| 01 January 2004 | Thursday | 08 Ziqa'ad 1424 |
Tackling poverty in the region
How to lose friends and make enemies
The vested interests of the ruling elites of the Saarc countries stand in the way of the progress of more than one and a quarter billion of its peoples. To date, the rulers of South Asian countries have little to show in terms of achievements towards the goals of Saarc.
The Saarc charter laid down the principal objectives of the association as promotion of welfare of the peoples of the region, acceleration of economic growth, social progress and cultural development, and strengthening self-reliance among the countries of South Asia.
Towards that end, the charter provided for the creation of a number of institutions: meetings of heads of state or government, a council of ministers, a standing committee, technical committees, action committees and a secretariat.
High and low-level meetings have been held almost regularly to consider and approve agendas on a fairly large number of promotional activities. There has been a fair amount of paper work.
A decentralized bureaucratic setup has come into existence. A paltry sum of one and a quarter million dollars was allocated by the member countries towards the Saarc budget during the last financial year which speaks volumes for the interest shown by the ruling elites.
The website of Saarc lists 13 items in its profile plus and Annexure: 1. Introduction 2. Institutional set-up 3. Regional centre 4. Economic agenda 5. Social agenda 6. Poverty alleviation and development activities 7. Legal issues 8. Saarc funds 9. Promotion of human rights 10. Communications, information and media 11. Promotion of people-to-people linkages and Saarc professional associations 12. Cooperation between Saarc and regional and other international organizations, and 13. The Saarc secretariat
It is instructive to note in the Annexure, that under the heading at No 6, poverty alleviation and development activities, no subheading is listed. Apparently the ruling elites have attached scant importance to the topic affecting almost a billion and half people of the region.
A bit of information available from the website on the subject of poverty alleviation is summarized below:
1991: An independent South Asian commission on poverty alleviation (ISACPA) was established
1993: The commission report provided a radical conceptual framework for poverty alleviation through social mobilization and empowerment in South Asia.
1995: The Eighth Saarc summit approved the establishment of a three-tier mechanism for dealing with poverty issues. The first-tier would comprise the secretaries to the governments concerned with poverty eradication and social development in Saarc countries. The second-tier comprises finance and planning secretaries and the third-tier finance and planning ministers.
1996: The first round of the three-tier mechanism was completed.
1998: The summit approved the establishment of the Saarc human resources development centre in Islamabad.
1999: The council of ministers agreed that meetings of the Saarc planning ministers or other ministers concerned should be convened to consider issues relating to poverty alleviation.
2001: National perspectives were presented and experiences exchanged. The ministerial-level meeting identified the following areas where more work was needed: Reaching the poorest of the poor; linking decentralization to poverty eradication; providing the poor access to credit; developing alliances to forge ahead; deepening the social mobilization process; translating lessons from grassroots activities into viable macro-policy options; and synergy with other social mobilization efforts.
Furthermore, the website reports that "national poverty alleviation programmes are being implemented in accordance with specific domestic priorities and hence a single plan to fit the region has not been feasible".
This observation indicates that the ruling elites have shown little interest for more than a decade in cooperating with each other for the alleviation of poverty.
On the other hand they have been willing to spend enormous amounts of their taxpayer's money on creating big bureaucratic set-ups, thereby serving the interests of a section of their elites. That bulk of the budget allocation is being spent on salaries and administration should cause no surprise.
Noteworthy, however, is the fact that the South Asian elites have not been able to find a way to cooperate with each other, even in serving their own elite interests.
Capitalists, landholders, civil and military officers, traders and other members of the elites of the seven countries have not been able to find a way to cooperate to exploit their peoples for their elite-benefit and govern the vast land mass of South Asia for that end. Apparently, they lacked the astuteness and intelligence of the exploiter-founders of the US.
Consider the case of the 18th century US. The case is not applicable to South Asia, but nevertheless its study is instructive. The war of independence in America had resulted in the establishment of 13 independent states.
