| 26 February 2004 | Thursday | 05 Muharram 1425 |
25 years of Iranian revolution
Ordeal of the war president
The very poor in Pakistan with no conventional collateral to borrow from bank seek micro-credit from the Khushhali Bank with its modest resources and rather exaggerated claims.
Pakistan seeks large loans from international financial institutions and donor states after partially mortgaging its sovereignty for the period of indebtedness. Both are common features of the developing countries in which the people and the government with very little savings are heavily indebted which hampers major financial initiatives.
The indebtedness of the people, particularly of the rural masses, has a long history with its varied abuses by the rich lenders, while the foreign borrowing of the state began almost 50 years ago with 1.2 million dollar aid from the US. Soon after that the Zeal-Pak Cement Factory was set up with a grant of just one million pound sterling from New Zealand. The Maple Leaf Cement factory with Canadian assistance followed with a larger capacity but it cost far more.
The million dollar aid over the years gave way cumulatively to a billion dollar aid a year and now the World Bank is reported to be offering 10 billion dollars over a period of time for major water projects.
President Musharraf is reported to have told the World Bank vice-president for South Asia that he would prefer 3.5 billion dollars for a short term but on the basis of the concessional aid of the IDA which charges only 0.7 per cent as service charge. Simultaneously Pakistan has decided to do away with the IMF credit after this year because of its harsh terms or humiliating conditions.
Initially we went to the financial institutions and bilateral donors for development assistance to the US and for defence assistance and distress aid from time to time. Lately we have been seeking such aid for poverty reduction. The more aid we get the more poor we seem to become, or the number of the very poor living below a dollar a day seems to increase. There is a clear disconnect here.
What has happened to our economic management over the years or decades --the more aid we get the more we need. The dependency syndrome is more like drug addiction. Ultimately the alarming stage was reached in the 1990s when the aid we were getting was being used to simply service the old debt, not so much to repay the principal but to pay the heavy interest on that.
One of the reasons for that has been the steady increase in population which exceeded three per cent and our tendency to consume more than what we produce, preferably through smuggling which deprived the state of its revenues, ranging from import duties to sales tax.
But now we are told by the secretary population planning that the population growth has come down to 1.96 per cent from 2.06 per cent and the allocation for population planning has been raised to Rs. 3.1 billion from Rs. 1.8 billion. Next year that will be Rs. 4 billion.
Since the campaign has been defedralized the provincial governments are making major headway. Even the tribal areas are in the lead, says the secretary population planning Shakil Durrani.
Let us hope these figures are correct and not the result of guess work or guesstimates.
In recent years we have been getting more and more aid from the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank which have promised annual assistance of a billion dollars each. At the same time we are not seeking short term credit from the IMF with its harsh conditionalities and imperious demands while the assistance is very small in monetary terms.
We have been relying more and more on the World Bank and Asian Development Bank for assistance in poverty reduction, while the current IMF programme is called Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility. But while the growth has improved and may exceed 5.3 per cent this year, poverty has also increased, according to varying estimates.
Can we really fight poverty relying on foreign aid loans even IDA credit given with a service charge of 0.7 per cent? Today the donors are said to suffer from aid fatigue or donor fatigue.
They have their own problems of large scale unemployment in their own countries which they are not able to combat. A country like Germany or France finds itself helpless in this regard. The periodic elections, including significant by-elections in their countries, make their political task tougher.
As a result the US external aid is around a dismal 0.2 per cent of its GDP. Compared to that the small Scandinavian states and the Netherlands contribute almost one per cent of their GNP as foreign aid.
Conscientious western leaders like Gordon Brown of Britain wants western aid to be increased in a big way but aid, others say, has no constituency in the western states during the elections.
Aid-receiving countries too provide valid reasons for such lack of enthusiasm for larger aid. The donors talk of excessive corruption in the developing countries which pulverises aid as well.
