| 10 March 2005 | Thursday | 28 Muharram 1426 |
Not the end of history
Targeting journalists
Nuclear dimension of Pakistan-US ties
The five-year plan is back in a restricted form after being eclipsed by the sweep of the market economy and undermined by the privatization offensive of the government. The fall of the Soviet Union, the prime promoter of planned economy, and the dominance of the donor institutions, like the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank, and a meddlesome global monetary agency, like the International Monetary Fund, made us abandon the faltering economic planning and opt for economic development on the dictates of the market economy with all its unpredictability.
Gone were not only the five year plans with the Eighth Plan - 1993-98 but also the 15-year Perspective Plan - 1993-2005 which succeeded the 20 year Perspective Plan starting 1965.
When you depend on annual development aid from donors with their varying considerations long range planning becomes too difficult. And that is all the more when there is excessive political instability in the country and economic policies are changed along with political objectives.
You cannot also do successful planning and achieve specified targets unless the private sector is eager to play its full part in rapid development and the foreign investors are equally helpful, which they will not be in a shifting political climate.
When most of the banks and other financial institutions are in private hands, as is the case after 1974 nationalization of the banking sector, and the private sector, including foreign investors, are free to invest in any sector and own a hundred per cent of the capital and obtain large loans from banks at low interest rates, it is difficult to do effective economic planning encompassing the private sector altogether.
The government has instead confined itself largely to the public sector, while trying for public-private participation in investment in crucial sectors. And the government has now to devote itself earnestly to the development of the social sector, including education, public health, infrastructure and protection of the environment, which can be a tremendous task.
Clearly defined official institutions with private sector participation have to become effective monitors of public institutions and their diligent regulators so that they move along the right line. There has to be a great deal of self-restraint among such private sector institutions so that they deliver what they promise.
The State Bank of Pakistan has to monitor the functioning of the banks and other financial institutions with the help of appropriate agencies. Above all, the judiciary with the Supreme Court at its pinnacle, has to enforce the laws punctiliously
Even in the new environment development planning has become essential as very large investments have to be made on large and expensive projects such as mega dams, large communication and transport projects and large road networks which not be completed in two or three years.
The new five-year plan 2005-2010 envisages setting a target of Rs 293 billion for the water development sector to increase water availability to 150.35 million acre feet from the current 135.6 million acre feet. But before starting work on the project the government has to take an early decision on building the Kalabagh and Bhasha dams as desired by President Musharraf.
The plan envisages a public sector outlay of Rs 2,094 trillion or 54 per cent of the plan, an outlay of Rs.1,133 trillion for the infrastructure, and 31 per cent or Rs 665 trillion for the social sector and 11 per cent or Rs. 240 billion for regional development, and 66 billion for production support.
These are indeed very large sums of money. And much of that is dependent on foreign aid whose interest rates will go up soon, though gradually. And now the planning commission is reported to have opposed inclusion of large projects like Kalabagh Dam and Bhasha Dam in the current plan for want of resources.
The commission has suggested that these mega dams should be included in the next five year plan. If that is not regarded as advisable some of the costly existing projects should be stopped.
The issue is not only of mobilizing enough financial resources, but also of our capability to use that much money well. Dr Akram Shaikh, vice-chairman of the planning commission, says that 80 per cent of the development funds allotted has already been used, unlike 70 per cent used in the same period last year. And he does not want the projects under execution to be delayed by diverting funds from them to new projects like Bhasha Dam which will cost Rs 360 billion.
But, another press report says the Planning Commission in its draft Medium Term Development Framework 2005-2010 has declared construction of both Kalabagh and Bhasha dams imperative for the country to meet to its future water, energy and growth requirements. And it has estimated the total cost of the 23 hydel projects at Rs 586.6 billion. And that includes the Bhasha Dam costing Rs 360 billion, while no cost estimate has been provided for the Kalabagh Dam.
Dr Akram Sheikh says that Pakistan being the largest basin in the world is at the lowest end in construction dams during the last many decades. We have quite a bit of contradiction or contrary advice in this crucial area mixed with politics and emotionalism.
