Stable ties with China

For someone who has followed Pakistan-China relations for over four decades, a recent visit to China has been especially meaningful. This is because even informed observers tend to believe that behind the protestations of traditional friendship being as warm as ever, there have been paradigm shifts in global and regional perceptions, following the traumatic events of 9/11.

China's new alliance with the US in the war against terrorism, and the fast improvement in Beijing's relations with New Delhi are cited as developments that could not but affect China's ties with Pakistan.

Perhaps the most valid argument against this view is that terrorism is not given the importance it has acquired in the agenda of the US where a unilateralist president has used this attack to justify a pre-emptive doctrine.

The menace of terrorism and other manifestations of extremism are recognized, and the need for coordinated action to counter these is acknowledged. However, China takes a principled position on retaining an international order based on international law and the recognized norms of international relations.

China has backed the position of most major powers in favour of "cooperative multilateralism", and opposed the unilateralist approach behind the war in Iraq.

While avoiding a confrontation with the US, which could endanger its economic programme, China has continued to adhere to well-known norms, best summed up in the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence, and set an example of seeking a peaceful settlement of disputes.

Indeed, the major initiative it has taken to promote six-power talks over North Korea's nuclear ambitions has been welcomed even by the US.

One of the factors cited to justify scepticism about the cordiality marking Sino-Pakistan relations is the rise of religious parties, that won their highest ever representation in parliament in the 2002 elections in Pakistan.

The fact remains that the government of President Musharraf has taken a bold position against religious extremism that only sparks religious and sectarian tensions.

He has become a leading exponent of "enlightened moderation" in order to fight the menace of terrorism. It can be stated that the alliance against terrorism has become another common factor in the "comprehensive" relations between Pakistan and China.

Naturally, Pakistan has been sensitive to Chinese concerns over agitation among segments of the Muslims in China that was fuelled by the accession of the Muslim majority republics of the former Soviet Union to independence.

All political parties in Pakistan realize the need to follow the principle of non-interference in internal affairs, notably those of China, which has consistently honoured this principle.

An objective analysis of the recent evolution of Sino-Pakistan relations would confirm the view that they have gained in depth and substance with each passing year.

Following the end of the cold war in 1989, the US clamped sanctions under the Pressler Law, and most other western countries placed restrictions on the transfer of sensitive technology to Pakistan.

It was China that agreed to provide nuclear reactors for power generation in 1989 and 1996. Indeed, with additional sanctions imposed on Pakistan in 1998 over nuclear tests and in 1999 over the military takeover, China was virtually the only source of military hardware to maintain our deterrence against the threat from India.

The celebration of the 50th anniversary of diplomatic relations in 2001 was memorable on account of the fillip received by economic and technical cooperation with China.

Premier Zhu Rongji announced credits exceeding $1 billion for such mega projects as the construction of the Gwadar Port, the installation of coal-fired power stations in Sindh, and the modernization of the railways.

The two countries are cooperating in building state of the art equipment for the armed forces, at costs we can afford. There has been agreement of additional credits since 2001 that will further increase economic cooperation.

The writer's recent visit to China has enabled all-round discussions, during which responsible Chinese leaders have reiterated the assurances about their country's "all-weather" friendship with Pakistan, a phrase that is not used for any other country.

It is a friendship marked by a high degree of trust and confidence "that will never change despite changes in the region and the world". There was readiness to constantly expand the "comprehensive cooperation" that has been built up over the years.

In presentations by scholars and persons in authority, the improvement of relations with India has been presented as a development that would be to Pakistan's advantage. It was emphasized that relations with India would never be improved in a manner detrimental to Pakistan.

Indeed, China was among the powers urging India to enter into dialogue with Pakistan. The role played by high level visits from both sides was mentioned, especially in facilitating consultations and concrete cooperation.

The president and prime minister of Pakistan had paid multiple visits, as had Chinese leaders, leading to new agreements to increase cooperation, and to broaden the base of friendship. Good state-to-state relations needed to be backed by people to people contacts, notably among the younger generation.

The recent terrorist incident at Gwadar, in which three Chinese engineers died, was mentioned, and the need to improve law and order stressed. Although the Chinese government has announced that the work proceeding on the projects would not be affected, we have to take firm measures to encourage Chinese investors as well as tourists to visit Pakistan.

China had agreed to include Pakistan among favoured tourist destinations, but the Chinese organizations that were preparing to organize tours in Pakistan have postponed their visits, since they feel that the security situation has to improve before foreign tourists visit Pakistan.

