The China Pakistan Economic Corridor and the lessons from the Suez and Panama Canals

The China Pakistan Economic Corridor ("CPEC") has been generating much optimism for Pakistan for a number of years. The recent impetus has given solid grounds for this great vision for the future.

However, we must also try and place the CPEC in some conceptual framework to make the best use of it and avoid any pitfalls.

In my opinion, the Suez and Panama Canals can provide relevant examples in this regard. Both like the CPEC are main routes for international trade and provide alternates to longer ‘available’ routes.

A bird’s eye view of the history of the Suez and Panama Canals brings out the following important points which may be relevant for the CPEC:

1. Any international corridor including the CPEC must be neutral to all the trading interests so as to avoid conflicts. As long as the Canals remained partisan, the conflicts continue to erupt thus setting back the economic benefits.

In addition to lowering the resistance to the CPEC, by making the CPEC, ‘nationality neutral’ and by bringing in the other regional players, Pakistan can avoid any slumps in any one economy which can be the case if we solely rely on the pacific giant. Example of Japan suggests that the manufacturing power houses have a sell by date and there is no guarantee that in twenty years time, export direction of manufactured goods will remain the same.

Furthermore, adding the other regional powers to the CPEC, will avoid the controversy of western or eastern routes within Pakistan. By bringing the countries in the east to the party, our eastern districts will benefit greatly. Similarly the western corridor will help in developing the underdeveloped western parts.

2. It is not to be taken for granted that CPEC will transform Pakistan into a higher level of existence or development. For instance, despite having the Suez and Panama Canals for many decades Egypt and Panama largely remain underdeveloped countries.

I would venture to suggest that to have long term transforming effects of the CPEC, we will need to develop our local human resource by investing in their education and other social services and making them economically benefit from the CPEC. Again the contrast between Egypt and Panama on the one hand and Japan on the other, makes it plain. The latter invested in people and despite being overtaken by China as manufacturing hub Japan has transformed it's society into a cosmopolitan and self-sustaining one.

To emphasise at the cost of repetition, Pakistan may be better off by investing any windfalls from the CPEC on lifting its citizen to a higher civilisational state. This is a gamble worth taking as it is the only guarantee of the long term positive legacy of the CPEC.

3. There will be competition to the CPEC just as Panama canal gave competition to the Suez Canal.  The window of opportunity may not be as long as we may imagine. Therefore, it is imperative that we get it right soon and from the very beginning. Already a lot of time has been wasted, and the hurried agreements signed by the PMLN regime are not the best bargains for Pakistan. If for instance, we had signed these agreements in 2006, when Pakistani economy was peaking, we could have had better deals.

Nonetheless, having signed the first agreements of the CPEC, Pakistan needs to market the project to other interests and get the deals in its favour for a change. 

The motivation for writing this article is merely to generate a debate with historical examples on the subject and to make 'CPEC plus' a transforming phase for Pakistani people and not merely a blip in the history which comes and goes, without touching the lives of the masses and leaving them as they ever have been.

Asghar Khan Case and the Campaign Funding

The decision (the Decision) in the Asghar Khan's case is a welcome one. Without going into the moral and legal implications of the decision, I would like to consider this an opportune time to open a debate on the public and private funding to the political parties.

The Spending Limits

Presently, the legal provisions on this area are contained in section 48 of the Representation of People Act, 1976. This section limits the election spending to one million for a provincial and, one and half million for a national constituency.

For starters these limits are unrealistic and are not followed. This creates a handicap for the law abiding who wants to follow the law. But those who have no regard for the law, have no care for the limits set and openly exceeds the limits set.

Accordingly, it would be better to either remove these limits or to increase them to realistic level so that the law abiding can compete with the law breakers without the fear of attracting penal consequences.

These limits encourage corruption and the corrupt and does the opposite for the law abiding as is clear from the Decision.

Since the experience has proven that there is no way to regulate the election expense thus it makes perfect sense to create a level playing field for the corrupt and the honest.

Private Funding

Another aspect of keeping the present limits is that the parties and the candidates hide the sources of funding that they receive. This allows the hidden hands of the mighty, who can escape the law, to play their part in the electioneering but discourage those who have sympathy for one political party or the other but do not donate because of their respect for the law.

By removing the limits and allowing the donations to the political parties and the candidates, we can remove this distortion in our political system.

It would also make sense to treat such donations as donations to charities for the purposes of income tax. That is to say such donations should be excluded from the income chargeable to tax.

Public Funding

The third aspect of the Decision is that the state sometimes feels the need to fund the political parties in order to provide a true choice to the voters. However, because of the lack of legal cover for such funding this is done underhand and behind the closed doors.

It will be far better to introduce a system of public funding for the political parties than to find ways to break the law.

Such a system will remove and/or limit the influence of the big money on our politics. A middle class party will be able to follow its ideals without compromise.

There are many models which we can choose to follow.

However, the best approach in our current scenario for 2013 elections will be to fund all the political parties in proportion to the number of candidates that they validly field.

After the 2013 elections the system should be changed to fund the parties in proportion to the votes that each receives.

These reforms are necessary to remove the distortions from our system and will encourage the people to follow the laws.

I end by stating an ancient principle of law making: 'only such laws should be enacted which are to be followed'!