The National Economic Council presided over by the prime minister has approved the draft in principle, and has sought the opinion of the provincial governments and federal ministries and it would approve the draft in its final form in May - before the federal budget is passed.
The plan seeks a GDP growth of eight per cent from the current seven per cent through an investment which will rise by the year 2010 to 25 per cent from the current 19.7 per cent. And that will be achieved through a rise in national savings to 23.6 per cent from the current 18.6 per cent. Simultaneously inflation will be held down to below six per cent.
The government has not been able to hold down inflation to below four and five per cent in recent years. Inflation now is around nine per cent, and the year is expected officially to close with an inflation of seven per cent, which is extremely unlikely because of the high price trends. But if the savings can rise by five per cent to 23.6 per cent in reality inflation can come down. But the current tendency of the government officials and the affluent public is to spend far more and rather be exhibitionistic in their lifestyle.
Without a substantial rise in the low savings of the country there cannot be a rise in investment to 23.6 per cent and, without such a rise in investment the higher economic growth goals cannot be achieved.
Agriculture is to grow by 4.5 per cent by the year 2010 with an average growth period during the plan period of 4.3 per cent. Manufacturing is to grow by 11.5 per cent, and large scale manufacturing by 13 per cent and the service sector is to grow by 7.4 per cent.
For achieving these goals the private sector and the people as a whole have a large role to play. They have to save far more and invest more, and the sectors where the investment has been made have to reward them well enough to induce them save far more and invest much more.
The plan has not taken into account the foreign investors whose contribution cannot be predicted precisely. Their investment depends on global factors, and the political and economic conditions in Pakistan. Making a success of the plan has to be through a collective effort of all the major elements in the economy working together earnestly.
The public sector outlay is to rise from the current year's Rs 202 billion to Rs 604 billion by the year 2010 or 7.7 per cent of the GDP. The fiscal deficit is to come down from 3.7 per cent of the GDP to 3.2 per cent and public debt to drop down from 103 per cent of the GDP to 100 per cent.
What production is to rise to 24.9 million tonnes from 20.2 million tonnes now and exports are to rise to 22.47 billion dollars from 13.7 billion dollars, and imports are to rise to 26.26 billion dollars from 16.4 billion dollars.
As a result of such stepped up economic activity the total revenues are to rise to 14.3 per cent of the GDP from 13.3 per cent and tax revenues to rise to 11.8 per cent of the GDP from 10.3 per cent as it is now.
Following such an increase in economic activity and rise in production all round the rise in revenues within the five year period ought to be more than 1.5 per cent of the GDP, more so if the tax collection is to be far better.
A controversial area of the draft plan is the promise of reducing poverty in Pakistan by 20 per cent by 2010 and 13 per cent by 2015. The current official figure of poverty is 31.1 per cent or one third of the population as estimated by experts. But figure can be wiped out by the year 2015, the year marked by the millennium goal of the UN to reduce poverty by a half.
Secondly, there is the fear that poverty is actually increasing now because of the high inflation, around nine per cent, instead of the lower estimates of the government. And inflation in the food sector is really high, and that is all round inflation which affects all food items.
Poverty can be reduced by providing jobs. The plan promises to provide 5.48 million jobs or an annual average of 1.10 million against the increase in population of 3 million annually.
If the government has to fight poverty resolutely it has to provide jobs and induce the private sector to do so and reduce inflation at the other end, which may not be an easy job when so much money is pumped into the market.
The World Bank's chief economist Fancois Bourguignon says economic growth does not automatically translate into reduction of poverty. He spoke 51 countries which had recorded good economic growth which has not led to reduction in their poverty. And he spoke of countries which had not achieved high economic growth but at the same time it has not aggravated its poverty.
Poverty is a matter of distribution of income, he said, and he was surprised by the extremely unequal distribution of land in Pakistan and expressed doubt in regard to the accuracy of the data being collected.
There is no dearth of surveys in Pakistan, including social surveys, thanks to external funding. Now the country's first Pakistan social and living standards survey covering 77,000 households is being conducted.
