It’s not that tapi is inappropriate, it’s just that it might not be the most appropriate of things right now. Pipelines are good, and we definitely need a lot more of those. And a lot many of them will pass through countries surrounding us to get to us. And some of the time some of them might not be our best friends. What is more, some of them might not even be their own best friends. Like in Afghanistan, where some of them are sure to blow up parts of it, which is why tapi’s been prompting clearing of throats at board meetings for almost two decades.
A pipeline like tapi is likely to be to Pakistan what radio-therapy is for people who can’t afford it, in places where it’s not available for free. It’s going to be very expensive. And even the most lenient risk assessments will almost certainly guarantee 100 per cent chances of attack/sabotage. Is it really what should draw our funds – harder to get hold of with time – especially when movement on the other, good pipeline (Iran-Pakistan) is still slow for some reason and it’s longevity seems increasingly in doubt?
Still, we do need gas, so we will need these pipelines. Perhaps that’s the call in Islamabad, the donors’ nod indicating the plan sits well with them as well. Expect serious announcements in Afghanistan soon, about how the American withdrawal will be followed by reconstruction on an unprecedented scale, how acts of terrorism like blowing up pipelines will become things of the past.
Come to think of it, should Afghanistan’s use as pipeline host be accompanied by a visible improvement in people’s lives, why would anybody have a problem with it? Perhaps a serious turnaround in Afghanistan is really around the corner. Perhaps Islamabad has come to buy this narrative, at the very least.
