| May 3, 2002 | Friday | Safar 19, 1423 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
America’s gulags
Mr Memon’s ire
THE two-day meeting of the IMF-World Bank-sponsored Pakistan Development Forum in Paris broke the news that the World Bank will commit one billion dollars to Islamabad in soft loans. It has expressed its effusive appreciation of the implementation of the mutually agreed structural reforms programme and has given an indication that the World Bank loan will be approved and disbursed within the current fiscal year. The Forum was greatly impressed by the wide-ranging nature of reforms which were efficiently executed according to IMF guidelines in a short time. The meeting was preceded by the publication of the latest World Bank country report entitled ‘Pakistan Development Policy Review — A New Dawn’. In this report, the Bank says that what is important and for which Pakistan deserves worldwide recognition “is how much has been accomplished so quickly”. Of the many reforms in diversified fields, the Bank singled out Pakistan’s initiative in political decentralization and its fast-track execution as the boldest yet launched. However, the report pointed out that the difficult challenge of moving forward from political decentralization to fiscal devolution remained to be faced. This reform is important, as it has the potential to deliver better services in the fields of education, health and poverty alleviation projects.
As a result of the successful execution of the reforms programme, Pakistan is entitled to fresh loans at highly concessional rates. The World Bank is expected to finalize and approve six loans of its affiliate, the International Development Agency. The biggest of these loans — 500 million dollars — is meant for improving the balance of payments position and hence will be disbursed in a single instalment. Another loan of 300 million dollars is being offered for banking sector adjustments. A similar loan was earlier extended which was used for paying compensation to bank employees whose services were no longer required. Some of the banks are still planning further downsizing and the loan may be used for that purpose. The Sindh, NWFP and Azad Kashmir governments are expected to receive loans of 90 million, 75 million and 20 million dollars respectively. While the former two governments are expected to utilize the loans for administrative reforms and financial adjustment, Azad Kashmir plans to spend this amount on community development projects. It is not clear whether these loans are being directly negotiated by the provincial governments and by Muzaffarabad or by the centre. The provinces have been demanding the right to approach foreign donors directly. This demand had received strength specially after former Punjab chief minister Shahbaz Sharif had visited Washington and discussed economic assistance with the US for his province.
Since the six promised loans have no direct links with specific projects and do not seem to require matching Pakistani funds, their disbursement should not pose any problem nor entail any delay in release. These should, therefore, further strengthen our foreign exchange reserves which already stand at a record level of 5.4 billion dollars. As the loan-use efficiency in Pakistan has increased recently, the World Bank, as a good banker, finds it profitable and efficacious to extend its operations in this country. This is no generosity or favour but a well-deserved dose of assistance for good performance according to the IMF criteria. However, those indicators which would improve the quality of the Pakistani people’s living — employment, prices, investment, social services and law and order — show little signs of progress.
AMERICA’S prisons have always been notorious for their level of abuse against inmates and been the subject of much debate and discussion within the US. However, recent disclosures about the conduct of prison staff at a jail meant to house inmates from overseas countries raises several questions about the methods used to deal with incarcerated foreigners, including women, awaiting deportation. Detainees at a jail in Virginia listed a litany of abuses, including incidents, they said, where guards had beaten them, stripped women prisoners naked (before a closed circuit camera to which the male staff of the jail had access), thrown them against walls and floors and sprayed pepper spray on them from very close range, again without any provocation.
Clearly, the serious charges raised by the foreign inmates merit a comprehensive overhaul of the way America runs its prisons — which incidentally house the world’s largest inmate population. Since what goes inside a jail can be easily hidden from the public eye, a country’s own domestic prisoners live in the very unenviable position where their constitutional rights can be easily abridged. However, foreign inmates, especially after the passage of the so-called USA Patriot Act, have almost no rights at all and are even more vulnerable. Quite ironically, in recent years America has been quick to denounce the alleged maltreatment of inmates by prison authorities in other countries. Surely, Washington must realize that it cannot preach tolerance and respect for human rights to the rest of the world when its own law enforcement agencies are routinely accused of major abuses. This search for a moral high ground by America — especially after September 11 — has already been dented by its treatment of alleged Al Qaeda prisoners at Camp X-ray in Guantanamo Bay. Hopefully, measures will be instituted so that these abuses are effectively checked and those behind them prosecuted with the full force of the law.
ONE fails to understand why the federal information minister should have felt annoyed over the independent media’s coverage of the referendum. By any standards, the coverage was fair and objective — and if that hurt Nisar Memon, then there is nothing the press can do about it. Understandably, Mr Memon had a job to do. But what he fails to understand is that the press, too, had a job to do: to report what it saw. The government’s point of view was given adequate coverage. That it was not allowed to monopolize the print media as seen on the state-controlled electronic media, and the views expressed by dissenting politicians and independent analysts also appeared alongside the official version, is a tribute to the press for upholding objectivity. One hopes Mr Memon’s remark “What the hell is going on?” reflects his confusion regarding the state of the press and not about the government.
The press in Pakistan has come a long way since the lifting of General Zia’s martial law. There is now a growing sense of responsibility about what truly constitutes the national interest. That is why the political governments in the subsequent years failed to equate their vested interests with national interests. It goes to the credit of the military government that it has by and large let the press function independently. The referendum was a high-profile event and the views expressed in the print media were not at variance with the coverage the referendum received in the international media. The most wide-reaching mass media organ, the state-controlled PTV, more than adequately projected the government’s point of view, nearly blacking out all dissenting opinion. That is why it did not have the same credibility as the national press, and those who had access to satellite channels chose to get their news and views about the referendum from elsewhere. Mr Memon would perhaps do better to improve the credibility of the state-controlled media, which, unlike the independent print media, is his responsibility after all.