Officials say the findings of the survey will help the government draw up an action plan for the Poverty Reduction Strategy. I hope the survey is well conducted, the right conclusions are drawn and they are put to the best use in combating the pervasive poverty. Otherwise it can be another wasted exercise and good borrowed money gone down the drain.
Not the end of history
I have a lasting admiration for Mikhail Gorbachev. It is an admiration shared by all who know that, but for his initiatives, the world might still be living under the shadow of the catastrophe of a nuclear war - and that the transition from the communist to the post-communist era in eastern Europe, and in most non-Caucasian parts of the former USSR, has proceeded without significant bloodshed. His place in history is secure.
But did perestroika bring about a second Russian revolution? No. It brought the collapse of the system built on the 1917 revolution, followed by a period of social, economic and cultural ruin, from which the peoples of Russia have by no means yet fully emerged. Recovery from this catastrophe is already taking much longer than it took Russia to recover from the world wars.
Whatever will emerge from this era of post-Soviet catastrophe was not envisaged, let alone prepared, by perestroika, not even after the supporters of perestroika had realized that their project of a reformed communism, or even a social-democratized USSR, was unrealizable.
It was not even envisaged by those who came to believe that the aim should be a fully capitalist system of the liberal western - more precisely, the American - model.
The end of perestroika precipitated Russia into a space void of any real policy, except the unrestricted free market recommendations of western economists who were even more ignorant of how the Soviet economy functioned than their Russian followers were of how western capitalism operated.
On neither side was there serious consideration of the necessarily lengthy and complex problems of transition. Nor, when the collapse came, given its speed, could there have been.
I do not want to blame perestroika for this. Almost certainly the Soviet economy was un reformable by the 1980s. If there were real chances of reforming it in the 1960s they were sabotaged by the self-interests of a nomenklatura that was by this time firmly entrenched and uncontrollable. Possibly the last real chance of reform was in the years after Stalin's death.
On the other hand, the sudden collapse of the USSR was neither probable nor expected before the late 1980s. A prominent CIA figure interviewed by Professor Fred Halliday of the London School of Economics thought that, supposing Andropov had survived in good health, there would still have been a USSR in the 1990s - clumsy, inefficient, in slow and perhaps accelerating economic decline, but still in being.
The international situation would have been, and remained, very different. International disorder followed the collapse of the single Russian state that had been a great world power since the 18th century - as it had the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires after the First World War.
For a few years even the existence of Russia itself as an effective state was in question. It is so no longer, but the necessary restoration of state power in Russia in recent years has been at heavy risk to the political and juridical liberalization which was the major - one is tempted to say the only real - achievement of perestroika.
Did perestroika herald "the end of history"? The collapse of the experiment initiated by the October Revolution is certainly the end of a history. That experiment will not be repeated, although the hope it represented, at least initially, will remain a permanent part of human aspirations.
And the enormous social injustice which gave communism its historic force in the last century is not diminishing in this one. But was it "the end of history" as Francis Fukuyama proclaimed in 1989, in a phrase that he no doubt regrets?
He was doubly wrong. In the literal sense of history as something that makes headlines in newspapers and TV news bulletins, history has continued since 1989, if anything in a more dramatic mode than before.
The cold war has been followed neither by a new world order, nor by a period of peace, nor by the prospect of a predictable global progress in civilization such as intelligent western observers had in the mid-19th century, the last period when liberal capitalism - under British auspices in those days - had no doubts about the future of the world.
What we have today is a superpower unrealistically aspiring to a permanent world supremacy for which there is no historical precedent, nor probability, given the limitation of its own resources - especially as today all state power is weakened by the impact of non-state economic agents in a global economy beyond the control of any state, and given the visible tendency of the global centre of gravity to shift from the North Atlantic to the zone of south and east Asia.
Even more questionable is the wider - almost quasi-Hegelian - sense of Fukuyama's phrase. It implies that history has an end, namely a world capitalist economy developing without limits, married to societies ruled by liberal-democratic institutions. There is no historic justification for teleology, whether non-Marxist or Marxist, and certainly none for believing in unilinear and uniform world wide development.
Both evolutionary science and the experiences of the 20th century have taught us that evolution has no direction that allows us concrete predictions about its future social, cultural and political consequences.