Black Men's Burden: Drone Strikes and Obama

When Barrack Obama got elected as the President of the USA, I thought that he will be dogged by a clear dilemma with no strategic solution, namely he would have to decide between saving the US economy or continuing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

• If Obama was to continue the wars and with increased defense spending, the American economy would have been stretched to the limits and could have collapsed.

• If Obama was to pull out of the wars and cut defense spending, he would have been labelled as unpatriotic and his African American credentials would have put a question mark over the patriotism of all African Americans in the USA. Thus weakening the US polity.

As it happened, Obama tried to save the economy and, limit the wars and curtail the defense budget to manageable limits. Obama refused to engage Iran and Syria militarily or go alone over Libya; Obama tried to invoke the Eisenhower model of military alliances thus sharing the costs with other countries. And it is no surprise that Obama is labelled as soft and apologetic in foreign policy matters by the Republicans, which are gentle words for being unpatriotic or a traitor!

However, perhaps cognizant of the aspersions on his patriotism Obama has not been able to take decisions to change the policies which are not effective and inhumane but which had lesser economical impact such as the drone strikes in Pakistan's Tribal Areas.

The drone strikes have clearly been counter productive in winning the hearts and minds battle are inhumane and ineffective but the American government has been unable to put an end to an this ineffective policy.

The explanation for this failure perhaps lies in the dilemma that Obama faced on getting elected and continues to face: he needed to save the American economy without being branded as unpatriotic or weak, especially since he is the first African American President. Only solution to this dilemma was to end the expansive wars and continue the policies with low economic impact but deemed supremely macho and which Obama could wave as the symbols of his patriotism! Drone strikes is just one such policy unfortunately for Pakistan and the children and the parents of the Tribal Areas.

The good news is that if Obama is reelected the pressure on him to be seem to be tough and patriotic may lessen along with the black man's burden that he has been carrying!

The Lack or the Breakdown of the Family in Arabs and Terrorism

At the bottom of the terrorism in its suicidal form is an individual who does not value his life as much as  his cause. In other words such person's self esteem is low.

Now it is a well known fact that the children from broken families have a low estimation of their worth unless there are other factors to bolster their self image.

The prevalence of would be suicide bombers or the number of those willing to fight for a cause at great personal risk, in the Muslim and especially the Arab world makes me wonder if there is a link between the familial structure in those societies and the propensity of under valuing their lives in those populations.

It is norm in the Arab world for men to take more than one wife simultaneously and have children from them. I would suspect that the children brought up in such families would have considerably less attention from their fathers than may be necessary for the modern times.

It is also prevalent in these societies to award the women a lesser status and hence the children who are left with their mothers due to the fathers having multiple wives (or being dead) face the double jeopardy in terms of forming the image of their relationship with the outside world: fathers absent and they are left with lesser beings namely their mothers. In my opinion this should clearly leave a child brought up in such environment with a view that his life is not the foremost thing in the world and accordingly the notion that he will put his self-interest above all will be lost upon him.

Such children should be more susceptible to take grave risks for causes which they would consider more worthy than themselves.

Accordingly, all things being equal, societies with polygamy and lesser rights for women, are more prone to answer the call of duty through most self-endangering means than the societies in which monogamy is prevalent and women have more rights.

The evidence of this theory can also be seen in Afghanistan. 

Therefore, a long term aspect of more humane and worthy societies, should be to encourage monogamy and/or more and equal rights for women. Failing these, single mothers or fathers should be given a star status in the societies so that the children have a higher sense of their self and hence are less keen to be reckless with their lives.

A tryst with the truth!

For each moment of the existence, we try to understand the reality. We as humans keep our part of bargain; but the truth never does. The truth never comes out. It never stares straight in our eye. It evades, avoids, and then disappears, and leaves us to write our own version of it. But search for it we do; and those who decide otherwise and create their own truth, the truth bows to them, for after all its their truth!

Rumsfeld was not a complete moron after all!

Having read and thought about the US military engagements in Afghanistan and Iraq, I am coming to the conclusion that Donald Rumsfeld was not a complete moron; he in fact had got the right thinking of how to handle these wars but was hoodwinked in to bigger military action and presence by some bad military advice.

Rumsfeld wanted a small lean military operation to get rid of Saddam Hussain and for this his estimate of forces was below twenty thousand. The US military somehow convinced the powers that be to increase this number over one hundred thousand! And the rest is history.

It seems soldiers beget more soldiers!

Americans have now come full circle to the initial assessment of Mr Donald Rumsfeld in how they are to manage Iraq and Afghanistan. A small presence with emphasis on training and enough tactical power to overcome any threat to the civilian elected regimes! It really was that simple!

Hopefully, Barrack Hussain Obama, arguably the greatest commander alive, will be more conservative in using his armies, and let discretion be the better part of valour!

The Senate Elections: Almost Fictional

The recent Senate elections did not feel right for some unbeknowneth reason. I venture to speculate that the reasons these elections felt wrong were two folds:

(1) Strangely, the masses and the people over whom these Overlords are to be settled, had no role to play in their elections! It almost seemed unreal and so disconnected from reality that one's soul revolted in revulsion. How could our system be so out of touch that it is electing or selecting BIG law makers without even an iota of input from the masses! Talk about irrelevance of the present wreck of a system.

(2) The assemblies that elected the Senators Sahibs have lost their moral credibility and mandate. Four years have passed since their elections and they have delivered but an iota, lot of heart break and economic melt down. Yet they had the cheek to select so called 'public representatives' and getting paid for that as well! If it were left to me, I would delete the word honour from Pakistani dictionaries and replace it with 'shame' as the new word of honour for the present legislators.