They talk of vast waste of aid. They talk of indecision on the part of the leaders of the developing countries on which they shelve aid. The Kalabagh Dam in Pakistan provides an example. Neither the large project is being abandoned nor executed. The donors do not like such an imroglio.
Prime Minister Zafarullah Jamali also says that corruption is the number one problem of Pakistan. But he would first concentrate on corruption at the higher levels than focus attention at the gross roots level.
But as for the people at the grass roots level they are more concerned with the corruption at their level or the officials they are dealing with, beginning with the cop and the court officials and even school teachers.
We have been told since the days of prime minister Nawaz Sharif that there is no corruption at the top. That is not a credible song as the people know better. The skeletons of the Nawaz Sharif regime prove that.
Before we seek external aid to combat poverty we should use our own resources in full to combat that. The government should come up with major infrastructure projects which provide employment to a large number of people. The honest and enlightened among the industrialists should be persuaded to invest more and more and financially assisted so that private sector employment avenues increase steadily.
And not only the Khushhali Bank but also other banks should be encouraged to lend to the poor instead of paying Rs 20 to Rs 30 lakhs as salaries to the top bankers to do conventional banking.
Some amount of money may be lost in the process. But the total of such losses will be small compared to the initial non-performing loans of Rs. 250 billion by lending to the very rich and the wilful defaulters who sent their money abroad.
The fact is that much of the aid, whether used in the urban or rural areas, has gone to the benefit of the rich and made the rich richer and the poor poorer. Investment on agricultural expansion has gone to enrich the rich farmers and not the small ones.
Who will benefit by the Rs. 70 billion to be spent in lining the canals? It will be the richer farmers and not the small land-holders who may still fight for their water from the landlords who control the mouth of the canals.
Former food minister Yusuf Talpur told a wheat conference convened by the World Bank in Islamabad; "Pakistan will become self-sufficient in food the day the tail-enders get water." That day may be far off because of the lasting dominance of the feudal lords.
The multilateral financial institutions say they will provide large aid or all the aid needed for the countries which truly carry on reforms in their economy. But in Pakistan the first significant thing which Mir Jamali said was that there would be no more land reforms. For that matter the feudal lords, who defeated the land reforms of Ayub Khan and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto would defeat the third round of reforms as well.
The famous Peruvian Economist Herneando De Soto talks of giving the titles of their land holdings to the poor and shanty town dwellers to create wealth and empower the poor. Will that help the poor and landless in Pakistan where most of the land is held by the feudal lords or the government or misappropriated by the middlemen?
If feudalism means some landlords owning large tracts of lands and employing some workers, that might not be so objectionable. But the feudal lords enjoy political dominance in their region and the local officials take their orders from them.
They prescribe the local social and cultural values. They hold large wedding and other ceremonies which are imitated by the poor peasants who become poorer in the process. And as a result of borrowing with heavy interest from their landlords they end up as bonded labour.
The feudal lords are opposed to educating their peasants or their children lest they become wiser and revolt. Their hold over their people is absolute and eternal.
Now instead of making the feudal lords elected from various areas serving their people, as they had promised before the elections, they are to be given large developments funds.
The elders of the family get development funds of Rs. 10 million if they are members of the National Assembly or Senate, and Rs. 5 million if they are members of the provincial assemblies. Not only the men of such families but also a large number of nominated women will get the funds.
In the name of development they can build roads leading to their farms or farm houses or to please other members of their families. Some build schools which later become guest houses or even cattle sheds.
Before such funds are released a study should be made as to how such development funds were used in the past. In the feudal lingo a school is something which is built in his rival's territory.
While we talk of the government spending more to create jobs, it is actually spending far less than it has publicly committed. The latest figures show that out of the official development outlay of Rs 160 billion for the current year the government has spent only 30 per cent during the first six months of the current year. That has happened in the past as well. Now that the same should be repeated when jobs have to be created urgently is too disappointing.
The donors are clear that if aid-recipients are to benefit by the aid, corruption should cease, the rule of laws should prevail and good governance become the norm. Along with that, administrative efficiency should increase and productivity of the economy rise steadily.