The belief that the US or the European Union, in their various forms, have achieved a mode of government which, however desirable, is destined to conquer the world, and is not subject to historic transformation and impermanence, is the last of the utopian projects so characteristic of the last century. What the 21st needs is both social hope and historical realism. - Dawn/ Guardian Service
The writer is author of "The Age of Extremes: The Short 20th Century 1914-1991".
Targeting journalists
The controversy surrounding the alleged targeting of Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena in Iraq by the US military does not appear to be dying down, and for good reason. Consider what happened: Ms Sgrena was working for an Italian newspaper, Il Manifesto, and was covering the war in Iraq.
The newspaper's political leaning is communist, and Ms Sgrena had done a commendable job in reporting on abuse of Iraqis by the military occupiers, especially in the case of Fallujah where she had reported in November 2004 that napalm and mustard gas had been used in the city after US forces laid siege to it.
In January, she was taken hostage and was released after several weeks. She, along with an Italian intelligence official, was heading to Baghdad airport for onward journey to her home country, when her car came under fire from US soldiers. She was injured while the Italian official, Nicola Calipari was killed.
This prompted the Italian government, notwithstanding its cosy relationship with the Bush administration, to demand an independent investigation into what had happened. Since the communist and the left is still quite powerful in Italy, the issue has become a hotbed of controversy, with many people linking Giuliana Sgrena's coverage of the war with the shooting incident. Those who hold this view cite several reasons, some quite weighty, for their reasoning.
One, and perhaps the most incriminating, is that the journalist was not, as some commentators writing for independent media websites have pointed out, sufficiently 'Fox-ified' or embedded with US military, and much of her reportage went to discredit and expose the Pentagon's policies in Iraq.
She had extensively covered the siege of Fallujah and was one of a handful of European journalists who unambiguously reported the use of chemical weapons by US soldiers against Iraqi civilians in the besieged city.
At that time, the US media completely ignored these reports. However, a week ago, a senior official of the Iraqi health ministry confirmed them saying US troops had used internationally banned weapons including mustard gas, nerve gas and other burning chemicals. Ironically, these were all weapons that the US had accused Saddam Hussein of storing and whose alleged existence was one of the key planks of the country's invasion.
Other than that, those who support the idea that the US is deliberately targeting some journalists in Iraq say that Ms Sgrena had contacts with refugees from Fallujah and after her release was planning to meet them to further probe the chemical weapons use allegations.
The second, and perhaps equally substantial, argument used to point to such a possibility is that all along during the invasion and occupation of Iraq, US forces have maintained a generally hostile and antagonistic relationship with the media, especially with journalists/reporters who are not embedded (meaning that their copy is not subject to censor by the US military) or who represent news organizations which take a critical look at the occupation.
There is, for example, the way Al Jazeera has been treated by the Pentagon over its Iraq coverage. Or more recently, take the case of CNN's head of news, Eason Jordan, who was forced to resign after he made remarks at an informal meeting on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in January implying that the US military was targeting journalists in Iraq as a matter of policy.
Mr Jordan was vilified after he made these comments, which were off the record but found their way into the public realm thanks to an Internet website run by an individual who is a fervent supporter of Israel.
Not only that, many major newspapers and news channels in the US also criticized Mr Jordan's comments, as if he had committed blasphemy when in fact he was only debating what should have been debated since 24 journalists had so far died in Iraq.
Going back to the Italian journalist, her own account of what happened as she drove to Baghdad airport after her release differs vastly with not only the view of the US military but also of independent news organizations like the BBC.
Right after the shooting incident took place, she told the Agence France Presse wire service that the soldiers had fired after the vehicle had passed all check posts and was within 700 metres of the airport.
This was in sharp contrast to the US military's version which said that the vehicle was shot as it approached the check post and because the driver was "speeding". Ms Sgrena's account, which she wrote for her own newspaper after her release, also disputed this saying that there was no question that the vehicle was speeding or not because it had already gone past the check post when the shots were fired.