I say gentlemen, this system is rotten to the core. Throw it in the hell, and let those be a part of it, rot in hell.

Elected Representatives: Limiting Their Role as the Electors

Our political system in prone to instability mainly because the executive needs to maintain a simple majority in the elected assemblies.

Our elected assemblies wear at least three hats: (1) legislatures; (2) electors for the offices of the president and the prime minister etc; and (3) representatives of their constituencies and their interests in the development etc.

My point of departure is that role of the representatives as 'electors'  for the office of the prime minister should end once they elect a prime minister. Thereafter, the doctrine of trichotomy of powers, the basic structure of our constitution demands that the our assemblies should become legislators alone, separate and distinct from our executive. This is how the system of check and balance can fully work.

Presently, the executive and the legislature remain interdependent and both cannot do justice to their assigned roles. If we tweak our system a little, we can have far more stable system, namely:

• once the elected representatives have elected a prime minister, their right to change him or her should go in abeyance unless it is invoked by two thirds of their majority on some limited grounds.
• And, if such numbers are not forthcoming a majority or some other percentage should be able to call a general election.
• The right to call for the general elections should also be given to the masses, who should be able to petition for the general elections if they can come up with a certain number say one million signatures or supporters.
• Furthermore, the voters in each constituency should have a right to recall their representatives and call for the elections in that constituency if they can gather certain number of signatures say five thousand!

Given that in foreseeable future, coalition governments are likely to be the norm rather than the exception, the urgency for these reforms could not be overstated.

These are small measures but will go a long way in stabilizing our polity and making it more democratic! This will also reduce the risk in making a wrong decision at the elections!

US-PAK relations: Dec 2011

Anti-Americanism was high in the mid nineties among the Pakistanis. I was a student of economics and politics at Leeds. The university was awash with young Islamists who saw the Western civilization as an imperialistic exploiter and conspirator against the Muslim countries. USA was specially singled out as the arch enemy having installed puppet governments in Muslim countries and suppressing the Muslims masses through them.

I decided to investigate. Luckily, I was offered a one year module "US in the World" under Dr Christine Margerum Harlen, and I chose the USA-Pakistan relationship from 1947 to 1997 as my assessment essay. I did not disgrace myself, or so it seemed at the time. 

I could not find any conspiracy in the conduct of US foreign policy towards Pakistan and concluded that in 1997 the US policy had the following major aims in Pakistan, namely:

• Countering terrorism
• Stopping narcotics trade
• Controlling immigration
• Expanding democracy
• Countering nuclear proliferation
• Promoting regional peace and trade (i.e. to keep India and Pakistan away from war) 

I have lost the manuscript of the essay but its structure was to divide the US foreign policies towards Pakistan under each President and to find out the reasons for such policies in the international context, leadership preferences and biases, domestic compulsions in both countries and fate!

Pakistan, at its inception, did not get good press and was seen as an anachronistic state and the preference in the USA was for relations with India. It was the Eisenhower policy of building alliances to share the economic cost of the cold war that saw Pakistan's importance rise in the USA as the Indians had taken a non-aligned stance. The Kennedy years were marked by Kennedy's bias towards India and that had the pivotal effect of Pakistan looking towards China! Lyndon Johnson remained preoccupied with Vietnam and that combined with the civil rights movement in the USA etc meant an off and on relationship with Pakistan then under a military ruler. This frustrated both Pakistan and the USA! USA had given the weaponry to Pakistan for use against the communist enemy but Pakistan had taken it for use against India! USA law prohibited supplies to the countries engaged in wars, but the1965 war happened! Pakistanis got bitter as US stopped supplies. Nixon and Kissinger did not quite like Indira Gandhi and admired Bhutto more, and used  Pakistan's closeness with China to their advantage. This could have been a golden period for both countries but Mr Bhutto could not take advantage presumably because of his socialistic credentials.Pakistan's nuclear initiative triggered American sanctions and a further deterioration of relations resulted. Reagan and Zia era was saw a resurgence of warmth in relations thanks mainly to the hot conflict in Afghanistan in the Cold War to mutual benefit of both countries. The collapse of the USSR and the fall of Berlin Wall pushed US to follow more mundane goals in foreign policy as identified above.

That, it seems, remained the case until nine eleven. The need to invade and occupy Afghanistan brought US close to Pakistan again.

The USA policy makers maintain that they do not have any realpolitik aims in Afghanistan and that they want to help Afghanistan become a stable country presumably through the proven formula of democracy and free markets and by limiting the role of the Taliban and al Qaeeda.

If that be so, the question arises does the US still need Pakistan the same way as it did immediately after nine  eleven? Probably not.

USA should be keen to pull out of Afghanistan as the ostensible US goals in Afghanistan 'now' are rather altruistic. And, it may be that given the weakening economy USA is seeking to share and/or lower the cost/price either through exit or bringing in more partners. Such partners, it seems, are not forthcoming, thus exit seems a plausible option.

Throw in the 2012 re-election bid of Barrack Obama and the complexity of the issue increases even more.

To summarize US policy makers do not have any strategic goals in Afghanistan, their economy is down, and the president faces re-election. The ideal policy would be get out of Afghanistan. That would salvage the economy; a feel good factor for the domestic electors; and USA could hope to pay Afghanistan enough in the hope of achieving its objectives.

