EVER since the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran, ties between Tehran and Riyadh have been increasingly strained, affecting sectarian relations across the Muslim world. While before 1979 both were in the pro-American camp, after the fall of the Shah Iran embarked on a journey to ‘export’ its revolution, which obviously did not sit well with the Arab monarchies. After over four decades, the relationship remains tense, with proxy conflicts between the two being fought in Iraq, Yemen, Syria and Lebanon. However, despite the starkly different ideologies both camps adhere to, coexistence is possible, should there be a desire to live with each other. A small example of this was recently witnessed in Iraq, where reportedly a low-level meeting between Saudi and Iranian officials was held to discuss the Yemen quagmire. There have been no relations between Saudi Arabia and Iran since the former broke off ties in 2016 after Riyadh executed Shaikh Baqir al-Nimr, a Saudi Shia cleric.
Though the talks in Iraq do not constitute a major breakthrough, they do prove that if both sides wish, engagement is possible. Saudi Arabia is quite keen to extricate itself from the Yemen crisis, where it has failed to dislodge the Iran-allied Houthis. Indeed, these parleys should be built on and carried forward, and perhaps the scope can later be expanded to the greater Saudi-Iranian rivalry playing out across the Middle East. Iraq can be a good interlocutor as it has relations with both sides; elements within its Shia-majority government have deep ties to Tehran, while as an Arab state Iraq shares cultural bonds with the Saudis. In fact it is desirable for states in the region to sort out their own issues. Military invasions and interventions by outside powers have only led to increased misery in the Middle East, while Israel is also keen to play up confessional and ethnic differences. If Riyadh and Tehran persist, they can succeed in establishing cordial relations and putting the hostility of the past behind them.
Media blackout
GOVERNMENTS in Pakistan somehow refuse to acknowledge the futility of imposing blanket bans on media coverage. It was therefore not surprising, though rather unfortunate, that the PTI government decided to go down this blind alley when violence flared up in Lahore on Sunday and the TLP cadres rampaged across the city for the entirety of the day.
The government used Pemra to forbid any coverage of the TLP failing which there could be consequences for the media. As the Pemra instructions applied to TV channels, this ban ensured that social media was the only source of information about the violence raging in the city.
With no filters for veracity, social media can be lethal if not countered with the process of verification through the mainstream media. This is what led to the TLP dominating the narrative even though much of what it was claiming may not have been accurate. Silence from government officials for the better part of the day and the total absence of coverage from the mainstream media resulted in rumours and half-baked information circulating throughout the country. Video clips devoid of authenticity in terms of time and context also went viral thereby creating perceptions that may have different from reality. Due to the media blackout, the TLP was able to blame the police for the attack and the ensuing violence. It was only much later that the police could verify that in fact it was the TLP crowd that had attacked the police station and taken many policemen hostage.
The government must realise that blacking out media coverage through Pemra is an inadvisable option and leads to more harm than good. A free flow of information is the best way to counter rumour-mongering and fake news. The government always has the advantage of pushing through its narrative through the media by sharing facts and providing access to the media. All these advantages were frittered away when the government blundered into the blanket ban.
There is no doubt that the TLP has done grievous damage to its own cause by resorting to violence and the government must not dither from taking legal action against all those responsible for damage to life and property. In this day and age, stopping the flow of information is next to impossible, which is why smart governments leverage the power of the media to build perceptions, forge narratives and mould public opinion in support of their policies. In the current stand-off with the TLP, the government needs to make the case for its strategy and not allow the organisation to frame the issue from its own perspective. Had the government not blacked out media coverage, citizens could have seen for themselves how the TLP generated violence on the streets. At the same time, the government should utilise all options to negotiate with the TLP leadership so that the situation is brought under control.
Gas utilities’ reluctance
THE government has ‘ordered’ state-owned gas companies SSGC and SNGPL to remove impediments hampering the development of the two new LNG terminals at Port Qasim to privately import gas for power, fertilisers, textiles, cement and some off-grid industries. The gas utilities — commonly known as Sui companies — have also been told to hold weekly meetings with the new terminal developers for expediting the resolution of issues holding up progress on the new projects, which are considered essential for overcoming Pakistan’s growing gas shortages. This is not the first time that the gas utilities have been asked to sort out issues with the proposed terminals’ developers. Nor is it likely to be the last.
Several issues between the new terminal sponsors and the gas utilities are keeping the developers from taking their final investment decision, which would give us a clear deadline for the completion of these projects. But the key difference concerns the reluctance of the Sui companies to sign a gas transportation agreement with the developers. The utilities are strongly opposing allocation of the existing pipeline capacity to the new terminals before they come online. They argue that the pipeline capacity should be allocated on a first come, first-served basis “to create competition” in the market between existing and upcoming terminal operators. The Sui companies, it appears, are scared of losing their monopoly in the market and revenues to private competition as their big industrial customers will likely switch to private importers for cheaper imported gas. Hence, they are resisting the finalisation of GTAs. The new terminal developers are, on the other hand, not ready to start work on their projects unless they get firm and binding commitments, ensuring capacity allocation to them in the existing pipeline network once they come online till the time new gas transportation capacity is added to the system to move the fuel from their terminals to industrial customers in Karachi and Punjab. What if, for some reason, the gas companies refuse to allocate pipeline capacity to them after their completion? It is difficult to rule out this possibility in the absence of firm commitments. There is no easy solution to the dispute between the Sui utilities and the new terminal developers, more so because these differences of opinion also exist at the ministerial level. Unless the different ministries involved tackle these issues, it will be naïve to expect an expeditious resolution of the dispute anytime soon.