The potential of tourist traffic from China is truly enormous, as prosperity spreads and millions of Chinese want to see the world. Last year, a million Chinese tourists went to Thailand alone.

Discussions with Chinese think tanks revealed a high degree of convergence on regional and global affairs. With China's growing interaction with the world, and involvement with key issues affecting Asia in particular, contacts between Pakistani and Chinese institutions and scholars are highly rewarding.

The plans to increase student exchanges will benefit both sides, though one felt the difference in the intellectual environment between the two countries. Given the size of the Chinese market, businessmen need to explore the avenues available, notably in exporting fruit, and in joint ventures.

With Chinese entrepreneurs becoming increasingly active in small and medium sized industries, it was suggested to us during the visit that there was enormous scope for increased trade if owners of our medium and small industries could get into the market.

With a common border, crossed by a major highway, and with expanded air services, our traders and chambers of commerce can help themselves, and their country by capitalizing on the friendship and goodwill that have acquired deep roots.

Seeing the attitude of the Chinese, from high officials to ordinary citizens, one draws reassurance of having a powerful neighbour, which appears to accord a higher place to the time-tested friendship with Pakistan, than to any other relationship.

Anatomy of numbers

The population factor has become quite an enigma in Pakistan. Given the widespread realization that the population growth rate of a country is closely related to its economic prosperity, social advancement and political stability, the government has been inclined to project a rosy demographic picture.

Unsurprisingly, this leads to many contradictions as various government functionaries are at times talking at cross purposes. Take the case of the newly-installed chief minister of Sindh, Dr Arbab Ghulam Rahim, who was the chief guest at the concluding session of the population welfare department's seminar held in Karachi last week.

He expressed great "concern" at the population growth rate "in view of the economic problems" the country faces. Dr Rahim was informed by the population welfare department that a target of 1.9 per cent population growth rate had now been fixed by the government.

Less than a week earlier, the government had released the Economic Survey, 2003-2004, and the chapter on population has a different story to tell. All the demographic indicators given there are generally so good that one wonders why the need for this profuse expression of concern by the chief minister.

If the Economic Survey is to be believed, Pakistan has already achieved a population growth rate of 1.9 per cent with a total fertility rate (TFR) of 4.07 (that is the average number of children a woman can be expected to have in her reproductive life).

But the UNFPA, one of whose jobs is to monitor the population scene, puts the growth rate in Pakistan at 2.4 per cent and the TFR at 5.04 (State of the World Population, 2003). There is also a wide discrepancy in the size of the population quoted in the two documents.

The government puts it at 148.7 million. The UNFPA says it is 153.6 million. One might say this amounts to quibbling over figures. But when these percentages translate into millions in absolute numbers, one has to sit up and take notice.

It is equally worrying that the leaders who make policies do not have a very clear conception of the factors that have caused the population explosion, the repercussions of which we are still suffering.

Neither do they appear to be in touch with the realities on the ground. Thus, the chief minister spoke of the need to create awareness among the masses. The fact is that this awareness has already been created.

Numerous surveys have conclusively established that over 95 per cent of the respondents are knowledgeable about family planning. There is, however, an unmet need of 33 per cent - that is the people who don't want any more children but do not have the contraceptive means available to avert births.

The fact is that the population growth rate can be checked to a considerable extent if the family planning services are made readily accessible and freely available. It is in this respect that our programme has lagged behind. Contraceptive prevalence is only 20 per cent according to the UNFPA, though the government of Pakistan claims a higher figure (37 per cent).

The existence of an unmet need, be it large or small, in itself indicates that something is amiss. Since the Economic Survey no more gives the statistics for the various categories of contraceptives dispensed, there is no way of ascertaining how the population programme's service outlets are doing.

Another major factor contributing to the high fertility rate is the poor status of women in the country. Since they are relegated to a secondary position in society, quite a large number of parents consider their families to be incomplete until they have at least one or two sons.

That would explain why in many of the big families the older children are girls. Only when the boys come along that the parents feel they do not want any more children. This factor has not been given sufficient attention by those who formulate population policies.

The other factor militating against a progressive approach to population welfare is the low literacy rate and our failure to impart enlightened education to our children.

Education and population growth rate are interrelated. Societies where literacy is low, people tend to have large families. A rapid increase in the size of the population puts pressure on the education facilities, causing the backlog of illiteracy to grow.

As the number of uneducated people grows, they tend to have bigger families. And thus the vicious circle goes on. Hence the need for a holistic approach to the family planning programme if it is to be a success.