All else being equal, what does the USA policy constraints mean for the policy towards Pakistan?

It would be fair to say that since USA needs to exit therefore its policy towards Pakistan would either revert back to pre-nine eleven days if Pakistan does not factor in the exit strategy or may become more entrenched if Pakistan becomes a part of the exit plan.

The events of Memogate and the NATO attack killing Pakistani soldiers on 26 November 2011, may point that Pakistan is not part of the exit plan and hence USA and Pakistan will revert to pre-nine eleven relationship status, all else being equal.

What we can learn from the Army?

Nawaz Sharif and his party PMLN are on the attack against the Army in the garb of their criticism against the undefined establishment. Nawaz Sharif wants the establishment to be neutral in the political process.

In the following lines, I will try to make two points:

1. We as a society generally and the political parties specifically can learn a great deal from the Army and other military institutes. 
2. A neutral establishment would mean that the traditional sources of power and influence such as wealth, connections, clan, religious power, peeri-mureedee, sectarian divides, nepotistic advantage can have a free run over the masses and Nawaz Sharif having amassed his wealth would be free to do as he pleases with the not so well off.  

What Army can teach us:

Our political parties and the society generally lack well defined processes for the upward mobility of new entrants. A boy from poor area in a Katchi bastee can only hope to end up as a worker and a sloganeer for the wealthy political candidate and nothing beyond.

On the other hand, a lower class or a lower middle class boy can at a young age through hard work and merit enter the Pakistan Army, compete with the sons of generals etc, excel in his chosen field and can one day hope to command the Army!

There is merit, there is a process and there is an equal and open playing field for everyone in the Army.

Do we have that in PMLN? Imagine Hamza Sharif being a middle class blue collar worker; what chance or future he would have in any of the existing political parties in Pakistan? The answer is "NONE".

On the other hand, Hamza Sharif could hope to enter army and through hard work and merit hope to climb the ranks and end up in command. Albeit he could have faced court martial on any incidence remotely akin to the treatment metted out to Ayesha Ahad. But in our political parties he can still become a candidate for the Chief Minister! This brings out the irony in the criticism that PMLN throws at the Army!

In short, our political parties should first adopt merit, fairness, openness and discipline in their midst and learn from the Army in this regard.

Our civilian government should also learn from the social security system that Army adopts for its ranks and their families. Army has been running this system without fail. Let us look at it keenly and learn from it and perhaps adopt it for the common folk.

Sources of Power:

What powers does one use in the army to get ahead? Hard work and natural talent? What about the existing political structure? Money, connections, sifarish, biradari, greed, force, threats, violence, police, patwaris, guddees and more!

Do the political parties and our Nawaz Sharif follow the law in terms of the campaign budgets? NO. Do you think that PMLN hopes to contest the next elections based on merit and reason alone? NO.

What PMLN really wants is the dance floor to itself without any discipline enforcing bouncers who can check their excesses which are bound to be many.

So who will protect those who follow reason and merit? How do you create an equal playing field. In this respect the establishment does need to, without being apologetic, adopt the reverse discrimination policies such as:

• Free and equal airtime on TV channels for all the candidates including independents;
• State campaign funding for those less privileged; and
• Strict penalties for those using biradri, thana, sectarianism or guddees and the like for political purposes etc.

Establishment needs to create an equal playing field for all and not leave the dance floor open for the dollar wielding and guns carrying politicos. That will ensure that our young and bustling politicos put on their show and have a chance of beating the old fatties.

Foreman Leadership

I had observed a peculiar kind of leadership wherein the captives/disenfranchised/enslaved are led by one amongst themselves to the wishes and designs of the masters. No matter what the circumstance, the characteristics of the foreman leader were almost identical:

• He was larger in size than his fellow slaves/captives/disenfranchised.
• He was louder.
• He looked for his interest over all other things.
• Lied, deceived, bribed, cajoled, did everything possible to remain in control over the fellows and please the masters while maintaining his ostensible superiority.
• His strategy is always to pretend that he is superior to the fellow slaves/captives/disenfranchised and he was half way there to become a master himself.
• He would often do something to remind himself and others that he was still in charge.
• Took as his own that properly belonged to another and had no qualms about it.
• Would damage another to any extent, for his smallest of gains.

Now, interestingly, this meanest of the leaders epitomizes the traditional leader in traditional India and Pakistan and to a large extent the modern Pakistan, I have experienced. Now there are many aspects to this issue which can consume pages of research and writing.

However, for me the interesting issue is that if our typical leader is the foreman then does that mean that the masses are captives/disenfranchised and who then be the masters? To put it another way, does the fact that our leader has all the characteristics of the foreman leader, mean that we are a captive nation? Does our captive state explain why we keep on looking for these characteristics in our leaders? 

The list of questions is long and disturbing but it gives me something to ponder and I shudder to think how would we vote in the next elections: as captives or as free people!

New Judicial Paradigms

Pakistan is undergoing a metamorphosis in its geist. The whole of society is at a loss for new paradigms through which it can explain and chart the future in an uncertain and increasingly complicating world. I think the paradigm that is accepted in these times will have impact on the very existence of Pakistan. If by chance, luck or design we reach a state of mind which explains the reality and determines out responses sufficiently accurately then Pakistan will survive to become a successful species. If on the other hand our collective conciseness errs and is off the mark, then Pakistan may become extinct.

