Unmitigated problem of growing poverty

AMONG the major issues awaiting the new government’s attention is that of poverty which, as a press report quoting the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank points out, has been on the increase since 2004. The two organisations now plan to offer $600 million conditional funding to the incoming government for poverty alleviation, channelling the money through the Pakistan Poverty Alleviation Fund, micro finance banks and some respectable non-governmental organisations. This surely would be helpful, but a meaningful change would call for a review of the present definition of poverty together with the pattern of development. Indeed, it is hard to refute the previous government’s claims about the country’s macroeconomic indicators being strong and the industrial sector growing at an impressive pace, even though the current energy crisis has adversely impacted all economic activity. It is equally difficult to deny the other reality: that income inequalities have increased significantly, aggravating the twin problems of poverty and unemployment. As per the recent claims by the previous PML-Q government, poverty had come down from 33 percent to around 24 percent, registering a reduction of nearly 10 percent. Not true, say those familiar with the situation, although they do recognise that on this particular score the period between 2000 and 2004 presented a healthier picture. Much of this controversy was caused by the government’s natural desire to make its performance look good to the public as well as the various donor agencies. Its task was made easy because of the different formulas that are used to measure poverty. These include caloric intake, and access to necessities of life as well as basic facilities like healthcare and education.
The former UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, constantly maintained that people earning less than dollar a day income had to be counted among those living below the poverty line. For obvious reasons, our government chose the caloric intake formula. In a wheat growing country where bread was the staple of diet, it was safe to use that yardstick in order to declare a sizeable reduction in the scourge of poverty. From the public perspective, it simply amounted to sweeping the problem under the carpet as government leaders went on to boast having achieved economic growth rate second only to the world’s fastest growing economy, that of China. In the meantime, rising level of poverty, aside from causing untold suffering to well over a quarter of the country’s population, has kept generating a host of issues and concerns. The rural areas having been the worst affected, rural-to-urban migration accelerated considerably during the recent years, putting undue pressures on the big cities’ civic facilities. Law and order situation has deteriorated a great deal, undermining overall socio-economic progress. The path ahead is certainly arduous, but if the new government has the necessary will and right order of priorities, it can make important advances towards poverty reduction. There is need to adopt transparent measures to attack and eliminate the problem as we know it today. To begin with, the government must state its preferred definition of poverty. The UN prescribed formula may suffice for now. Nonetheless, the focus must remain on addressing the bigger issue of income inequalities.




Seeding the nuclear renaissance

The world is on the brink of a second nuclear renaissance. Prodded by rising oil prices and concerns about global warming, nations are reconsidering the nuclear energy option and finding it attractive. A significant increase in the number of nuclear reactors worldwide, however, also increases the risk of nuclear proliferation. There have been various suggestions on ways to diminish that risk. One option is a multilateral fuel bank that would supply uranium to countries with nuclear reactors. Long dismissed as unrealistic, this proposal looks increasingly plausible and deserves serious consideration. The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) acknowledges that all nations have the right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy. If they renounce the military option, they are entitled to all components of the nuclear-fuel cycle. In theory, the distinction between military and peaceful uses of nuclear energy is clear; in reality, it is a fiction. The acquisition of reprocessing facilities is the key concern. The uranium used to fuel most reactors is not suitable for military purposes. But reprocessing facilities that “clean” fuel burned in reactors creates nuclear byproducts more suitable to military uses. The danger is that countries will pledge to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, acquire technologies that enable them to build weapons and then quit the treaty. This occurred with North Korea and some say it is under way in Iran. There have been several suggestions on how to deal with this threat. The Additional Protocols, developed in the 1990s, gave the world’s atomic watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), new powers to inspect member states. But experts believe that a government determined to cheat on its nuclear obligations can defeat IAEA intents.
Another option is the creation of an international fuel bank to supply nuclear fuel to countries with nuclear reactors. The establishment of such a facility would make it possible for nations to avoid acquiring the capability to operate the entire fuel cycle. Since it would be multilateral, it would also guarantee a steady supply of fuel, a great concern of nations that do not have indigenous uranium supplies — most countries, in fact. The notion of an international fuel bank has been around for decades. It is provided for in the IAEA’s founding statute. Nonetheless, it was considered a pie-in-the-sky idea until September 2006, when the Nuclear Threat Initiative, a charitable organization dedicated to reducing threats from weapons of mass destruction, offered the IAEA $50 million to develop a fuel bank, provided that other IAEA member states contributed an additional $100 million or the equivalent in low-enriched uranium. In its fiscal 2008 budget, the United States provided another $50 million, leaving the IAEA just $50 million short of its goal. Last month, Norway pledged another $5 million.

—Japan Times