This contradiction, and the experience of other non-embedded journalists in covering the Iraqi occupation and incidents like US tanks firing shells into a hotel in central Baghdad known for housing international journalists, should have been ground enough for news networks and newspapers to conduct some inquiries of their own, especially since such cavalier policies against journalists could one day place their own staff at risk.
However, nothing of the sort happened. NBC News, one of America's four main networks, said that it was a case of "mistaken identity" as did The Washington Post.
In Italy, however, several dozen demonstrators took to the streets and protested outside the US embassy in Rome demanding an investigation into what many in their country, and outside, see as an attempt to eliminate a journalist who was a thorn in the side of the US military.
Yes, it is understandable that having troops from little towns in the US and deploying them in a war zone in a country thousands of miles away from their home, might present quite a few problems.
Having to live life in a war can have a devastating effect on one's nerves and make one's responses unpredictable and temperament frayed. But the same could be said of Iraqi civilians whose own country has been turned into a cauldron of violence and mayhem, and on top of that they have to face a trigger-happy occupation army, consisting mostly of young men armed to the teeth with sophisticated heavy weapons.
The actions of the US military in some cases, and particularly in the incident involving Giuliana Sgrena, seem to suggest that those journalists whose reporting of events and happenings is at odds with the aims and objectives of the Pentagon in Iraq or whose work reveals instances of possible war crimes or severe human rights violations are fair game.
Whether this is part of a deliberate unacknowledged policy is perhaps not even the point, since the conduct of the US military ever since it occupied Iraq lends some credence to this belief.
A 'full investigation' has been ordered by the US military but whether the truth will come out of that is a moot point, given that the investigators and those being investigated all work, like in the case of the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal, in the same institution and for the same government.
Email: omarq@cyber.net.pk.
Nuclear dimension of Pakistan-US ties
The focus of US President George W. Bush's foreign policy agenda in his previous administration was the "war on terror", which determined its relations with other countries: they were "either with us or against us".
Pakistan played a pivotal role in this war and was rewarded by American largesse. President Musharraf was hailed for his personal contribution in making Pakistan a front-line state, despite strident domestic opposition.
Bush demonstrated his appreciation by inviting Musharraf to the Camp David retreat. Musharraf, a pariah until 9/11 on account of having assumed power in a coup, was called a 'courageous leader' and a 'personal friend' by Bush.
The atmosphere has been reminiscent of the 1980s when Pakistan and the US had close ties during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. The US Congress has agreed to provide $3 billion in aid, and has also viewed proposals for the improvement of Pakistan's economy with a favourable eye. Unfortunately, President Musharraf appears to have a misplaced confidence that this relationship will endure.
In the second term of Bush's presidency, the issue of nuclear non-proliferation is likely to strain Pakistan-US ties that might even reach a point of crisis. In his zeal for the 'war on terror' and in recognition of Musharraf's huge contribution in flushing out the remnants of the Al Qaeda, the US has chosen to ignore Pakistan's actions and policies in other areas. These could appear in conflict with US objectives.
The frequent visits by US officials and lawmakers and their profuse expressions of gratitude and support have created a sense of euphoria in Pakistan. However, now that the war on terror has almost been won, the US may pursue its primary concern of non-proliferation, in total disregard of Pakistan's past performance and sacrifices.
While the true extent of Pakistan's logistic support to US operations against Al Qaeda and the Taliban have not been made public, official figures regarding the Wana operation give some indication of this. The military operation in Wana alone has resulted in the killing of 246 militants including 109 foreigners, while the defence forces have suffered 171 casualties.
Pakistan, in the view of US policymakers, is vulnerable on account of its weak social and democratic institutions, and despite an impressive economic recovery, remains politically fragile.
While the rapprochement with India has made significant progress, the inherent instability and volatility of Pakistan polity has aroused considerable concern in the US. The recent CIA and Congressional Research Report provide insight into US assessments and apprehensions regarding Pakistan.
The reports paint a rather depressing profile of Pakistan a decade from now. In 2015, Pakistan has been projected as "a failed state ripe with civil war, bloodshed, inter-provincial rivalries and a struggle for control of its nuclear weapons and complete Talibanization".