I for my part, being a lawyer, consider that our judicial mind should accept the following two concepts which will bring our judicial wisdom, a part of our collective wisdom, closer to understanding reality and giving our polity an optimal chance of survival. The concepts are:

(1) procedural justice; and

(2) primacy of 'freedom' in deciding difficult cases.

The first is needed to increase clarity and certainty of the procedure of laws so that individuals can better understand the system and forecast the likely consequences of their actions. Lacking clarity and uncertainty leads to chaos in which individuals are not only stressed but also prone to wrong prognosis of the future consequences and hence a loss of valuable and limited resources. I must add that this is not a new or a novel concept but rather it was highly valued by our older judiciary but has lost its significance in the last few decades due to exigencies of various judicial predicaments.

The second is Ronald Dworkin's idea of freedom as in intrinsic good and any decisions policy or action which increases freedom, all things being equal, should be regarded as superior to those which do not. Now in situations where the laws are clear, this idea may not be invoked although I would advocate striking down laws on the ground of decreasing freedom without any added benefit or utility in some other material way. However, that may be too much for our judiciary and legal fraternity to accept. Hence I urge that in difficult decisions we must measure the quotient of freedom to determine the rightness and wrongness of decisions.

The two concepts when put in practice together increase the certainty for individual decisions and at the same time, if the certainty is still found lacking, freedom will encourage risk taking, bravery, initiative and enterprise, the founding blocks of prosperity and growth.

Human spirit yearns for freedom while it needs tools to increase its freedom. Certainty in laws and procedures gives it the tools or enables it to experiment in freedom and risk taking.

Conspiracy Galore!

The continuing violence in Pakistan has been thought through and debated on media and elsewhere vigorously. The different protagonists explain these events as follows:

(1) driven by the criminal elements;

(2) Pakistan Taliban on an ideological war path with Pakistani government who it sees as a US proxy;

(3) Al Qaeeda who wants to destabilise Pakistan, for reasons including getting hold a Nuclear bomb or two and also to fight an American ally;

(4) Afghan Taliban who are destabilising Pakistan and the region as a proxy war with the USA;

(5) Pakistani establishment to destabilise Civilian government or to give message that that they are very serious about war on terror and paying a high price;

(6) Pakistani establishment in order gain public sympathy and foreign money etc by creating a genuine threat;

(7) American backed militants who are planing to weaken Pakistan as pretext to dismembering or to secure the Nukes;

(8) Foreign interests who want to instigate flight of capital to their countries from a destabilised South Asia;

(9) Indians via Afghanistan to keep Pakistan off balance and economically backward;

(10) Chinese, Iranians, Russians and other regional powers in order to not let Americans have a stabilised Afghanistan or Pakistan and to make them leave the region;

(11) US enemies, who want to do Vietnam to USA all over again;

(12) Corporate interests of Defence Industries in order to continue to justify the funding for weapons etc;

(13) European Countries to keep USA bogged down in the region and to make it bleed economically and hence end its dominance;

(14) Oppositions Parties in Pakistan to force the ouster of the government;

(15) Other private and business interests, trying to keep the government off balance;

(16) Al Qaeeda seeking to instill the failure of centrists in the minds of the masses and hence portraying itself as the only feasible option for governance.

I am sure there are other potential theories. I am also sure if we think through each one of the above, we can come close to the true picture!

National self-determination and economic viability: Pakistan

When Woodrow Wilson promoted the idea of the national self-determination for the colonised people at the beginning of the twentieth century, the same was subject to an important proviso, namely, that the resulting nation should be economically viable.

This meant that the state resulting from the exercise of the right of self-determination must be of adequate economic size to survive on its own.

The Wilson doctrine formed the basis of the US foreign policy at least until the European colonies were freed.

Over the years, the Wilson doctrine lost its proviso at least in the rhetoric of US foreign policy. This has coincided with a plethora of small nation states and an unstable world order.

The Wilson doctrine was only common sense. A nation state has the right to exist but it can only exist if it is economically viable. Therefore, only meaningful and realistic exercise of the right to self-determination can be for the groups large enough that are strong enough to compete and prosper in the world.

The so called exercise of this right has resulted in many nation states that are only nominally sovereign.

In reality these nation state are not strong enough to compete and survive on their own and most of them have acquired a de-facto colonised status.

In the era of cold war, these small nation states depended on either the USSR or the USA for patronage: political, economical and militarily.

With the USSR gone, and the USA emerging as sole super power, these small nation states have felt the burden of their small sizes.

The fate that Afghanistan and Iraq have faced is the fate that awaits other weak and small nation states.

This is stating the obvious. If you look around the world who do you see as secure and prosperous states: China, Russia, Europe, India, and the USA. In fact, I will go as far to state that these are the only sovereign entities in the world.

The implication for this for Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan is that they will never be truly sovereign with their present size or strength. These countries need to be part of something bigger in order to achieve sovereignty.

The idea of nation is not a romantic or a feel good idea. It has developed for a reason and at that a very practical reason that is, 'survival'. Smaller tribes merged themselves and 'invented' nations to survive and compete against other bigger entities.

A entity in order to be a nation must be viable. That is the only definition that puts sense in the ideal or romantic notions of a nation.

Pakistan, seriously, needs to consider whether it is a viable entity in its present status. For the most parts of its history, Pakistan relied on the USA and China for its security and economic survival. It is still doing so. Pakistan, in this world, of far bigger economic units, can never be truly sovereign.