The third quarter of the 18th century had been a period of great turmoil. Men of property and wealth were on one side and tenants, labour, slaves, Indians on the other.
Armed confrontations abounded. The government of most of the states rested on shaky foundations. In Federalist Paper No 10, James Madison, one of the illustrious fathers of the Constitution, argued that representative government was needed to maintain peace in a society ridden by factional disputes.
These disputes came from "the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society" he was to contend.
According to Howard Zinn (in his famous book A People's History of the United States), the problem before James Madison was how to control the factional struggles that came from inequality of wealth.
Zinn writes: "So the real problem, according to Madison was a majority faction, and here the solution was offered by the Constitution, to have 'an extensive republic', that is a large nation ranging over thirteen states, for then 'it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other.... The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular states, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other states.'" (page 96).
Zinn writes: "The Constitution was a compromise between the slaveholding interests of the South and moneyed interests of the North. For the purpose of uniting the thirteen states into one great market for commerce, the northern delegates wanted laws regulating interstate commerce... The South agreed to this, in return for allowing the trade in slaves to continue for twenty years before being outlawed" (page 97).
The phrase, 'life, liberty and pursuit of happiness', which appeared in the Declaration of Independence, were substituted by, 'life, liberty and property' in the Constitution.
Indeed, the situation in South Asia is different. The ruling elites of the countries of South Asia rejected the option of cooperation. They chose to benefit hugely from internally exploiting their people.
They have done so through maintaining varying degrees of confrontational postures among themselves. With the passage of time and the benefits accruing from their stands vis-a-vis each other, the elites have developed strong vested interests.
These vested interests are (a) clinging on to state power, (b) securing further riches and enhancing social power and status, and (c) Maintaining anti-national foreign alliances.
Since the departure of the British, the ruling elites of South Asia have attempted to walk in the footsteps of their erstwhile imperial masters. However, they are bereft of the progressive technological, military and economic superiority which was characteristic of the 19th-century imperialists.
Our elites have ended up diverting their model of the imperial dreams, inwards - towards their own land and the people. In the name of national independence, national destiny, national security and a host of causes termed 'national' by them, they have oppressed and exploited their own people as conquered subjects.
Politicians, the civil apparatus of the state, its army protectors, and beneficiaries of the economic policies of the government such as big traders and businessmen make up the ruling elites in India.
The Pakistani elites comprise officers of the military and civil services, their client politicos and subservient feudal lords, businessmen and traders. Parallel elites exist in the other countries of South Asia as well.
As a result of the policies pursued by the ruling elites, all the countries of South Asia are in a state of political and social ferment. The elites are authoritative, predatory, arbitrary and backward looking.
The people are divided and subdivided into numerous factions. In their passive way, they are unorganized for collective action. They are resentful of the elites. Indeed, they harbour feelings of hostility against the state and its heavy handed apparatuses. A social contract between the state and the people hardly exists.
In the absence of a social contract, the states of South Asia are becoming more and more ungovernable with the passage of time. The ruling elites are obliged to make laws of the land increasingly stringent and in violation of basic human rights.
Year after year they have to bolster the size of the military, paramilitary and police forces. Hundreds of thousands of armed men are deputed to protect the person, residence, offices, transport of ministers and high officials. Banks, houses of the affluent and vital installations of the state have also to be protected through employing armed men.
Each Saarc country stands sharply divided into the country of the rulers and the country of the ruled. There is a Pakistan of the rulers and a Pakistan of the ruled. Similarly divided are the other member countries of Saarc.
The Saarc of the ruling elites of South Asia is much too involved in maintaining its tenuous hold on the peoples of South Asia. Their rule rests on a substantial degree of non-cooperation between the states.
Indeed, to retain their hold on power they have to stoke the fires of chauvinistic nationalism, communal hatred and intolerance, thus intensifying the gulf between communities and nations and states. To expect them to cooperate with each other is asking too much of them in political and economic terms.