It is not surprising that all the evils which plague our society - poverty, illiteracy, poor health and a rapidly growing population - cannot be treated in isolation. They interact with each other. Improvement in one area has a beneficial effect on the others.

Neglect of one sector has a negative impact on the others as well. This would explain why it is necessary to treat the social sectors as a composite whole which has a direct bearing on the population programme.

The chief minister of Sindh spoke of the population welfare programme in the economic context. It is true that a rapid rate of population growth has a negative impact on economic policies, since more mouths have to be fed, more children have to be sent to school, more medical facilities are needed to provide the burgeoning population a modicum of health care and the labour force expands much faster than job creation with resultant unemployment.

It is strange that leaders tend to ignore the social dimensions of the population problem. It is as grim as the economic implications. A population comprising a big ratio of under-19s - more than 53 per cent of Pakistan's population falls in that category - leads to social instability, especially at a time when the family structure is changing and the state provides no social support in the form of education, health care and eventually employment.

Is it surprising that a large number of these youths are disturbed and maladjusted and fall victim to social evils of all kinds? To prevent such a situation, there is need to popularize the small family norm so that the population size and structure remains manageable.

Grim thoughts on charity

Whenever I see someone selling trinkets or car dusters on the street I am reminded of the words of my wife one last day of Ramzan long ago. "I had my Eid spoiled today by the sight of a pale emaciated young man, with an even paler and more emaciated little son, selling religious tracts in Jinnah Super Market.

I bought two of the books, and he asked for only five rupees for them. How could anyone not stop their shopping and start pondering what kind of Eid they were going to have tomorrow?"

Later the whole day she was tortured by another thought. "I spent 500 rupees on my grandchildren this morning, and purchased all sorts of eatables which will hardly be touched by Eid day visitors. I could have given him something by way of the Ramzan spirit of charity. It might have made their Eid. Curse me!" Nothing would console her.

It is a terrible state of affairs, this need to beg for alms and the helplessness of those who feel for such people. I frequently watch a young woman outside a fancy shop; she is weak and looks hungry. She is not selling anything, nor does she beg.

She doesn't even extend her hand for the purpose. God knows what thoughts assail her, but I have the horrors when I think of what lies in store for her in this immoral society.

I give her what I can but I feel ashamed at the same time, ashamed of being among those who allay their conscience by handing out paltry amounts to the poor and tell themselves they have done something great. But does that help? In fact, does any charity help at all?

Sometimes I feel that by giving that young woman a few rupees I am making my contribution to degrading humanity and insulting womanhood. And look how we are never tired of repeating what Islam has given to woman.

We, its ardent followers, merely pay lip service to those great principles and are chary of putting them into practice. It is very difficult to be a good Muslim where giving to others is concerned.

There is hardly anyone I know who does not give out his or her due share of zakat, especially prosperous women and rich housewives. On Eid day too the fitrana too is computed to the last paisa and faithfully doled out.

But is it necessary to be so calculating and mathematically exact in a country where a large section of the population is not sure of its next meal? Let alone clothing, health care, education of the young and the hundred and one other needs that constitute a decent life, what does the father of a hand-to-mouth family do when his little ones ask him for Eidee?

In a way the beggar is better off. Even if he is not a hardened cadger he has put shame and modesty and other finer feelings aside and come down to the level of mechanically bewailing his state of want and deprivation to win the sympathy of his more fortunate brethren.

But we, with our superior and unrealistic notions about working and earning a decent living forget that he too is a member of the human family and that his begging and whining is as much a matter of shame for us as the sight of a blood relation if he or she were doing the same.

And what do we do? Secure in our God-given prosperity we tell the poor soul to forgive us - "Baba, maaf karo!" - and inform him smugly that we have already fulfilled our religious responsibility of paying out our share of zakat, and that's all we can do.

"There's no end to you people," we add as the final shot of sanctimoniousness. And, as if that reply were not enough we also give the man or woman free advice that instead of begging on the streets why don't they look for some honest work? Oh, the heartlessness of that advice! I once earned the anger of an elderly lady sitting in a Land Cruiser when I asked her if she would be willing to give a job to one such beggar. She turned upon me, "Mind your own business. It is people like you who spoil them." Serve me right.

Do we ever pause and think while giving this gratuitous advice, what work? where? how? Can we suggest where suitable employment can be got? Would we, for instance, be willing to engage that pale young man with the still paler little boy or that emaciated young woman as domestic servants? It is easy to say "Go and do some honest work," when many of us with educated young sons sitting unemployed at home are unable to find jobs for them.