For Pakistanis who want to be part of a great civilisation there are many options for their country stands at the crossroads of many civilisations. Theoretically, Pakistan can be part of the either the Muslim civilisations or the Indian civilisation. In Muslim civilisation choices are between Wahabism of Saudi Arabia, Shiaism of Iran and the Central Asians. In these three cases Pakistan may have to lead the pack. In other words it will have to play a role in the creation of a great civilisation which has never existed in history.

Or Pakistan can revert to sub-Continental civilisation and join in the swan song. That is perhaps a more pragmatic choice.

Historically, Punjab has inevitably been trying to create this great civilisation which was epitomized by Ranjit Singh's rise which was cut short by the British. Then, under President Zia, Punjab again flexed its muscle, this time to be pushed back by the Americans. Punjab's power house for some reason seem to be Strong enough to dominate its neighbours and but for the foreign intervention, might have by now lead to a greater civilisation with Punjab being its driving horse.

The power house of Pakistan, Punjab, should seek to lead its other provincial partners to greater and bigger things to ensure mutual survival of all.

Imbalance of power between India and Pakistan

(The following was published in July 2006. However, it may be more relevant now and hence I am putting it here)

A regional imbalance between countries with a history of conflict and mistrust is a lose-lose situation for all.

The recent conflict between Israel and Lebanon is instructive for India, Pakistan and the USA. The dynamics of conflict generation seem to be that an imbalance of power was created between Israel and Lebanon which had a history of mistrust, namely, the Syrian forces were made to withdraw from Lebanon. This made the task of the dominant power to subdue the subservient power easier, attractive and rational! As the dominant power could see that it can attack the subservient power with little fear of retaliation.

The environment was rich for conflict. An event occurred to the disliking of the dominant power and it decided instantly to teach the subservient power a lesson, namely, two of its soldiers were kidnapped.

The result has been war with adverse social, humanitarian, political and economic consequences for both the countries. Most importantly for Lebanon the foreign investment and the resultant economic activity have stalled and retrogressed. This will surely result in social problems in Lebanon and it will be easier for the extremist elements to popularize their appeal. This will in turn mean more problems and attacks for Israel which will mean disruption to the normal life, commerce and trade.

Thus, it may obvious to state that creating an imbalance of power between countries with histories of conflict and mistrust is a no-win situation for either of those countries!

There are lessons in this for India, Pakistan and the USA. The USA has, it appears, taken a decision to give India the leadership role in the region, in terms of military, economic and political clout. This will create an imbalance of power between India and Pakistan which are, like Israel and Lebanon, two countries with histories of conflict and mistrust. This will, like the example quoted above, can make it rational and attractive for the dominant power to be more aggressive with the smaller power and more akin to enter into a military expedition considering itself more powerful. In this environment if any event occurs that provokes the dominant power then it is to be expected that the response of the dominant power will be more aggressive than had there been a balance of power. Indian reaction towards Pakistan after the Mumbai bomb blasts can be explained thus.

Although, both India and Pakistan are nuclear powers, however, if India is led to believe that its nuclear power is superior to Pakistan’s, thanks to the US technology transfer or that it will be able to thwart any Pakistani attack through technology such as Patriot Anti Missile System, then the temptation for it to engage Pakistan militarily may far too great to resist.

This will have adverse effects for the both countries, even more so for India. The biggest effect will be on India’s economic activity and the result could be political and social chaos given the size of that country, and resultantly it will be bad news for the international community and the USA itself whose prime aim of making India a strategic power in the region will be thwarted.

All the three countries must be careful in maintaining the balance of power and if it is indeed disturbed then in the case of provocative events they would have to show great restraint in the interest of humanity and our political and economic global village. 

Rethinking India: The Pakistani Security Paradigm

The anti-Indian policies of Pakistani state from its inception were not due to any innate hatred of India but exercises in self-preservation by an insecure and vulnerable Pakistani state in its infancy. However, it was done so thoroughly and convincingly that even after securing our existence, we are still following the old policies. In effect, we have become slaves of our old policies which do not reflect our nuclear status.

Here is an explanation of the above.

The Chief of the Inter-Services Intelligence of Pakistan has quoted to have said that India is not the enemy at the present. 

In my opinion, this is correct. With Pakistan becoming a nuclear power, it is not vulnerable to state actors especially not from the ones which have large stakes and a lot to lose in the case of a conflict with Pakistan. Pakistan, however, is vulnerable to internal instability and from elements against which our nuclear power is not relevant.

In other words, our nuclear power is a deterrent against countries and states or concrete regional entities and secures us against them, including against India. But this big power of ours is not effective against internal discontents and elements. And, our challenge is thus not securing ourselves against India that we already have, but unconventional actors and internal discontents.

In this sense the statement of the Chief of the ISI is right on the money.

Pakistan and India were created amidst a bitter and bloody partition. That calamity and tragedy planted the seeds of distrust and insecurity in the minds of the Pakistani policy makers in the early years.

Pakistani establishment felt an existential threat from India which was not unjustified given the circumstances leading to the creation of Pakistan. Indeed, if there had been no distrust between the Congress (which embodied the Indian leadership) and the Muslim leadership headed by Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah, there would have been no need for Pakistan.

The distrust between the two sets of leadership continued into their heading two different countries and shaped the state policy thereafter. 