A Saarc of the Bangladesh of the poor, Bhutan of the poor, India of the poor, the Maldives of the poor, Nepal of the poor, Pakistan of the poor and Sri Lanka of the poor does not exist.
The objectives of the Saarc in so far as they relate to the overwhelming majority of South Asian people are not achievable. The governments of the countries of South Asia have to be radically transformed into governments of the people so that Saarc may have a future.
Tackling poverty in the region
Alleviation of poverty along with eradication of its extreme forms is among the major issues to be taken up by at the 12th Saarc summit in Islamabad. The prime ministers of the seven South Asian states will discuss and adopt the recommendations in the light of not one extensive report on poverty alleviation but three comprehensive reports.
These reports have been prepared by the independent South Asian commission on poverty alleviation, the Saarc secretary-general and the Saarc finance ministers. The three reports together may leave very little to be added if the Saarc leaders are prepared to act.
To supplement that, the leaders will have before them for adoption the Saarc social chapter as well which seeks to promote participatory governance, equitable distribution of income, and universal respect and promotion of human rights.
At a time when Pakistan is facing increasing poverty, with about 40 per cent of the people living below the poverty line of a dollar a day, the recommendations of these experts and how the summit leaders really act on them are very important.
They may have very useful discussions on these reports, but far more significant is what follows by way of decisions and action on a sustained basis as poverty cannot be banished through short term measures or quick steps taken in haste in a traditional society with multi-layers of malaise.
The Saarc during its 18 years of life is known for having passed pious resolutions and then not having acted on them earnestly, or with reasonable speed. Instead their earlier decisions continue to be reaffirmed with a tinge of sadness.
India and some other states want to give greater importance to trade. Hence the prime ministers have to reapprove the Sapta (South Asia preferential trade agreement) and give far greater attention to the more important South Asia free trade area, to which India gives a great deal of importance.
But the draft agreement is still under negotiation. Its finalization is held up owing to the reservations of one of the member states, Bangladesh, for enhanced special and differential treatment for the less developed countries.
But Pakistan, too, has its reservations. Pakistan will not give free trade area concessions to India until the Kashmir issue is settled, says Riaz Khokhar. He makes a clear distinction between bilateral relations and multilateral relations in this area.
What it can mean is while Pakistan agrees in principle to the free trade area for the region, it would not make that applicable to India bilaterally in actual practice until the Kashmir issue is settled.
And that, in effect, means that Pakistan's position in this regard has not changed and the old hurdle in the way of free or full trade with India stands. That does not seem to be in line with the earlier flexible option chosen by President Musharraf without a sudden shift in the Kashmir policy.
Mr Khokhar's policy is not in consonance with the open-door policy of Gen. Muhsarraf to initiate a dialogue with India.
If poverty is to be reduced in the region, the countries of the region have to cooperate earnestly. And that is far more essential for the larger countries. They have to find far more resources for poverty reduction than available now.
But if they devote too large a part of their limited resources to the military, to the border police and intelligence agencies to spy on each other, not much can be done to fight poverty.
In this area India's responsibility is great, or it has to take the lead and reverse its current trend. India is the country which spends the largest amount on its armed forces even after becoming a nuclear military power.
Its military spending is far larger than Pakistan's total budget. Hence India has to lead the way in cutting the defence outlay. But it argues that it is spending only three per cent of its GDP on its military, and it has regional concerns far beyond South Asia.
Pakistan which had fought three wars with India cannot take India's armed might lightly. Hence, the costly arms race continues in the region. But if the arms race and the acute poverty last, the Saarc deliberations even at the summit level will be more of a shadow-play or outpourings of pious platitudes with little to show on the ground.
After many years Pakistan is making an earnest effort to settle outstanding issues with India. President Musharraf has indicated he is ready to make concessions and explore various options.
He has also made the Line of Control in Kashmir an effective ceasefire line. To add to that, India is hurriedly extending its barbed wire fence and has acknowledged that infiltration has virtually stopped.
