FORMALLY the generals came to power on October 12, 1999. With General Musharraf as their leader but to some extent answerable to his college of corps commanders and other senior generals at GHQ.

Unilaterally General Musharraf has taken exactly two momentous decisions since October 12, 1999: the first was his flat refusal for flight PK-805 to proceed to Ahmedabad in spite of running out of fuel and the second was the immediate ‘yes’ to the United States’ request/demand for Pakistan’s support against their selected enemy, Osama bin Laden.

The period of total rule by the generals has now been phased into a political set-up, but as far as one can see they are likely to remain in control for quite a while. To review Pakistan’s position under the new dispensation we need to look at four major aspects: strategic, economic, political and administrative.

Recently, two books entitled “Pakistan” have been published which I happened to have read. One is by Ms. Mary Anne Weaver called Pakistan. The other is by Mr Owen Bennett Jones, also called Pakistan. Ms. Weaver is American and her book is basically breezy and journalistic. Mr Bennett Jones is British and has tried to write something more serious.

There has been a lot of criticism about Gen. Musharraf’s alacrity in his offer of assistance to the United States after September 11 and their decision to target Osama bin Laden as the chief villain. Ms. Weaver writes: “But when Washington requested — then demanded — that its former ally permit the United States to use its country as a launching pad for military strikes against bin Laden and a network of terrorist training camps inside Afghanistan, the ruling generals of Pakistan responded, initially, with equivocation at best. Although they pledged their ‘full support’ in the hunt for those responsible for September’s outrage, they carefully avoided committing themselves to any active military role, and then, to the fury of the United States, they pledged their continuing support to the Taliban.

“It was only after intense pressure from Washington — including the implied threat of an embargo on all financial aid and the ostracism of Pakistan as a pariah state — that the generals reluctantly agreed to provide the Pentagon with overflight rights, access to their ports and their bases, and, as important as anything else, access to their intelligence on bin Laden’s network and his whereabouts. But the generals insisted that any US military presence on the ground be restricted to the most remote corners of Pakistan.”

Ms. Weaver has probably greater inside knowledge about Washington. According to her, we seem to have hummed and hawed quite a bit before acceding to the US’ request. Bob Woodward of the Washington Post has also written a book in which this subject has been discussed. Compared to Ms Weaver, he seems to have given an entirely different account and comments on the surprise shown by US officials at the alacrity with which all their demands were accepted.

Mr Bennett Jones, an Englishman, has said, “In 2001 another military man, General Pervez Musharraf, was ruling Pakistan. Within hours of the 11 September attack on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon he remained true to the policies of his predecessors, abandoned his Taliban allies and aligned Pakistan with Washington.

“Pakistan’s efforts to ingratiate itself with the United States have never produced long-lasting dividends... Dr. Eqbal Ahmed used to liken the relationship between the United States and Pakistan to that of an errant husband and his mistress. When in the mood, the United States would overwhelm Pakistan with loving attention and generous gifts. But the tempestuous relationship was never steady. And when Washington’s ardour cooled it would abandon its South Asian partner without a thought. Many Pakistanis consider the US to have been a disloyal, inconstant friend. General Musharraf hopes that, this time, Washington’s declarations can be taken at face value. He will almost certainly be disappointed.”

As a matter of fact, Mr Paul O’Neil seems to have said as much during his recent, and as it turned out, valedictory visit to Pakistan. It is best to start out with Mr Bennett Jones’ assertion, and during this honeymoon period lay the foundations of sound economic management, instead of assuming the continuation of US largesse.

From a strategic point of view Pakistan has had to pay a price. Because of our ISI policy of Talibanization we have alienated all the northern Afghan minorities, such as the Tajiks and Uzbeks. As a result of the anti-Taliban US action in Afghanistan, mainly in collaboration with the “Northern alliance”, we now have a Pakhtoon backlash on our hands which has expressed itself by putting the mullahs in power in the NWFP and partly in Balochistan.

The government has been forced to proceed rather more cautiously with its programme of turning the country’s culture away from fundamentalism and towards greater moderation. The heavy-handed behaviour of US special forces, as described in a Newsweek article some time back, has not helped matters. However, so far any serious clash between Pakistani tribals and US military forces has been avoided. However, we can expect this problem to show up in various forms as has happened recently in the sabotage of our gas lines which have a heavy input from Balochistan.