Pakistan's fundamental security concern was a threat from India. With a weak state structure and smaller size Pakistan was vulnerable or so its leadership felt. Pakistanis in order to secure their existence sought strong allies such as the USA and later China for help against India. Internally, Pakistanis perpetuated their fear and distrust of India into all spheres of policy including, the school and college curricula, defence policy, foreign policy priorities, trade policies, organisational ethos in security organs and the political expression.

This must be borne in mind by all those making policy for Pakistan now.

Today, Pakistan is no longer a weak and vulnerable state in the sense that it is an atomic power and no country including India should make it insecure or raise its concerns regarding its existence.

With its existence secure, Pakistani state can move away from policies centered on a threat from India. Since our existence is not threatened anymore, we no longer need to make policies centered around our security and the Indian threat.

India has accepted Pakistan as a reality. Indeed, India would or should prefer a buffer between itself and the dangerous Afghanistan. Historically, India has always been destabilised from elements coming from or through Afghanistan. Pakistan since its creation has given India a breathing space so to speak and India shall do well to preserve that.

 

We will all be dead in the long run!

Our Finance Minister Mr. Naveed Qamar is a nice, optimistic and overly hopeful person. I have been reading and hearing him speak on media about his policies. The thrust of his policies is that in the short term there will be tightening of the monetary and fiscal policies. He is asking the nation to make sacrifices in the short term and the fruits will somehow follow in the long term!

The basic premise of the Finance Minister's approach is that in the long run, everything will even out and therefore government does not need to anything to rectify the short term problems in the economy and should concentrate on the long run.

I would just like to remind our Finance Minister of John Maynard Keynes' famous remark 'in the long run, we are all dead'.

Our Finance Minister should aggressively push to rectify economic problems being faced by Pakistanis (preferably within our lifetimes), rather than letting everything work itself out. The market forces have been noted, in recent times, to be not doing what many free market economists expect them to. The recent financial crisis in the USA is an example of laissez-faire policies. And, the biggest advocate of the free market economy has been forced to intervention in the market by the government! Perhaps it is time for our own minister to think afresh about the merits of the free market economics in the current times.

I am not sure if the tightening of monetary policy is a wise idea. The rationale behind increasing the interest rate is that it will some how restrain the inflation. The problems with such approach are many:

(1) one is that you encourage the people from putting their money in the banks and earn interest rather than investing in the real productive ventures;

(2) another is that you make the capital expensive and thus difficult for businesses to carry on, discourage the local entrepreneurs from expanding their businesses or starting new ones thus increasing unemployment; and

(3) another related issue is that by making the local capital expensive you leave the market open to foreign investors who have access to cheaper capital. These investors may invest but then they will take away their capital and earnings abroad in foreign currency putting pressure on the exchange rate of the local currency.

On the fiscal front, our finance minister wants to cut the government spending and thus reduce the fiscal deficit! The lack of investment and demand thus created is sought to be overcome by foreign and local investment! However, by making the local capital expensive (due to high interest rates), you basically shut out the local investment. Thus practically these policies are only encouraging foreign investment. This is a recipe for disaster.

In my opinion, foreign investment with our current policies of allowing full repatriation of the profits and the capital in the form of foreign exchange is worst than the biggest of the deficits that our government can have. If you look at it practically, there is no difference between fiscal deficits and foreign investment. Both need to be repaid and in the case of the latter it has to be in foreign exchange thus dwindling your foreign exchange reserves and leaving your economy's survival on the whims of few CEOs.

The point is that if our economy is not at the optimum level of employment and resource utilisation then fiscal deficit and cheaper domestic capital are much better policy options than sole reliance on foreign investment.

Our government needs to seek out of the box solutions to the current economic crisis. High interest rates and lowering government spending in these critical times will surely lead to an economic catastrophe.

The government needs to reduce the interest rate to a maximum of five percent and increase government spending albeit by printing notes to make up for the lack of investment by the private sector.

Containment and the current US foreign policy

During the Cold War years the US foreign policy was characterised by the word containment which meant containing the spread of communism and that translated into limiting the influence of the former Soviet Republic.

The current US foreign policy also revolves around the same word, namely containment. However, this time around the containment means containing the economic and military powers of all potential adversaries.

The theoretical underpinning of this policy was provided in the late 1980s in a book titled,"The Rise and Fall of Great Powers". The thesis described in that monumental work is that when nations grow economically then they also grow militarily and if that growth continues unhindered then such nations start to expand and then turn into new empires which then threaten the existing powers or empires.

The logical policy implication of this thesis is that the existing empires or powers must check and retard the economic and military growth of all potential adversaries in order for them to sustain their supremacy.

The clearest example of the application of the above was provided in the explanation for the second invasion of Iraq in 2003. Among other arguments, it was stated that Iraq had wealth and the manpower to develop economically and militarily and with a potential adversary in power, that country could become something like Nazi Germany thus its progress had to be stopped and the potential adversary taken out of power.

Similar arguments are given for the invasion on Iran and the so called War on Terror.

Now one can question the validity of Paul Kennedy's thesis but the fact of the matter is that most of the US policy makers have read and digested his thesis in their college days or otherwise and firmly believe in it. So we must be ready for the continuation of the new "containment" for foreseeable future.

Now one can draw many conclusions from the above analysis for Pakistan, India and China. All three are growing economic and military powers. Will the US policy makers allow their growth unhindered and risk them becoming a threat to the US?

