More promises, no action

PRIME Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani’s televised speech to the nation was a disappointment. The triple crisis of the economy, politics and militancy has deepened on the prime minister’s watch, but the urgency required to deal with these issues was noticeably lacking. At the very least, the speech could have been used to project the image of a calm and experienced hand guiding the state. What we got was the prime minister’s hesitant and faltering delivery that failed to inspire confidence. Start with the political crisis. The coalition at the centre is hamstrung by the PML-N’s withdrawal from the cabinet in protest against the non-restoration of the deposed judges of the superior courts. Yet the prime minister could do no more than promise “good news” to the country on the judges issue “soon” -- a vague declaration that only ensures the debilitating status quo will continue. On the economic front, the government’s plans have been gradually unveiled since the budget last month, which include a pledge to rein in inflation, provide targeted subsidies to the poor and pour more resources into the agricultural sector. These are sensible aims and the country awaits their implementation. However, leading by example also matters. The prime minister called for a reduction in the unnecessary consumption of oil, but his government is the worst offender when it comes to unnecessary air travel.

The crisis of militancy is the most intractable, but requires the most urgent government attention. It is good that Prime Minister Gilani reiterated that Pakistan must fight the war against terrorism for its sake. He was also correct in rejecting foreign military action within the country. However, the government does not appear to have a viable strategy for dealing with militants here. Worryingly, the federal government, the NWFP government, the political administration of the tribal agencies and the armed forces do not always appear to be in control and on the same page when it comes to addressing militancy. There is no one cause of militancy across Pakistan. In some areas the Taliban are battling the state; in other areas factions of the Taliban are fighting each other; and in yet other areas the fighting is between different sects and schools of thought of Islam. However, the net effect is that the state’s authority has diminished markedly and militants are emboldened to act in large swathes of the country. What is undeniable is that the political, economic and militancy crises are feeding off and compounding each other. Weakness on one front puts the government further on the back foot when dealing with the other fronts. The prime minister and his cabinet must rise to the challenge.

Trade policy

THE thrust of Pakistan’s trade policy for 2008-09 appears to be on cutting the cost of doing business through cheaper imports of raw material and capital goods for industry as well as agriculture to facilitate the export of merchandise goods and farm products. In line with the policy focus, the government has also effected some changes in the duty and taxes remission on export (DTRE) and temporary importation schemes to reduce the input costs of exporters. It has also announced a scheme to refund indirect taxes on inputs for exports to zero-rate them. The most critical action that the trade policy spelt out perhaps pertains to liberalisation of the import of raw materials like chemicals, fertilisers, capital goods, CNG buses, etc from India. The ruling coalition led by the Pakistan People’s Party also seems keen on attracting Indian investment in Pakistan, initially in the manufacture of CNG buses. This signifies a major change in Islamabad’s policies vis-à-vis regional trade and represents a break from the past. It also distinguishes the trade policy document of the incumbent coalition from the ones given by its predecessor.

The government has also raised the export target for the current year to slightly above $22bn — up by a modest 15 per cent from last year’s $19.2bn. The policy falls short, however, of providing a road map or strategy for meeting the target, although the commerce minister did offer a few incentives like a one per cent increase in rebate on the export of 14 products of small to medium-sized industries and low-priced loans for environmental standards compliance. Certain incentives have been given to encourage the export of gems and jewellery, pharmaceuticals, rice and horticultural products. That is all very well. But little has been said about product diversification and development or exploration of new markets for enhancing exports. The policy also doesn’t contain anything on the strategy for boosting our exports to large and growing regional markets like India and China let alone talk of any plan to protect our existing share in the American and European markets. The textile sector, which contributed 57 per cent to total export revenue, has for the time being been totally ignored.

Nor does the policy specify any import target or programme to reduce the import bill and narrow the trade gap from last year’s figure of over $20bn. Little wonder then that many find the trade policy, the first announced by the coalition, lacking in long-term vision. It would have been far better if the trade policy were used as a tool to encourage domestic and foreign investment in the manufacturing, farm, mining and other sectors with large untapped potential for export.

Obesity and health

THERE is a plethora of diet plans available to those aspiring to lose weight. Some forbid carbohydrates while others advocate the low-fat method. This is indicative of the public interest in diets and weight loss. Whichever theory you might adhere to, the cardinal principle is ‘eat less, move more’. This diet mania is not unfounded. Obesity is a global phenomenon; the gravity of the problem is illustrated by its ubiquitous presence throughout the globe. In Pakistan obesity is a health concern simply by virtue of what it entails and because of its adverse impact on mental and physical well-being. While obesity inhibits and impairs the functioning of the human mind and body it leads to various other diseases as well.

Different studies conducted in the country have put the obesity burden at different levels. According to the National Health Survey (NHS) report of 1990-94, the obesity rates for adults aged 25-64 of middle and high socio-economic status were 15 per cent and 27 per cent in rural areas, and 27 per cent and 42 per cent in urban areas. More recent NHS findings are not available but according to a study by the Canadian Medical Association Journal based on this data, a quarter of the population of Pakistan would be classified as overweight or obese. The figure may be higher now with the large-scale induction of fast food culture in the big cities. Being overweight is associated with a higher risk of disease. The impact of obesity on the state of the nation’s health is profound. Overweight and obesity can lead to type-2 diabetes, ischaemic heart disease, stroke, hypertensive disease, osteoarthritis, and colon, kidney, endometrial and post-menopausal breast cancer. The obesity epidemic is leading to a growing incidence of these diseases in Pakistan, adding to the burden on the country’s cash-strapped healthcare facilities. There is another economic price to be paid as ill health also results in a loss of productivity. This problem merits attention and public healthcare initiatives to help those already suffering from obesity-related diseases. More importantly, greater awareness about obesity would lead to a more health-conscious population. Prevention is the key.