If these features do not become the norm, more aid will not help us fight poverty. Above all, aid will not reduce poverty if our own resources are not used in that direction instead of being wasted or put to less productive use.
Fighting poverty means more than providing food and shelter to the very poor. There should be social justice, rule of law and protection against the usual social injustice and infliction of pain on the poor.
25 years of Iranian revolution
Iran celebrated Silver Jubilee of its revolution on February 11, 2004. The writer was in Tehran from 1977 to 2000. Living through the Revolution was a unique experience.
Raza Shah was a progressive despot. He realized fully well that the grandeur of his monarchy depended on the progress of his state. His Sipah-i-Danish programme had lifted the literacy rate above 60 per cent. The road network was excellent.
Wheat, milk and poultry were heavily subsidized. There was disparity between the rural and urban areas. But the urban areas, like Tehran, were pulsating and throbbing with life and prosperity. Two decade before Nazia initiated pop music in Pakistan, Guguoosh was the pop idol in Iran.
The quadrupling of oil prices in 1973 provided immense resources, which were spent on military hardware as well as development. Prosperity in the urban areas was so widespread that a taxi driver's son was studying in the US.
Thousands of Iranians returning home found the political system and the atrocities of Savak intolerable. The Shah failed to realize that a well-fed dog must be allowed to bark, otherwise it will bite.
As the agitation for more participatory political system gathered momentum, the shah instead of changing policies changed the personalities. He dropped Hoveida, an amiable prime minister and replaced him by Amouzegar, a well respected technocrat.
Technocrats around the world make bad politicians. Mr Hoveida had a mechanism of providing funds to all important sections of society including the clergy, journalists and other influential. Amouzegar stopped this pipeline. Hence all the beneficiaries of Mr Hoveida's generosity joined political protest.
Iran is a land of caviar, carpets and charming females. It is also a land of great poets - Saadi, Hafiz, Firdousi and others. It is an ancient civilization. In 1969 the Shah celebrated 2,500 years of Iranian monarchy. The extravaganza was organized at the historic Persopolis. Leaders from around the world came to participate in this unique event. Little did the Shah or his guests realize that the Iranian monarchy would not last another decade.
The liberals led by Mehdi Bazargan started anti-Shah and pro-democracy movement. But the liberals did not have a nationwide and grassroots support. On the other hand, the clergy in Iran unlike Sunni clergy in Pakistan is monolithic and derives its inspiration from Qom as compared to Pakistani clergy, which derives its inspiration from the Indian cities of Deoband and Barelli.
Although there is no pope in Iran, he religious scholars are graded as Sikat-ul-Islam, Hujat-ul-Islam (Mujtahid) Ayatullah and Ayatullah Uzma, Khomeini was one of the four living Ayatullah Uzma and he became the leader of the Revolution, although he had been living outside Iran for twenty years before he Revolution.
Shah's regime collapsed like a house of cards and although initially Mehdi Bazargan was made the prime minister, after a few years all the liberals were sidelined and went into exile. Judicial norms were thrown aside and all the "shahpasand" were executed. The Revolution however was immensely popular and half a million people thronged to the airport to welcome the Rahbar Khomeni.
The Revolution upset Iran's neighbours like Iraq and Saudi Arabia and more importantly the US. Goaded by the US, Saddam Hussein invaded Iran in 1980 and the brutal war continued for eight years till 1988. The war cripple the Revolution.
Half a million Iranians died. One million were maimed and became handicapped. About three to four million were rendered homeless. Biological and chemical weapons imported from western countries were used by Saddam to kill and maim the Iranians.
Till date it has not been proved that Saddam had the capacity to produce chemical and biological weapons. The resources which were to be distributed to the needy after the Revolution were diverted to the war effort.
The enthusiasm for war did not wane as the Shaheeds are eulogized like the imams all of home were martyred. A year before he died, Khumeni was forced to accept a humiliating cease-fire. There was nothing to atone for the Shaheeds and their sacrifice.