The report further identifies six trends that provide some basis for this doom scenario. These include political and economic mismanagement, divisive politics, a feckless bureaucracy, lawlessness, corruption, ethnic and sectarian differences and militant religious politics.
Of late, there has been unease among US officials and US academic circles that in pursuit of its relations with Pakistan, Washington has neglected its commitments to nuclear non-proliferation, the single most important threat to the international community.
They feel that military and economic assistance to Pakistan should be tied to this development. It has been argued that Bush need not have a long-term policy towards Pakistan, because of its fragile civic institutions and the fact that India has become a strategic partner for the US.
The US reluctance to meet Pakistan's long-standing demand to deliver the F-16 fighter planes, especially in the backdrop of the approval for the sale of Patriot missiles to India, reveals this cautious policy.
Pakistan's concern that the supply of the Patriots would seriously put the country's strategic capabilities on an unequal footing has found no resonance in the US administration. US policy in this regard remains inscrutable.
This manifest tilt towards India will only exacerbate Pakistan's feeling of being let down, if not betrayed. Despite positive strides on the peace front with India, the latter's acquisition of state of the art military hardware, both from Russia and the US, remains a major source of apprehension.
India has recently bought the Falcon radar system from Israel for $1.1 billion, an aircraft carrier from Russia for $1.5 billion and 66 Hawk Jet trainers from Britain for $1.45 billion.
It is particularly significant that the sale of Patriots has so far been allowed to only six countries. India, Israel, Japan, Germany, Saudi Arabia and Taiwan. That such discriminatory treatment would put a severe strain on Pakistan's ties with India does not appear to worry Washington. The US decision to provide Patriot missiles will undermine Pakistan's confidence in the present relationship with America.
Pakistan-US relations will also be tested over the issue of non-proliferation and the A.Q. Khan network. Tendentious reports regarding supply of enriched uranium to Iran and other alleged activities of A.Q. Khan's black market have raised serious concerns. Pakistan has been under constant pressure.
President Bush raised this issue in his last meeting with Musharraf, and repeated the demand that US authorities be provided access to A.Q. Khan to determine what one newspaper has called the "full dimensions of the activities of Dr Khan and his associates".
In a recent testimony before the US Senate, CIA director Porter Goss said that, "Dr A.Q. Khan has passed secrets and equipment to a host of rogue nations" and that Pakistan has been pressed to share the information obtained through investigations.
While Pakistan so far has resisted the pressure, it is bound to escalate with periodic reports such as of Time magazine that "even though its head has been removed, Khan's illicit network of supplies and middlemen is still out there". The issue may well determine the limits of mutual partnership and friendship between Pakistan and the US. This stage might come sooner than anticipated.
The five-year Review Conference of Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is scheduled in May. The major item on the agenda would be to prevent nuclear technology from being diverted to secret and illegal weapons programmes.
UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has already voiced the concern of paranoid powers like the US at the prospect of terrorist groups developing or acquiring nuclear, chemical or biological weapons and the means to deliver them.
He has urged nations "to allow unannounced and unrestricted inspections of nation's nuclear facilities." In the backdrop of controversy regarding Iran's programme, implications of such demands can be gauged well.
It is perhaps in recognition of these developments and concern that the Congressional Research Service (CRS) - the body that prepares issue briefs for the Congress - has urged the administration to seek from Pakistan total adherence to NPT objectives. It recommends that the supply of F-16 and other defence systems should be made conditional upon this cooperation.
The CRS has concluded that linking the delivery of the F-16s to more cooperation on the Khan network might be risky, but that "Musharraf's domestic political vulnerabilities might give the US the upper hand in any test of wills".
The May conference on the NPT will pose a serious challenge to Pakistan, though like India, it is not a signatory to NPT. The provisions of "additional protocols and unannounced and unrestricted inspections" could introduce serious complications in Pakistan-US relations.
Pakistan has paid dearly in the past by relying too heavily on American commitments and ignoring ground realities. The issue of nuclear proliferation is looming large on the horizon of bilateral relations. Pakistan's hero is Washington's criminal. The lines of conflict are already drawn.
The writer is a former ambassador.