand by the industry has fallen in the last year. The industry has suffered a slowdown for a lack of funds to pay for accessories it imports. Production and exports of textiles, one of its major mainstays, have fallen.

Such an unenviable situation, analysts point out, is caused by its bad foreign policy choices made amidst domestic political turmoil and economic crisis. Pakistan is a net loser in fuel oil imports at a time the Ukraine conflict has worsened the situation for most economies globally. Its then Prime Minister Imran Khan’s presence in Moscow (despite American warnings) last year on the day Ukraine was attacked, did not help. Pakistan could not play the victim card as Khan did not stay in office, the Americans were unhappy and the Russians were looking for cash. They still do, and Pakistan is cash-strapped.

Pakistani rupee. (Photo: Wikipedia)

Worse, Pakistan has been unable to secure waivers like Saudi Arabia, India and Turkiye from the United States-led coalition fighting a proxy war with Russia. These countries managed to take a stand on their foreign policy objective which was in contravention of the US legislation like Countering American Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA).

Pakistan has a sizable population and it is a net importer of energy. For reasons that remain unclear, it has not focused on bilateral ties with Iran, a major oil producer, and has relied on other Gulf nations. Analysts speculate whether it has to do with its focus on the Sunni Gulf nations, downplaying a Shia Iran. The Pakistan-Iran bilateral relationship has remained subdued even though both share a physical border. It indicates that either the long-term foreign policy goals of Pakistan with Iran have not yet matched or the priorities with Iran remain secondary. Amends were sought to be made through a recent visit by foreign minister Bilawal Bhutto Zardari to Iran when the two sides discussed the operationalisation of barter trade and border sustenance marketplaces.

However, there is also a looming irritant on this front. An unhappy Iran has sued Pakistan for failing to create infrastructure on the latter’s territory for the Iran-Pakistan (IP) Pipeline. The project has remained a pipedream and is only adding to its problems at the worst possible time.

The Express Tribune (March 7, 2023) quoting officials reported that another litigation threat worth USD 18 billion looms over Pakistan on this score. The inter-governmental framework inked in 2009 has witnessed periodical agreements. In August 2019, a third agreement was signed between Iran and Pakistan in Turkey which mandated the pipeline project to be completed by 2024 and Pakistan to buy 750MMCFD (million cubic feet per day) of Iranian gas produced from the Farzad gas field.

People buy items at a shop in southern Pakistani port city of Karachi on April 7, 2022. (Str/Xinhua/IANS)

According to Pakistan Today-Profit, a national daily in Pakistan, the agreement also mentioned the possibility of filing the case and claims to be filed by Iran in a French international litigation court if Pakistan failed to fulfil its commitment.

On March 3, a National Assembly Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs also reminded the government to expedite the pipeline project.

Transnational gas projects can succeed if the gas can flow from Pakistan to further South Asian economies. Its adversarial relations with India, a major gas consumer and the transit nature of Pakistan’s geography make it a default partner in any energy drain project in the post-colonial states of Asia. Actually, Pakistan has options but it is constrained in financing and sustaining the projects at a pace expected by partners.

Overall, Pakistan’s current fuel situation remains iffy and is unlikely to improve soon. In its editorial (March 9, 2023), Dawn newspaper stated that “warnings of a major fuel supply disruption have been communicated by oil marketing companies and refineries to the government and the central bank.

“The oil industry has been operating in dire circumstances for the last six months, with the government deluding itself that everything is under control. Such situations in countries like Pakistan don’t take long to change for the worse,” the newspaper observed.

SPECIAL: Pakistan – Theatre of the Absurd

This Orwellian sequence of events has made Pakistan’s democracy a laughing stock. This ‘constitutional crisis’ is a direct outcome of the Executive abusing its authority and perforce undermining constitutionalism itself for clutching on to power…. Writes Sabrina Afroze

In a democracy – a form of government where sovereignty vests with the people through their elected representatives – the sanctity of a no-confidence motion is a fundamental tenet of the polity itself. The Islamic Republic of Pakistan which purports to be a democracy, with its cavalier and surreal rejection and dismissal of the no-confidence motion against the Imran Khan government, has unwittingly exposed the farcical nature of its “democracy”.

