IF the extent of political cooperation among the Muslim states is not large enough the volume of trade and economic links among them is also too small. And that happens despite the fond wish of the Muslim Ummah for stronger economic relations and even formation of a Muslim commonwealth among the 50 countries.

But the governments of the Muslim states alone should not be blamed for it, for equally responsible have been the businessmen and consumers of Muslim states who prefer western brands marketed by the large multinational companies with their mightily advertising machinery. They have been there in the Muslim countries from the days of European colonial rule along with their deep commercial roots.

Naturally there is acute dissatisfaction over this negative state of affairs every time the leaders of the Muslim world meet together, and they issue passionate calls for larger economic relations. That happened last week at Islamabad too when the economic ministers of the ten member states of Economic Cooperation Organisation (ECO) met. But this time they have taken some positive and detailed decisions to ensure that the volume of trade among them really goes up and other forms of economic cooperation follow.

The ECO is a successor to the RCD (Regional Cooperation for Development) formed by three countries — Pakistan, Iran and Turkey. It became the ECO in 1985 and later it was joined by the six former Soviet republics with Muslim majority and Afghanistan. It was hoped that the ten states could achieve a good deal by way of economic cooperation in view of their large natural resources, particularly gas and oil, but they could not achieve much. It has been more like its larger political brother, the OIC, whose performance has also been insignificant compared to the rhetoric at its sessions.

Commerce minister Humayun Akhtar says the total inter-ECO trade of the ten states is only 1.3 per cent of the GDP of the world which shows how small it is or how large is the scope for its expansion. According to one report total trade creation in the ECO region comes to 816 million dollars, with 183 million dollars as Iran’s share, 166 million Uzbekistan’s and 146 million as Turkey’s share.

Now the ECO ministers in Islamabad have signed an agreement with considerable excitement under which they will bring their import tariff to 15 per cent within 8 years. The reduction will be at the rate of 10 per cent per year. Meanwhile, they would provide maximum access to the goods of other ECO member countries. They would also increase the volume of investment among their countries. The gas pipeline connecting Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan is an outstanding example of such large scale economic cooperation.

To enforce the ECO Trade Agreement (ECOTA) their ministers would meet once a year and review its implementation in detail and remove the roadblocks. The next conference would be in Turkey in 2003-04.

The committee to review the implementation of the agreement set up now is one of six committees. The other five would deal with other major impediments in the way of growth of trade. They will deal with tourism, transportation, agricultural development and exchanges, investment, and exploration of new areas to enhance cooperation among member states. An ECO data bank would also be set up to exchange information among the ECO members who do not know enough about other countries, and their potentials.

While forswearing any pre-eminence in the ECO on basis of its seniority Pakistan through its prime minister Zafarullah Jamali offered all possible help to the ECO to realise its vast potentials. The secretary general of ECO Sayed Mujtaba Voiced the hope the ECOTA would pave the way for an ECO Free trade Area. The ministers voiced the hope the experts would meet twice in a year to make a success of ECOTA and pave the way to a FTA.

Evidently Humayun Akhtar, who presided over the ECO ministers conference, realises the world is moving faster than the ECO countries. The WTO is moving faster and so is the Doha round of tariff cutting parleys. Globalisation, too, is moving faster despite the protest from the poor countries and the deprived peoples of the world. And the US itself is taking the lead in forming free trade areas with rich and poor countries, and even Middle Eastern states to bring them into its ever expanding economic orbit. So the Muslim countries have to move faster than the ECO states are ready to do.

He says the Organisation of Islamic Conference is now considering a proposal to enter into a preferential trade agreement for the promotion of trade among Muslim countries. The proposal would mature, he says, as soon as it is ready to be signed. At a time when the US and other countries are taking the lead in forming free trade areas, the minimum Islamic Conference should do is to give preferential treatment to the goods and services of other Muslim countries. If positive steps are being taken by the OIC members in this regard despite the fact they are spread all over the world, that is a welcome development.

Individually Pakistan itself is taking a decisive lead with other Muslim countries in this regard. Pakistan and Iran have agreed to start talks on FTA, particularly to promote border trade. And Iran has signed an enlarged and revised trade pact with Pakistan and will have continuous discussions for expanding trade between the two countries.