Pakistan’s importance, such as it is, is geopolitical. It is somewhat similar to Turkey, a relatively moderate Islamic country, one on each side of the “Islamic” or proto-Islamic oil belt stretching from Central Asia to the Arabian Sea. It may be called the “Oil Quadrangle.” In that sense Ziaul Haq’s aggressive fundamentalist expansion into Central Asia must have been perceived with some considerable consternation by both the US and the USSR — and possibly also China.

By contrast, the importance of India springs from its size and therefore its potential to emerge as a future superpower. The US expectation is that it would be a counterweight to China. It is difficult to predict at this stage how international politics will fashion itself when China comes of age as a superpower. But the fact is that there is no inherent conflict between Chinese and Indian interests, except for Aksai Chin and some irrelevant bits of mountain in the Himalayas. Their current stand-off is more a question of face than anything else.

A second line of control over the “Oil Quadrangle” stretching from Central Asia to the Arabian Sea could be the securing of US interests by a combination of Israel, India and Turkey. Whilst Israel represents the centre piece of US security in this area, India is unfortunately a bit removed from where the action is supposed to be.

The most vivid difference in Pakistan-US relations is best understood by comparing it with the difference between Indian-Russian relations with respect to supply of arms and transfer of technology. This was highlighted by the problem Pakistan had for the supply of F-16s for which it had already paid. If there was a greater balance between the conventional forces of the two countries, the threat of a nuclear holocaust would certainly recede.

Pakistan only needs to beef up its defensive capability. It is doubtful if there is anyone in Pakistan with the ambition of planting the Pakistan flag on the Red Fort in Delhi. The second difference is the response to developing nuclear capability by Pakistan and India. Whereas India had already demonstrated its nuclear capability as early as 1974, without much untoward comment from the US. Pakistan in contrast was heavily sanctioned when as a counter-weight to India it appeared to be developing similar capability. This was particularly so after Pakistan’s usefulness in Afghanistan had disappeared.

However, as long as the BJP and practically the entire Indian body politics is convinced that their anti-Muslim stance will enable them to win elections, and the Narendra Modi virus continues to infect other political parties as well, any substantial improvement in Pakistan-India relations appears doubtful. Nevertheless we should try and keep the temperature down by promoting friendly relations as far as possible. The recent public announcement by the US ambassador to Pakistan that infiltration into Kashmir is still a problem has not helped either. It probably had nothing to do with India but was possibly meant to serve some other US purpose.

Pakistan has been elected a member of the UN Security Council at a most inopportune moment. The best it can get away with is an abstention when the proposed second, resolution accusing Iraq of not fully cooperating with the UN weapons inspectors comes up for voting.

THE two-day (February 24-25) 13th NAM summit at Kuala Lumpur could not have been held at a more appropriate time when the United States is poised for an attack on Iraq with or without the Security Council’s authorization.

The non-aligned summiteers, numbering 116, drawn from the five continents, rejected unilateral action on the one hand, and called for full cooperation by Iraq with the UN arms inspectors in the elimination of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) pursuant to the world body’s Resolution 687 on the other.

Disarmament, universal and complete, and not just partial, has been high on NAM’s agenda since the inception of the organization at Belgrade in 1961. The NAM summit at Delhi in 1983 linked peace, disarmament and development. But the big powers — even the non-aligned nations — paid little heed to the persistent calls for general and complete disarmament by the UN and NAM. On the contrary, they went on arming themselves with ever deadlier weapons, with one power, the United States, extending them to the space.

While the main producers of weapons of mass destruction were mainly responsible for the proliferation of these, most non-aligned nations were equally guilty since they were the main buyers of those weapons and military technology. How can the UN stop the spread of WMD if the majority of its members, most of them non-aligned, are engaged in the acquisition of lethal weapons at the expense of their economic development?

Again, it is unrealistic for NAM to ask Iraq to disarm and leave Israel, the US, Russia, Britain and France with enormous quantities of atomic, biological and chemical weapons. Why should not the UN and NAM press the manufacturers and suppliers of WMD to comply with the disarmament demand? Will the Middle East, or the world, be safer if Iraq alone is disarmed while Israel and the US keep their stockpiles of genocidal weapons intact?

NAM should see to it that the process of disarmament that began in Iraq does not lose its momentum and continues apace until Israel and the big powers disarm themselves in compliance with the UN disarmament resolutions. But that is too good to come true. If NAM cannot persuade the big powers to implement the world body’s disarmament resolutions, can’t it also persuade its own members to destroy their lethal weapons and cut the colossal expenditure on armaments to divert it to the development of their infrastructure? But this is not likely to happen so long as the long running proxy war between India and Pakistan, the two major NAM members, on Kashmir, continues to fester.