There are innumerable instances of no-confidence motions being moved and voted upon in myriad democracies, including twice in Pakistan itself (Benazir Bhutto in 1989 and Shaukat Aziz in 2006 – with both failing to dislodge the incumbent governments). The third instance now has, however, devolved into a tragicomedy. Once it became apparent to Imran that he faced an imminent ouster in this game of numbers, his government resorted to Article 5 of the Constitution of Pakistan, which states:

Loyalty to State and obedience to Constitution and law.

Loyalty to the State is the basic duty of every citizen.
Obedience to the Constitution and law is the inviolable obligation of every citizen wherever he may be and of every other person for the time being within Pakistan.

On the floor of the House, Law Minister Fawad Chaudhary bizarrely claimed that the no-confidence motion was the result of “blatant foreign interference”, there being a close nexus between the ‘interference’ and the “campaign to oust and remove the democratically elected government headed by Prime Minister Imran Khan.” Little did it matter that the motion had been moved by Pakistan’s own political opposition, whom the Minister’s logic has now sought to characterize as being the handmaiden of a foreign power. Astoundingly, while the no-confidence motion was moved on March 28, it took the government a week’s time to conclude that the motion was a foreign conspiracy, conveniently discovering the opposition’s treachery only when the numbers were no longer in the government’s favour.

Upon this absurdity – the Pakistan National Assembly’s Deputy Speaker, Qasim Suri, (a fellow party member and a close associate of Mr. Khan, these being his only qualifications for this prestigious office) – proceeded to dismiss the motion. Shortly thereafter, the Deputy Speaker now convinced of the merits of invoking Article 5, Pakistan’s President too was similarly satisfied. Acting on the advice of a Prime Minister who had already lost majority, the President dissolved the Assembly.

Thus left high and dry, as well as veritably accused of being in cahoots with foreign powers, opposition leaders cited Article 6 of the Constitution, which states:

“Any person who abrogates or subverts or suspends or holds in abeyance, or attempts or conspires to abrogate or subvert or suspend or hold in abeyance, the Constitution by use of force or show of force or by any other unconstitutional means shall be guilty of high treason.”

These contrary arguments by the government and the opposition have led to a situation where the entirety of Pakistan’s elected representatives now stand mutually accused of disloyalty and treason. While cries of ‘Traitor’ rend the air in Islamabad, the roles of the country’s President and Deputy Speaker have come under a cloud, and their own devotion to safeguarding the Constitution remains circumspect. Unsurprisingly and inevitably, therefore, the ruckus has moved to Pakistan’s Supreme Court. On Wednesday Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial orally observed “The Speaker cannot reject the no-confidence motion even if he refers to Article 5“. He also exclaimed his grief, stating that he and his brother judges were highly concerned over the country’s constitutional crisis. The next day, the five-judge bench declared as unconstitutional the Deputy Speaker’s ruling on the no-confidence motion, as well as the dissolution of the House. Thus resurrected, the no-confidence vote stands scheduled for Saturday.

On the one hand, the Judiciary, through the chief interpreters of the Constitution, observes that the rejection of the no-confidence motion was unconstitutional. On the other, the Executive persists in the fantasy that the motion, ipso facto, was unconstitutional by virtue of Article 5. This Orwellian sequence of events has made Pakistan’s democracy a laughing stock. This ‘constitutional crisis’ is a direct outcome of the Executive abusing its authority and perforce undermining constitutionalism itself for clutching on to power. Such failures of democratic institutions pave the path to anarchy and destabilization, which albeit occur with alarming regularity in Pakistan. Notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s ruling, and regardless of the no-confidence motions’ final outcome, Pakistan’s fledgling democracy has already been dealt a body blow. Meanwhile, as if to provide a fitting finale to his theatre of the absurd, Imran Khan quipped “Democracy functions on moral authority – what moral authority is left after this connivance?”

(Sabrina Afroze is a connoisseur of constitutional charades.)