Iran and Turkey have agreed to enter into negotiations with Pakistan for forming a free trade area. President Musharraf during his visit to Maghreb states focused on larger trade with Tunisia, Morocco and Algeria, and a trade agreement with Morocco was signed. These three countries as well as Indonesia have shown interest in starting negotiations on a free trade area pact with Pakistan.

When it comes to Turkey there is specific target of one billion dollars in bilateral trade between the two countries in the current financial year. Pakistan’s trade with many of these countries has been small as there has been little of tariff preference in trade with them. Compared to that, Western countries have been able to offer their production at competitive prices because of their sales tactics.

The goods of one Muslim country can be made familiar in other countries not only through exhibitions but also through tourism. One of the handicaps in promoting trade between Muslim countries is lack of shipping. But now the Iranian minister for trade says Iran has 125 ships which can be used between its port of Chahbahar and Pakistani ports. That is a welcome news.

Now that we have set the target of 12.1 billion dollar exports during the current year, further steps have to be taken to boost our exports, and make the exports more value-added, particularly the textiles where we should be shipping more of garments than fabrics and yarn.

The government has already taken a number of steps in this regard, particularly permission to import second hand machinery and allowing the industries to produce their own power. It has also raised the number of exports items on which duty drawback can be claimed to 56.

And now as a measure of Iran’s faith in the economic growth of Pakistan, Iran and Pakistan are to set up a joint investment bank with an initial capital of 10 million dollars each. If the bank has to play a significant role the capital of the bank has to be raised substantially.

At the same time it is interesting to note the Pak-Kuwait Investment Bank wants a seat in the Karachi Stock Exchange for Rs 34.7 million. The sustained boom in the Karachi Stock Exchange is attracting more and more foreigners, and now they want to be members of the KSE as well.

But there is bad news from a key sector of the country which continues to deteriorate. The United Nations Human Development Report says Pakistan’s ranking in the Human Development Index has gone down from 138 in 2001 to 144 among the 189 countries. Clearly, our position is not improving. We need a crash programme to improve the situation in the areas of education, public health, environment, etc. No progress in the modern style is sustainable without an educated and healthy manpower and a clean and safe environment. That, along with the poverty reduction, is the Achilles’ heels of our economic development.

But when our political leaders are at war with each other and so are the mullahs though temporarily united, they cannot focus on the problems of the poor. The masses in the cities without water and electricity and very expensive schools are asking whether the top priority of the Defence Housing Authority where land is allotted at nominal prices for resale at fancy prices should be the newly envisioned Creek City on the beach. From swanky clubs with fabulous admission fees it is moving towards the Creek city with its dream targets and promise of a heaven on earth. Surely the division between the poor and the ultra-rich is being widened.

The Defence Housing Authority should be focusing on desalination of water to meet its ever expanding water needs. That was what it was expected to do before the Creek Club, Marina Club and other clubs by the sea came up and the desalinisation was dropped.

With so much focus on Islam and its basic values to help the poor first, the army rulers should be getting their priorities right in a land in which 4 per cent of the people are living below the poverty line and any effective literacy is not more than 15 per cent in this age of globalization.

ON July 4, an armed attack took place at the Imambargah in the centre of Quetta city while people were offering their Juma prayers. Over 50 persons were killed on the spot and over 60 were wounded, some critically. This is the most serious case of killing in which Muslims were shot and killed while offering prayers.

The government has condemned this act of barbarism and vowed to punish the perpetrators of this heinous crime. A high-powered committee has been set up to investigate, some police officers have been transferred and two ministers have resigned. But experience shows that in the end nothing will be done. But the killing of such a large number of innocent people is a serious matter and cannot be ignored.

The Shia community of Quetta is small and law-abiding, yet it took the law in its own hand resulting in angry demonstrations and rioting in the city. A curfew had to be imposed and the army and the Frontier Corps called in out to maintain order. This peaceful community resorted to rioting because on the 8th of the previous month, 11 police trainees who were Shias from the Hazara tribe were killed in an attack on their bus, but the government failed to take any action.

In fact, after the Shia police trainees were killed the authorities should have taken added security precautions. But no police protection was provided to the Imambargah and only a private guard on duty fired back and killed one of the attackers. The provincial government failed the people yet again.