It was indeed disappointing to see that the Kuala Lumpur summit refused to address what one of its members called bilateral issues. For disarmament, there should be confidence-building between adversaries and there should be some mechanism for amicable settlement of disputes. Without such concrete measures, disarmament, peace, and development can never be achieved.

The NAM charter adopted at Belgrade in 1961 rejects military alliances in the context of big power rivalries and calls for the removal of military bases and installations of big powers in the territories of non-aligned nations. Together with the UN, NAM had called for the withdrawal of the foreign military, naval and aerial presence of big powers from the Indian Ocean region. In the present context, the US has deployed 150,000 expeditionary forces against Iraq and its troops are stationed on its bases in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain and Oman. All this is in material breach of the NAM charter and UN resolutions.

The American troops, warplanes and warships sent eleven thousand miles from US territory are not authorized by the Security Council. At least NAM, if not the Security Council, should demand their immediate withdrawal from the Gulf-Indian Ocean region. NAM should also demand the restoration of Falkland islands to Argentina, evacuation of Guantanamo by the US and its restoration to Cuba, the withdrawal of US troops from Panama canal zone, the termination of illegal possession of Diego Garcia by the US and its restoration to Mauritius.

NAM and the UN General Assembly have been persistently making these demands in their resolutions. Surely, these are the remnants of colonialism which should have been liquidated by now. With the presence of these foreign enclaves in the non-aligned states, it will be dishonest to claim that colonialism is dead and gone.

The pioneers of the non-aligned movement — Tito, Nehru, Nasser, Nkrumah and Sukarno warned at the 1961 Belgrade summit against the threat posed by neo-colonialism. The summit declared that the unequal economic and trade relations between the developed and the developing countries were the continuation of colonialism in a new form. In 1983 the non-aligned summit at Delhi appointed a research body to study the role of the multinational corporations in developing countries. The apologists for MNCs argue that they bring capital investment and technology to the host countries provided they deregulate their economy. This is known as economic globalization which seeks to abolish the trade and tariff barriers between the member countries under the WTO regime.

To place the developed and the developing countries on the same footing regardless of the stage of their development is not fair in the first place. For competition there has to be a level playing ground. Even so, the WTO charter is discriminatory in that, on the one hand, it provides that the services follow the goods wherever they go and the importer allow the personnel of the exporting or donor countries to enter into business sectors of their economy such as banking, insurance, construction, transport, telecommunications, accountancy, consultancy, tourism, television, radio, etc. On the other hand, the labour of the developing countries is not allowed to go to the industrialized countries because they say that their entry would disturb their social fabric. In other words, the WTO regime permits only one-way traffic.

Then, the industrial countries have adopted double standards in trade with the developing countries. On the one hand, they force the developing countries to abolish tariff on exports of the developed countries and on the other, raise tariff barriers against the export commodities of those countries such as agricultural products, textile and leather goods.

Moreover, the industrial North invokes anti-dumping measures of the WTO to block the cheap exports of the developing states. While the United States and the other industrial countries have reduced duties on manufactured goods from 40 per cent to four per cent, they have maintained duties on import of agricultural and certain other items at 40 to 50 per cent. Further, the US and the other industrialized countries provide heavy subsidies to their agriculture and other sectors. The US subsidies alone amount to one billion dollars annually.

The impact of globalization on the economy of the least developed and developing countries has manifested itself in the widening gap between the income of average citizens of the developed and developing countries, trade deficits and increasing debt burden amounting to trillions of dollars. In 1965 the average per capita income of the developed countries was twenty times that of the least developed countries (LDCs); in 1995 it rose to 39 times that of the LDCs.

The overall share of the LDCs in world trade is 0.4 per cent and foreign investment two per cent of the investment in developing countries. In South Korea, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Thailand, the short-term loans and speculation in currency trade caused widespread economic crisis, thanks to globalization. As a result, the entire economies of the so-called Asian tigers came crashing down.

NAM has called for the abolition of unequal and discriminatory trade practices between the North and the South and effective regulation of financial market to prevent the flight of capital. It has reiterated its demand that the industrialized countries fulfil the UN target of 0.7 per cent of their GNP as assistance to the developing countries. The Kuala Lumpur summit has renewed its appeal for the establishment of an equitable international economic order in which the developing countries fully participate in decision-making on world economic problems.