Balochistan: The shadows of neo-liberalism

[Naveed Yaseen]

By Jameel Jamali
THE insurgency in Balochistan has been interpreted in terms of constitutional ambiguities with focus on provincial autonomy necessary to resolve issues peacefully. However, there is a need to analyse the problem at a macro level and to look for the real causes behind it.

The situation is the direct outcome of the government’s embrace of neo-liberal or market-friendly economic policies-- the intrusion of multinationals into Baloch land to exploit its rich mineral resources and the nationalist movement opposing to it.

The insurgency was sparked by Musharraf government’s efforts to intensify oil and gas exploration by giving a large number of concessions to multinational oil companies, as well as the official plans for developing a deep-sea port at Gwadar, without consulting local people. Although the PPP-led coalition is trying to solve the issue but its focus is limited by its own political interests in the province.

Covering an area of 43 per cent, Balochistan is the country’s largest province. It is the most underdeveloped province marked by poverty, illiteracy and poor health conditions. With the difficult socio-economic conditions, the region is erupting like a volcano. The response of successive governments has been to avoid responsibility and acknowledge their own ineptitude in dealing with a complex political situation by putting the blame on a few Sardars and their imagined foreign connections.

Balochistan is the most resource-rich region, being home to large reserves of copper, natural gas, oil and other essential minerals. The Sui gas field which fulfills 36 per cent gas requirements of the country contains reserves of around 12.6 trillion cubic feet. But very few of these resourcesbenefit local population which still has to walk miles to collectfirewood and fetch water for drinking purposes.

Similarly, Reko Diq in Chagai district has one of the largest copper and gold reserves of 12.3 million tones of copper and 20.9 million ounces of gold. The project for its exploitation has been handed over to TTC, an Australian firm which has 75 per cent stake in it. The greedy corporates along with corrupt politicians and officials decide the fate of the people who are likely to end up poorer and the environment in general contaminated with cyanide, arsenic, etc .

Saindak, another copper mine in the region has been given to a Chinese mining firm without considering the stakes and apprehensions of local population. Similarly the Gwadar port has been given to Singapore Port Authority without recourse to established political channels.

This deplorable state of affairs can be explained by the government’s commitment to intensive capital accumulation and what David Harvey calls, the current phase of capitalist imperialism. Specifically Harvey suggests thatsince mid-1970s when a shift took place in the global economy from a large production-centered basis to financial one, there has been a re-assertion of state-led capital accumulation.

Harvey calls it, “accumulation by dispossession” and defines it as a process through which owners of financial capital from western countries acquire territory through medium of the state. Through this policy ownership of national resources and assets is transferred to corporates by means such as abolishing of controls over finance capital to allow free inflow and outflow, privatisation of national assets and creation of free trade zones where normal labour laws and protection do not apply.

Beginning in the 1990s, the government abandoned the state-led model of economic development which was in vogue since 1947 and carried out a major re-ordering of its economic policies under the Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) of the IMF. Commonly referred to as neo-liberal or market-friendly economic reforms, these included reduction and eventual abolition of tariffs on international trade, abolition of controls on foreign exchange and capital inflows/ outflows and development of an export-oriented economy.

These changes were not due to internal factors such as the pressure of a rising entrepreneurial class or the influence of basic changes in the state structure but were driven by external factors such as the demands of foreign investors, conditionalities put by the IMF and the World Bank for granting loans to Pakistan, and the world wide advocacy of the benefits of expanding competitive market forces by replacing monopolistic state enterprises exemplified by the Washington Consensus.

In its haste to ease the entry of multinationals into Balochistan, the federal government refused to use political channels and to negotiate with tribal elders and the Baloch nationalist leaders over people’s share of jobs and income in the proposed economic projects.

Marginalising the political process resulted in opposition from both nationalist parties and various tribesmen and led to a low intensity warfare aimed at creating enough instability in the region to thwart the federal government’s economic plans.

Despite the change of government-- both at provincial and the federal levels — there has been little improvement in the situation faced by the people ofBalochistan.

The new PPP government has not changed the policy it has inherited. If the recent approval of the IMF loan is any indicator, the country is digging itself ever deeper into the hole created by neo-liberalism.

http://www.dawn.com/2009/01/26/ebr9.htm