The massacre in Quetta was a clear case of the failure of the administration to maintain law and order. It must therefore be held fully responsible for the carnage that has taken place in the capital of the province.

There are always designated people in the administration and government whose duty it is to ensure the security of the people. Action must be taken against them first as they have failed in their duties and responsibilities. They are guilty of gross negligence in the performance of their duties which resulted in the slaughter of such a large number of innocent people. They must be held answerable for their lapses and failures. This is the only way to prevent the recurrence of such fatal failures. The government functionaries must be made aware of their duties and responsibilities.

The government of Balochistan is a coalition of the MMA and PML(Q), the former being in confrontation with the latter at the federal level. The killing of Shia worshippers in Quetta is a clear indication of the course of events that are likely to follow. The message is clear: religious parties would not accept any opinion or support any line of action that does not conform to their own religious views and notions. Can the federal government tolerate this approach which is detrimental to the country and its people.

The Prime Minister Mir Zafarullah Khan Jamali was in Karachi when the killings in Quetta took place. Flew Quetta to asses the situation and give solace to the affected people and families. His visit was very appropriate and timely. It showed to the people of Balochistan that the Prime Minister of the country was with them in their hour of need. It was a gesture well appreciated by the public.

The President’s reaction was somewhat wanting. He heard the news of the massacre while in Paris. He returned home certainly over-flying the province of Balochistan on his way to Islamabad. He should have landed in Quetta and met the people. There such gestures by the head of state are important for the people. One remembers when President Yahya Khan was in power and on return from a visit to China did not stop at Dhaka where a major cyclone had taken a heavy toll of life. The people of the former East Pakistan never forgave Yahya Khan. Have the present set of Presidential Advisers faulted again and were unable to handle an emergency.

The president and the prime minister have both hinted at the possibility of a ‘foreign hand’ being behind the killings in Quetta. This may well be so, as there are forces at home and abroad who would like to destabilize Pakistan. Their efforts are discernible in other fields as well. But the fact remains that it is the duty of the government to protect the people from the machinations of forces — foreign or internal — inimical to the country.

Besides, there are groups and factions of religious militants within the country itself which have been killing people on sectarian grounds over the last many years just as there are forces of disorder which make their presence felt by resorting to acts of violence of subversion.

Balochistan is one of two sensitive provinces in the country in the context of the on-going war on terrorism. All those elements in the province who may still be sympathetic to the cause of the former Taliban regime in neighbouring Afghanistan are not likely to take kindly to Pakistan’s cooperation with the United States on this score. Another complicating factor is the attitude and actions of the MMA-led government in the NWFP and part of the Balochistan government which are known to be opposed to Pakistan’s collaboration in the anti-terrorism campaign. Whether — and if so, to what extant — this factor is having an encouraging effect on the pro-Taliban elements in the two provinces is something for the federal government to watch out and take action when necessary.

Although the responsibility of maintaining law and order falls within the purview of the provincial governments, the federal government has to oversee the interests of the people. They cannot allow such large-scale killings to take place without taking firm action against those in positions of authority who may have failed to do their duty to prevent these or punish the culprits.

The writer is a retired Lt-Gen of the army and former governor of Balochistan.

THE not so startling disclosure by the federal communication minister that the National Highway Authority (NHA), headed by a serving major-general, refuses to share with him the authority’s financial details sheds light on the dangerous nature of authoritarianism that grips Pakistan today.

Besides, it exposes the widely held myth that military-run institutions are somehow more transparent than those managed by civilians. Unless the NHA bosses had something to hide, there was no reason to lock horns with the minister. According to the beleaguered minister, who must be credited for speaking out, the highway authority spends billions of rupees every year but maintains no balance sheet.

The ministry’s military-led vigilance cell, created with much fanfare in 2001 under Lieutenant-General Ashraf Qazi, then minister for communications, is also reportedly non-cooperative and dysfunctional. In theory, the communications minister is the ex-officio head of the National Highway Council which regulates the affairs of the NHA and approves its budget. In our military-dominated state, however, lines defining legitimate authority are all too often blurred.

This episode, along with other recent revelations, also refutes the military’s claim that the highest levels of government have been corruption-free since 1999. The political cronies of the then military regime, as well as impressionable foreign aid officials, loved to tout this achievement in defence of military rule. But corruption in Pakistan is still systemic and rampant. Putting an authoritarian band-aid on a festering wound may stop the blood flow for a while, but it is never a cure.