My wife and I always taught our two daughters never to say no to a beggar. Our philosophy, or rather our way of thinking has been that if a human being can degrade himself to the extent of begging and cringing before us for his daily bread, he deserves to be helped, even if he is a malingerer or a fraud. I shock my friends by insisting that begging too is a profession and beggars don't have to look for any other work.

There is also another aspect. If we believe in God and His ways, we have to accept that this is His method of providing for such people. And if we, the lucky ones, don't like it, then God has also indicated other ways, particularly through the tenets of Islam which lay down that the basic attribute of a truly Islamic society is how it can assist such unfortunate and deprived people.

We must adopt those ways to ensure that at least no Muslim (if we must be partisan) around us goes hungry and sick and unclothed. So, according to our religious belief, till so long as we are not able to devise a system in which everyone is provided for, it is our moral and spiritual duty to be charitable, even generous, and to our utmost extent and ability.

We told our daughters, and then our grandchildren, that what they sometimes spent in one evening on amusing themselves may be sufficient to feed a family of five for half a month. Thank God He has endowed them with pity and compassion.

I shall round off these grim reflections with a prayer. May you never be haunted by the expression on the face of that emaciated young man or that helpless female looking mutely towards you for alms.

You may give them anything or not but if you are sensitive their memory is not going to let you sleep in peace. May you never be in need yourself. Asking for financial help from friends and relations is as bad as begging on the roads, as is seeking loans from a bank for a millionaire.

May God protect your self-esteem and never put you in such a position. It is always good to remember that anything can happen to anyone at any time.

Made for each other?

There may be some fodder here for conspiracy theorists. Could it be that the steady stream of publications, many of them by conservative authors, rubbishing the foreign policy and security record of the Bush administration are intended in part to generate sympathy for the incumbent?

George Bush isn't alone - not by a long stretch. All the same, populated only by diehards with a steadily descending credibility quotient, his corner of the ring is increasingly looking like a lonely place. Even some of the flag-bearers of neoconservatism and cheerleaders for pre-emption have lately been assailed by doubts.

Beyond the ideological hardcore, his fan base has been depleted to a remarkable degree. By the time November rolls around, the lightweight champion of the free world may well be looking like an underdog. In the event, can he look forward to attracting the compassion vote?

Probably not. Nor is there any serious reason to suspect that books such as former White House anti-terrorism czar Richard Clarke's Against All Enemies and Nixon-era White House counsel John Dean's Worse Than Watergate are anything other than reasonably sincere efforts to excoriate a dangerously misguided administration.

On the other hand, George W. Bush's chances of legitimately winning a presidential term would brighten considerably were the United States to be struck once more by terrorists.

That prospect has been raised in yet another book that is expected to compound the administration's angst. Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror is expected to go on sale on July 4.

What sets it apart from the innumerable volumes on similar or related topics that have been published during the past couple of years is that it is written neither by an ex-official nor by a left-wing critic of the Bush administration. The author, billed only as Anonymous, is a senior figure in the US intelligence establishment. That's right - a serving official.

His identity is unlikely to remain secret for very long. We don't know which particular agency he works for, but what has been divulged is that he has at least 20 years of experience in counter-terrorism and has been closely involved in the hunt for Osama bin Laden.

He told The Guardian in an interview a few days ago that in his opinion the impression of Osama running from cave to cave and from pillar to post is largely propaganda: "My own hunch is that he is fairly comfortable where he is."

Anonymous is of the opinion that the Bush administration has conducted itself exactly as Osama bin Laden would have wished, not least through "an avaricious, premeditated, unprovoked war against a foe who posed no immediate threat but whose defeat did offer economic advantage".

And Al Qaeda may be inclined to return the favour in its customarily fiery fashion, with the intention not of ushering in regime change - as in Spain earlier this year - but of guaranteeing regime retention.

"I'm very sure they can't have a better administration for them than the one they have now," he told The Guardian. "One way to keep the Republicans in power is to mount an attack that would rally the country around the president."

In a bizarre sort of way, it makes sense. Bush has been the best recruiting sergeant Al Qaeda could have wished for. So Osama bin Laden would wish to keep him right where he is: in the Oval Office (where the buck doesn't stop anymore).

He can't be expected to send the president an email saying: "Dear Bush, please let me know how I can contribute to your re-election campaign.

Love, Osama." But he's shrewd enough to know that even a small-scale reproduction of the deadly fireworks he engineered from afar nearly three years ago would make Americans rally round the flag and shy away from administering to this administration a well-deserved kick up the backside.

No, it doesn't stand to reason. Why would you wish to cling on to a cabal that in the name of fighting terrorism has aided and abetted its proliferation? (And that argument holds even in the absence of any major new heroics from Osama and his mob.) But then, fear unleashes irrational impulses.