The political structure of Revolutionary Iran is a diarchy. There is Rahbar Chairman Khamanei, who succeeded Khomeini in 1989, heading a Council of Guardians. This Council has twelve members, six from the clergy and another six jurists. There is president and parliament who are elected by popular vote.
Iran has an excellent record of conducting fair elections. However, the power to appoint judges, security chiefs and head of armed forces is with the Council of Guardians. The Rahbars and his Council do not have a fixed term as opposed to four years term for the president and his parliament.
The Revolution did not have strong economic agenda. The industries taken over and handed to "bunyads" or corporations were subjected to worst mismanagement. There was no inflow of foreign capital and technology and the professional class migrated en masse. Hence, there has been hardily any industrial or technological development during the last quarter century.
The unemployment rate is over twenty per cent. Oil exports still constitute more than eighty per cent of total exports. The manufactured exports are only ten per cent. The buoyancy in the economy depends on the international price of oil.
The social development, which was initiated by the Shah has been further strengthened after the Revolution. Iran's social indicators are excellent. Their literacy rate is seventy-seven percent. Iran spends 4.4 per cent of its GDP on education as compared to less than 2 per cent by Pakistan. The life expectancy rate at birth is seventy years.
The per capita income is $1700 as compared to $500 in Pakistan. The crime rate is very low. the most remarkable social achievement after the Revolution was the reduction in population growth rate from 3.2 per cent to 1.5 per cent within a decade of a declaration by the clergy that all Iranians must reduce their family size to less than two. It is the most rapid demographic transition in human history. The social development is equally shared between urban and rural areas and all education and health indicators are robust.
Unfortunately corruption has not disappeared, as it should have, among highly religious and motivated rulers. In this respect Iran is like any other developing country because the process for elimination of corruption - a free press, rigorous and free from all favours, does not exist. Bold journalists and protestors have often been jailed.
The writer is a former secretary, planning, Government of Pakistan.
Ordeal of the war president
For a president who has made national security the mainstay of his presidency (and his re-election campaign), George W. Bush is suddenly looking extremely vulnerable.
Not only is the 'war' in which he is commander-in-chief proving to be a very bloody shambles (over 200 Iraqis have been killed this month alone), but Bush is having to face the ghosts of a previous war: Vietnam. He is not faring well.
For non-Americans it is perhaps difficult to understand the place that Vietnam holds in the American national psyche and in its politics. American defeat in Vietnam promised that it would always remain a potent issue. So it has proved.
All Presidents since Vietnam have either profited or suffered as a result of what they did during Vietnam. War heroes like George Bush Senior trumpeted their record (albeit in a different war) as proof of their courage and patriotism. Draft dodgers like Bill Clinton brushed it under the carpet. Until recently, George W. Bush very successfully did the same with his Vietnam experience (or lack of it).
George Junior did not fight in Vietnam. Using his Congressman father's connections, Bush was able to evade the war by doing National Guard service in Texas. National Guard duty in Texas - when your father is an influential politician - was never going to be hard. Bush trained as a fighter pilot, with unit chiefs needing no prodding to give him an easy ride.
However, not content with this, young Bush applied in 1972 to be transferred to a unit in Alabama. Possessing no planes and no pilots, Alabama would be an even cushier stint than Texas.
That first application was turned down, but at his second attempt he was transferred. From May 1972 Bush's war records are mysteriously missing. His officers in Texas wrote that they could not evaluate his performance because he wasn't there. Those in Alabama never saw him.
The White House is desperately releasing documents and engaging in overdrive spin to back its contention that Bush completed his National Guard service. Critics, though, are accusing him of 'going Awol', while bitter detractor Michael Moore labeled Bush's disappearance as simple desertion.
Whoever wins the spin battle, the President is damaged. The worst case scenario is that he abandoned his post (albeit in a non-war zone) and lied to cover it up. The best case scenario - still dangerous - is that, thanks to his rich and powerful father, he had an easy time while others fought and died in Vietnam.