The lopsided and selective nature of accountability under the National Accountability Bureau (NAB), that explicitly targets politicians and bureaucrats but leaves out military officers too stands exposed. The NAB chairman’s recent admission that military personnel in civil departments are under investigation for corruption, only further confirms the hollowness of the carefully constructed myth of military honesty.

It is worth recalling that the NHA, like many other public sector organizations, underwent a “uniformed’ overhaul in recent years to ensure transparency and efficiency in governmental operations. The results, as we now know, have been little short of failure. Under the direct command of the generals since 1999, the performance of the NHA has gone from bad to worse. It is still regarded as one of the most corrupt departments of the government. The country’s road network is still notable for its pathetic conditions, causing enormous losses to the transport sector.

This is not all. Other army-run public sector utilities like Wapda and the KESC are also going under. According to the National Electric Power Regulating Authority (Nepra), the KESC’s performance under its army-led management has seen a “marked deterioration” in the last five years. Since the army’s induction in 1999, the utility’s losses have “more than doubled” from seven billion to 16 billion rupees. Need more be said?

Beyond corruption and incompetence, the minister-NHA row highlights the dangers inherent in a hybrid political system. Spawned by a much-hyped democratic transition in October 2002, our current political dispensation is a curious mix of parliamentary democracy and presidential authoritarianism — one that involves a lot of authoritarianism but not much of democracy.

It is a system in which elections and parliaments are not wholly meaningless but where the principle of civilian supremacy and constitutionalism is observed only in name; where an elected prime minister and his cabinet are not completely powerless but where a military president enjoys veto powers over them and all other forms of civil authority.

Whatever may have been the shortcomings of the elective rule of the 1990s or of the PPP and PML-N as political parties, the nature of their electoral competition was gradually shaping political affiliations into fairly stable pro- and anti-PPP camps, with minor variations along regional, ethnic, and religious lines. In the medium to long run, it also provided the hope of democratic institutionalisation whereby consensual use and allocation of state power becomes the norm. Democratic values and practices then become the standard practice rather than the exception.

That, alas, was not to be. Since assuming power in 1999, the military has grossly distorted the rules of the electoral and political games. Using time-tested divide-and-rule tactics, “king’s parties” were created to provide civilian cover and non-partisan local bodies instituted to depoliticize governance. The logic was simple: weaken and scatter your adversaries to prolong your stay in power. The suppression of party loyalties has brought tribal, ethnic, linguistic, and sectarian affiliations to the fore. Party politics has given way, at least temporarily, to the easier-to-manage, personality-driven politics of patronage.

Why create this democratic facade in the first place? Dictators have fallen on hard times since the end of the cold war. The unmistakable international consensus on democracy as the most preferred form of government does not leave them much room. The generals know full well that the best way to preserve the military’s economic and political interests is to re-enact the drama of formally transferring power to a compromised civilian leadership, even as they retain their grip on state power.

Not unaware of the importance of keeping up democratic appearances for external reasons, the military has adroitly delegated the thankless task of running the day-to-day affairs of government to elected politicians without the requisite authority and resources. It is they who must take all public flak for their powerlessness as the military cloaks itself in the trappings of formal respectability and democratic compliance.

At the risk of stating the self-evident: in the absence of a full restructuring of civil-military relations, democratic transition will never stick in Pakistan. The military will remain above the law of the land. Its officials will continue to ignore ministers and parliamentarians with impunity. And Pakistan will continue to live under the shadow of the chronically disfigured pattern of governance and politics wrought by a politically ambitious and overbearing military.

The rot in our public sector entities is but one manifestation of this hybrid authoritarianism. That rot has reached a stage where quick fixes no longer work. In fact, they never have. All the more reason for the military to leave us civilians to sort things out. For all their tall claims, military officers neither have the skill nor the understanding of how the world works outside the confines of the garrison. It is simply not their calling.

A cursory look at the history of military forays into civil administration proves that point beyond any shadow of doubt. Instead of muddying the already polluted waters of civil governance and bringing a bad name to their own institution, the generals should admit their failure and go back to the barracks just as good soldiers often do.

The writer is a political analyst based in Islamabad.