According to Anonymous, despite losing a few linchpins here and there (primarily through police action, as in the case of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Ramzi Binalshibh), Al Qaeda is stronger than ever, with a dedicated new-generation cadre.

Chillingly, he also believes that the terrorist organization will inevitably gain access to weapons of mass destruction, if it does not have them already. And that it will not hesitate to use them. The likeliest source? Not Iran or Pakistan, let alone Iraq, but the former Soviet Union.

One can only hope Anonymous is mistaken. Unfortunately, he is less likely to be wrong than the Bush administration, which continues to compound its failings with hypocrisy and lies.

Of late, the US and its diminished clutch of allies have taken to describing Iraq as the frontline in the war against terror. That's a spurious claim: Islamist terrorism per se, as opposed to what could be construed as brutal acts of resistance against a callous occupation, would appear to be a bigger problem in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. But even if it were true, it would only beg the question: Who made it so?

Not Saddam Hussein, for all the shades of evil that lurked inside his head. According to the preliminary findings of the September 11 commission in the US, as far back as 1994 he turned down an incipient Al Qaeda's requests for cooperation.

The commission, which will deliver its final report next month, also found no evidence of even the most peripheral Iraqi role in the events of 9/11.Large sections of the American press interpreted this finding as a further blow to the White House's credibility.

Not so, whined Bush and the control freak who serves as his vice-president. The Iraq-Al Qaeda connection, long dismissed by most western intelligence agencies, has been one of Dick Cheney's favourite obsessions. At the weekend, he and his nominal boss were once again busy spinning out of control.

We never claimed Iraq was involved in 9/11, they said, but that it had been in touch with Al Qaeda on numerous occasions. That's their story, and they are sticking with it. For now. Cheney claims to have access to intelligence that the commission didn't see. One can only wonder whether he's still relying on Ahmad Chalabi.

In the meanwhile, Tony Blair chipped in with the claim that Saddam had permitted Al Qaeda to operate out of Iraq. He offered no evidence to substantiate his assertion, and there's reason to suspect he may have been trying to recycle an old whopper involving a group called Al Ansar, purportedly linked to Osama's network, which is reported to have established a training camp on Iraqi soil.

But that area, near the border with Iran, had been beyond Baghdad's jurisdiction since the 1991 war. Then it was Vladimir Putin's turn. Out of the blue, the Russian president said that, before the invasion, he had passed on intelligence to Washington suggesting Saddam was contemplating attacks against US targets.

It's hard to make anything of this claim in the absence of even the most basic details, such as the timing. It is unlikely but not inconceivable that Saddam could have been foolhardy enough to contemplate suicide via a military provocation.

But if the intelligence relates to the period after it became obvious that the US was bent upon invasion, then it's not particularly sensational. What is hard to believe is that the US would have failed to capitalize on such information, had it been even marginally credible, in order to bolster its case for aggression against Iraq.

Perhaps Putin is just trying to earn a few brownie points. After all, unlike Jacques Chirac, he never seemed particularly comfortable with the antiwar stance adopted by his country; in all likelihood he was forced into that position by the Russian military.

If the US military could have had its way, it may well have opted to steer clear of Iraq. According to Clarke's book, when Tommy Franks was informed, in the middle of the Afghanistan operation, of an impending transfer to Iraq, his immediate reaction took the shape of an incredulous obscenity.

We shall return to Iraq next week, on the eve of the so-called transfer of sovereignty. For the time being it is sufficient to point out that many, quite possibly most, of the American soldiers deployed there believed themselves to be avenging the pain and ignominy of 9/11.

Why? Because their commander-in-chief and his acolytes had repeatedly insinuated a connection between Saddam's regime and the toppling of the twin towers. At one point, 75 per cent of all Americans reportedly believed Iraq was behind the atrocities of September 11.

Now they ought to know better. Hopefully, many of them will watch Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 when it is released this week. If forced to choose between Bill Clinton's autobiography and Imperial Hubris, perhaps they'll consider the latter a more edifying option.

They ought to celebrate the fact that they live in a country where they can watch and read such trenchant critiques of the established order. A lot of them will, no doubt, agree with Bush's designation of Paul Johnson's Saudi murderers as "extremist thugs".

A certain fraction may realize that the same epithet can also be applied to leading members of Washington's ruling clique. Those who don't ought to ask themselves the following question: Should my presidential choice be the same as that of Osama bin Laden?

Email: mahirali2@netscape.net.