The two attacks on President Musharraf's motorcade which meant a narrow escape for him show that terrorism in the area is not under his control. And Pakistan is as much a victim of terrorism and extremism as India or any other country in the region is. All that should get India talking to Pakistan, beginning on the sidelines of the Saarc summit in Islamabad.
But India still says there will be no bilateral talks in Islamabad during the visit of Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee. He says that he would decide after the Saarc deliberations whether Pakistan wants to be friendly with India or not. So the question mark still hangs over the future of the bilateral talks.
Mr Vajpayee gives a great deal of importance to trade between the two countries. That means if Pakistan refuses to give free trade area concessions to India without an agreement on Kashmir he may not agree to bilateral talks.
This is an area where President Musharraf will have to act and use his discretion tactfully. The FTA issue should not be allowed to stand in the way of the composite dialogue that Pakistan wants with India. Too much should not be lost for too little and the whole process of dialogue thrown out of gear straight away.
In fact this is high time that Saarc cooperation was expanded particularly in the economic and cultural areas. Too much time has been lost during the last 18 years in largely reaffirming pious resolutions.
This is the time for action, forward thrust and real achievements so that the region breaks out of its stagnation. Economy is an area where such cooperation can come forthwith for the benefit of the masses within a short time, with the greater goals to be achieved later.
"The Kashmir first" approach of Pakistan has not paid dividends so far. Can keeping that aside tactfully temporarily, while trying to build bridges of understanding between the two countries pay dividends and later bring us to the Kashmir issue? If war is no solution of the Kashmir issue nor is escalated Jihadi movement, which can eventually make the two countries confront each other militarily, then dialogue is a solution. Now, how to approach that dialogue, and with what kind of priorities, is the issue.
In that area President Musharraf has to be given the flexibility that he seeks. That does not mean abandoning Kashmir or side-stepping the Kashmir struggle, but only bringing a more tactful approach to it to produce better results.
There are not only very valid reasons for the two countries to cooperate in large areas but also positive advantages. With terrorism in the region increasing, India too is having its share, so they can cooperate in putting down terrorism and helping each other by preventing terrorists to cross from one country to the other.
The Saarc summit will be doing the right thing in giving top priority to fighting terrorism of all kinds. Their political and economic survival and progress demand that.
Assured and prolonged peaceful relations can increase foreign investment in both countries. Foreign investment in India has been under five billion dollars for a year for long, while that is almost ten times that in China.
In Pakistan during the period-- July to November-- foreign investment dropped by 60 per cent to 204.4 million dollars against 477.7 million dollars in the same period last year. Pakistani businessmen are quite concerned over that.
Following a setback to the WTO efforts to promote global trade on an equitable basis, and with a fair deal on the part of the rich states, the rich and poor states of the world are opting for regional trade blocs.
The countries of South Asia with the largest number of the poor in the world and a high concentration of them, cannot afford to be unmindful of this trend. They cannot meet together and talk nice things about cooperation among them, pass pious resolutions and disperse to meet again the next year to do the same solemnly. This is the time to decide and act. And they must not fail again, and promise more of the same as they had done in the past.
How to lose friends and make enemies
As I walked along the elegant Quai d'Orsay, past France's ministry of foreign affairs, the late 18th century diplomat Talleyrand's wonderfully cynical comment about Napoleon's murder of the Duc d'Enghien kept coming back to me: 'Worse than a crime, it was a blunder.'
Talleyrand could just as well have been speaking of Iraq. (I always called Pakistan's own brilliant statesman, Sabzada Yaqub Khan, 'the Pakistani Talleyrand').
France repeatedly warned the Bush administration against invading Iraq. DGSE, France's intelligence service, which had highly placed agents within Saddam Hussein's regime, informed the US Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, posed no threat, and would, if invaded, turn into a second Lebanon or West Bank.
Warnings by France and other European powers were sneeringly dismissed by the war's principal architect, deputy Defence secretary Paul Wolfowitz, whose war strategy concocted using disinformation from shady defectors and self-serving Israeli sources. Pro-war Americans hurled insults at France for impeding Washington's rush to war.