In case of India, because it is a democracy and a liberal country the threat to US is not that apparent and thus the US may not object to its growth. However, Pakistan, because of its Islamic and somewhat militant Islamic nature, and China because of its centrist regime and also because of the fact that it is now in the third phase as per the said thesis i.e. expansion of influence and borders, the US foreign policy makers may not allow their unhindered growth without some sort of assurance that these two countries will not be a threat to them.

Both China and Pakistan need to build a strong and reliable partnership with the US with democratic reforms at home if they wish to avoid friction in the world in the coming years.

As a Pakistani, my advise to fellow country men and women will be to pursue a fair pro US policy which simply means minding our own business and not become a pawn in the designs of Anti-US forces.

Pakistani Elections 2008: fair results?

The starting point has to be Mr. Nawaz Sharif's attempted return to Pakistan in September 2007. Apparently, the masses did not turn up to receive him and he was deported to the Kingdom of the House of Saud. The lack of public agitation and reaction to this deportation was analysed as a proof of the lack of popularity of PML(N) and a poorly managed political party. However, the results of 18 February's elections have gone totally to the contrary. They reflect in Mr. Nawas Sharif a popular leader who can galvanize public in a mere couple of months and a highly organised political party which can contest and almost win an election in the shortest possible time in the most adverse circumstances possible. Something is amiss!



According to the unofficial results the PML(N) received around 20% of the total votes but gained more than 24% seats. The same statistics for PPPP are 32.7% and 32.7%! And, those for PML 24% and 15.4%. Now despite getting less votes than PML, PML(N) has gained more seats! Generally, this is taken as a classical sign of rigging! Is it? In the 2002, elections the PML(Q) got 26.63% of the votes but earned 33.2% of the general seats in the National Assembly. It was assumed by all and sundry that those results were rigged.



There is a theory circulating that the establishment wanted a weak government at the center which could be goaded by it. However, the establishment was afraid of the PPPP's landslide victory especially in the wake of the tragic assassination of late Ms. Benazir Bhutto. The PML could have stopped that landslide but even a fair victory for PML would not have been digested by the masses and could have resulted in wide spread chaos in the aftermath of the elections.



Thenceforth, entered Brigadier (R) Niaz in the picture and the alleged meeting between Mr. Shahbaz Sharif and President Musharraf. The only way to stop the victories of the PPPP and PML both of which were unacceptable for different reasons was to manipulate the elections in favour of PML(N) provided that it was ready to play ball. Apparently, the results it indicate that it was so ready! Nobody could have cried foul as a so called most opposed opposition party was favoured at the expense of the most favoured political party! The real victim was the PPPP.



It certainly is the case that PML(N) has agreed to play the role of the Queen's opposition but is pretending as having as an anti-establishment stance to save face. However, Mr. Zardari has called PML(N)'s bluff. By offering coalition governments at the centre and province Mr. Zardari's is trying to preempt the role set for the PML(N) by the establishment.



The only option for the PML(N) will be to create differences with the PPPP on one issue and part ways. The most likely issue will be the restoration of the former Chief Justice Ifitkh(ar Ch.


(The article was written in March 2008 but not published to give the PML(N) the benefit of doubt)

Proclamations and PCO(s): What then is the law?

(Still a draft)

General Musharraf has again given an opportunity to all and sundry to decide afresh what is the law by proclaming the Proclamation of Emergency and PCOs of November and December 2007.

To determine the validity of these pronouncements as law one has to determine what is law?

Following are some of the definitions of law:

(1) Law is what judges say it is.

(2) Law is what the man with the gun says it is. Law flows from the barrel of the gun. People have an ingrained habit of obedience to power and they accept the strictures of the man with the gun. The notion of revolutionary legality espoused by dear old Justice Munir is within this genre.

(3) Law is what God has ordained and exists regardless of whether or not it is followed i.e. natural law.

(4) Only those rules are laws which are recognised as such through the use of the rules of recognition i.e. those are formed in accordance with the accepted rules regarding how the laws are to be formed. For instance if the rule of recognition is that only a rule passed by elected representatives is law then a rule formed in any other manner will not be law.So is the PCO(s) law?

Lets apply these definitions or descriptions to the PCO(s).

(1) According to the first definition the judges will determine this question. The question then is who are the judges? If the PCO is law then only those who took oath under it are the judges. However, if the PCO is not law then the persons who acted as judges under the previously accepted law are the judges.

(2) The man with the gun has said that the PCO is the law and hence according to this definition so it is. The only challenge can be that another man with a bigger gun says that the PCO is not law.

(3) So what has God ordained? As the majority of us are Muslims so let us see what Allah has laid down as law and if the PCO is in accordance with it? The question in our common parlance becomes is the PCO Islamic or not?

(4) In our history the rules formed as has been the PCO have been recognised by the judges as laws and those were also followed by the public-at-large. Thus, it can be said that the PCO is a law. However, it can also be argued that the last valid rules of recognition were enshrined in the constitution and as the PCO is not in accordance with those hence it is not a law.

Now, you will see that there are no clear answers as per the above criteria. The answer will depend on what criterion one chooses to follow and what interpretation one adopts.

In my opinion the law and the morality can never be disentangled. Well, not generally by ordinary mortals. And, in Pakistan the morality is hardly ever different from self-interest. The equation thus becomes a simple one: if the PCO satisfies the interests of the people who have more power than those whose interests the PCO harms then the PCO will be accepted as law but it will not be so accepted if the reverse is the case.