Why is this issue emerging only now? Why wasn't it raised when he first ran for President? In the 2000 campaign - given the controversy around Clinton's draft dodging - rival Al Gore was hardly going to rake up what Bush did during the war. With nothing to boast about, Bush too kept quiet. But in 2004 his Vietnam war has gained potency because of the dramatically altered context in which America finds itself.
Vietnam is thirty years old, but war is all too fresh in today's America. Within weeks of the 9/11 atrocities, George W Bush ordered the attack on the Taliban.
Afghanistan was a relatively bloodless conquest for the US (- less so for the civilian victims of its cluster bombs and daisy cutters). That ease allowed Bush to send his troops into battle again: this time in Iraq. The actual conquest of Iraq proved only marginally more bloody, but the occupation has been anything but that.
The US death toll in Iraq is well past the 500 mark. Many of those killed died after their President famously declared the end of official hostilities. An alarming number are suicide victims: testimony to the massive stress faced by American soldiers occupying Iraq. As for the Iraqis, their dead run into thousands. Some killed by American bombs, others by trigger-happy American soldiers, others by terrorists and anti-American resistance.
This last point is just one of many damaging ironies about the Iraq war launched by George Bush. The attack on Iraq was presented as part of the wider 'war on terror'.
When a direct link could not be established between Saddam and Osama, an indirect link was created with WMD. Iraq possessed WMD which it could use to attack the West, or which it could pass onto terrorists who would use them to attack the West. The war on terror demanded that the Iraqi WMD threat be removed.
And then there are the mythical WMD. The U-turns and maneuvers being executed by the American and British governments to explain the absence of a single WMD in Iraq are truly spectacular.
From the certainty of a year ago - when Prime Minister Blair told the House of Commons that Iraqi WMD could be deployed within '45 minutes' of an order to do so, and when Secretary of State Colin Powell delivered his 'authoritative' lecture on Iraq's weapons program to the UN - we now hear remarkable confessions of fallibility.
Not, of course, by political leaders, but by the intelligence community which failed in its duty to provide accurate information. Interestingly, these confessions are being made for the intelligence agencies by their political masters.
The fallibility controversy will run and run - George Tenet certainly showed he is not prepared to become a scapegoat for the administration - but the bottom line is that the war in Iraq was waged on false pretences. Add to this the controversy over Cheney's former firm Halliburton over-charging the US army millions of dollars, and even the unquestioning American public is beginning to open its eyes.
It is in this context of American soldiers fighting a deceitful war, that George Bush's own war record suddenly becomes extremely significant. No longer are you talking about things that happened thirty years ago.
Now you are contrasting the behaviour of a man who demonstrated what can only be called cowardice when faced with the prospect of fighting in a war himself, and yet who blithely sent others to face their deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq. The contrast does not flatter Bush.
And then there is John Kerry - the 'better than in the movies' war hero, decorated for his courage in Vietnam. Kerry is the ultimate Democratic trump card, both to overcome the traditional 'soft on defence' image of the Democrats and to counter Bush's claims to be a 'war president'. No one can question the patriotism or bravery of a man awarded a silver star, a bronze star and three purple hearts. No one can accuse him of being a wimp.
Kerry, on the other hand, can make the same accusations against Bush. Unlike Gore, he can raise the Vietnam issue; he can probe into what Bush did between 1972 and 1973. And he can declare what few Democrats - let alone anyone else - dared to before: that the Iraq war was a catastrophic mistake.
It is difficult to see how Bush can withstand such a barrage. True, he can dip into his bottomless war chest to spread negative propaganda about Kerry's record as Senator, and about his personal life. True also, the right-wing, fawning American media like Fox can be relied on not to be too challenging. But even with these, it will be very hard to blur the image of a coward who sent others to war on false pretences, being challenged by a genuine war hero. If he wants to keep the White House in 2005, the 'war President' will have to evolve a new strategy - and quickly.