Totally wrong about Iraq, Wolfowitz and fellow pro-Israel hardliners are now punishing those who were totally right. Canada, France, Germany, Russia, Belgium, Greece, and China were just blacklisted from $18.6 billion of 'reconstruction' contracts in Iraq.
The laughable reason: 'to protect the essential security interests of the United States.' Albania and Uzbekistan are approved vendors.
'Reconstruction' is an euphemism for repairing massive damage inflicted on Iraq, formerly the Arab World's most developed nation, by a decade of crushing US sanctions and bombing.
French diplomats are asking, whatever happened to Colin Powell, who is supposed to head US foreign policy? Wolfowitz is clearly running foreign as well as defence policy. The hapless Powell has been demoted to messenger boy.
Banning staunch allies like Canada, France, and Germany from Iraq business is not only foolishly vindictive and ham-handed, it was downright stupid, a condition now epidemic at the Pentagon's highest civilian echelons.
America's affronted allies, facing domestic outrage over this insult, must now take overt or covert counter-action, worsening US-European relations. The spiteful ban undermines intense US efforts to draw Europe and Canada into the Iraq mess.
All this could have been done quietly. Instead, Wolfowitz created an unnecessary trans-Atlantic fracas that again shows the alarming diplomatic ineptitude and political crassness of the Bush administration.
Embarrassingly, Wolfowitz's black list was issued just as Bush was calling European leaders, trying to get them to forgive Iraq's huge debts. The president was left red faced. Many wondered who was really running the administration - and if the pro-Israel hardliners were trying to further damage US-European relations.
The exclusion of America's oldest friends from Iraq underlines the fact that the US invasion was really motivated by big oil and big business rather than the faux war on terrorism or Baghdad's non-existent unconventional weapons.
Few people realize how important the occupation of oil-rich Iraq is to America's military-industrial-petroleum complex, a major financial backer for Bush and the Republican Party. Defence spending, spurred by the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, will reach $3.1 trillion over the next two years- the same amount, in constant dollars, the US spent on World War II!
A lot of this bonanza will go to traditional defence contractors. But a growing share will flow to the US firms engaged in the privatized military and imperial functions.
Halliburton, VP Dick Cheney's old firm, got a no-bid contract to pump and export Iraqi oil, and is now patriotically selling oil to US forces in Iraq at something like twice the regular market price.
Brown & Root, a Halliburton subsidiary, builds and runs US military bases in Iraq, and other nations, supplying food, cleaning, water, sewage and power. Halliburton will earn $5 billion just in Iraq.
Other little-known firms with close links to the Bush administration - Vinnell Corp, MPRI, BDM, and DynCorp - have over 10,000 'civilian' (read ex-military) contractors in Iraq.
They receive billions of dollars to train Iraq's new US-run police and army, create security forces, field mercenary units, and 'protect' the US-installed figurehead in Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai.
In fact, a third of this year's $87 billion allocated for Iraq, Afghanistan and Central Asia will be spent on US private military contractors.
For these members of the military-industrial complex, Iraq is a gold mine. Pentagon plans to create three major, permanent bases in Iraq and link them to new US bases in Central Asia - what I call America's imperial oil route - will guarantee decades of lucrative work and generous funding for the Republican Party.
The French, who have a long history of knocking off puppet African rulers who get out of line, have no great moral qualms about US military intervention in Iraq, but they view Iraq as a legitimate sphere of European economic influence.
Paris is furious Washington is elbowing Europe out of this rich market and stirring up an Islamic hornet's nest against the West. There are at least five million impoverished Muslims in France living on the edge of society, 40 per cent of them under 20 years - fertile ground for unrest and violence.
Washington may eventually back down over the Iraq contract dispute. Yet each week, the Bush administration seems to find new ways to antagonize, alienate, and infuriate Europe and the entire Muslim world. As a French diplomat observed to me, 'Monsieur bin Laden must be very happy.'- Copyright Eric S. Margolis 2003.