OTHER VOICES - North American Press

The greatest Russian of all

Los Angeles Times

IF Americans were asked to decide who was the greatest Russian, they might toss out names such as Tolstoy or Tchaikovsky or Peter the Great. Russians are being asked precisely that question, and they can’t decide between a czar whose rule was so disastrous that it prompted the Russian revolution and a psychopathic dictator who killed, exiled or starved millions of his own people.

Rossiya TV, a state-controlled broadcaster, is running a contest it calls ‘Name of Russia’, in which online voters have culled 50 names from a list of 500 important historical figures. Now they are narrowing the field to 12, and this fall there will be an ‘American Idol’-style series in which viewers will choose a winner.

The whole affair is a silly idea — it’s hardly possible to choose degrees of greatness among artists such as Anton Chekhov, pioneers such as Yuri Gagarin and leaders such as Ivan the Terrible — as well as derivative. The concept was originated by the BBC, which in 2002 asked Britons to pick their greatest countryman (Winston Churchill got the nod). Yet aside from all that, the choices that are emerging reveal something important about the Russian national character, circa 2008: It’s a close contest between Czar Nicholas II and Josef Stalin for the top vote-getter.

There is a growing nationalist movement in Russia that has been encouraged from the Kremlin by the likes of Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin, but the nationalists are split between those who romanticise the czarist past and those who remember fondly the days of communist rule.

Moreover, the country has had so many despotic rulers that choosing the best from among them is like picking the most socially responsible rattlesnake. If it were up to us, we might pick the empire-building 18th century ruler Catherine the Great, who currently comes in at No 7 on the list, but she has her share of baggage too — like the fact that she was actually German.

Still, it’s hard to believe that a country that produced Dostoevsky, Pushkin, Gogol and Turgenev is debating between a man who was completely incapable of coping with the social and military pressures that hit Russia during World War I and a bloodthirsty tyrant who successfully led it through World War II at the cost of its soul.

Of course, Americans have little right to criticise. A similar contest was held in this country in 2005, and the ultimate winner was Ronald Reagan. No disrespect to the Republican icon, but if that’s the best Americans could come up with after 230 years of producing world-changing thinkers, leaders and artists, we could stand to crack open a history book. — (July 18)

Waiting for change in status quo

THE suspenseful drama of Pakistani politics has entered an eerie stage. The spectators, accustomed to the thriller they saw the previous year, have now become so tired of the slow-motion pace at which it has been moving since Feb 18 that they have stopped hoping for a happy climax and have become reconciled to the long, drawn-out tragic ending that has been the fate of all such dramas in the past.

Even eternal optimists can see light only at the very far end of the tunnel and even they are sceptical whether it will necessarily be a harbinger of good tidings.

An overwhelming sense of despondency, disillusionment and cynicism pervades the present political environment. Yesterday’s self-sacrificing heroes are today’s self-seeking predators who prey not only on their enemies but also turn on their own like cannibals and have little regard for the interests of those who brought them to power. It is becoming difficult to distinguish between a friend and a foe and the reputations of esteemed icons of patriotism and valour are being ground into the dust. No holds seem to be barred in this game of power.

All this is most perplexing to the common people who tend to regard their heroes, rightly or wrongly, as the epitome of virtue and as representatives of their aspirations. While these power games continue to be played among the elites in faraway lands and in elegant drawing rooms and posh hotels, ordinary people — in whose name these games are played — continue to chafe under increasing misery and exploitation. Every day a new diversion — a new squabble with a neighbouring country, a new wrinkle in the war on terror, a new version of how we made the bomb and traded our secrets for the aggrandisement of a few and the insecurity of many — contributes to a new way of avoiding swift and decisive action on the key issues that are preventing the country from moving in the right direction. Then there is the fear of a new financial disaster hitting the economy, a new deal on getting rid of the president without hurting him or his cronies and continuing policies that bring solace to mentors and distress to the people, or a new way to restore the judiciary.

The nation awaits the time when a new leaf will be turned and hatchets are buried with the assurance that those guilty of past disasters will not be let off the hook. The new regime, a strange conflation of past and present politicians and bureaucrats, is busy finding excuses to justify the status quo as something the nation has to learn to live with — for ever. Déjà vu is the overarching national sentiment and seemingly fated destiny.

When and how this circle will ever be broken is a puzzle that everyone is grappling with on a daily basis. Besides knee-jerk cynicism vis-à-vis politics, people are finding other escape routes such as religious bigotry and drug addiction. And then there is ultimate escape: migration to foreign lands, opportunities for which are by no means plentiful or affordable for the majority of the population.

Many are now pinning their hopes on an economic turnaround that would pull the country out of its present morass and somehow pave the way for the political renaissance it badly needs. This seems to be an unlikely possibility though given the current global economic turmoil.

Indeed what is far more likely — and which two of our more promising and savvy economists, Ijaz Nabi and Haris Gazdar, have warned against in these columns — is that our global mentors, the IMF and the World Bank, will soon be knocking at our doors with their old patented medicines. Their stabilisation and structural adjustment packages have aggravated rather than cured our economy’s chronic ailments and are even less likely to be effective in the present conditions.

The country’s political elites are unlikely to say no to these seemingly friendly but potentially harmful offers and the largesse that accompanies them. Such an offer would certainly be tempting. For one thing, it would ease the acute financial constraints that are inhibiting the exercise of political power.

At the same time, it would help avoid the challenges of undertaking more fundamental structural makeovers, such as increasing resource mobilisation and enhancing domestic savings rates, which have remained abysmally low.

It is doubtful — as suggested by Ijaz Nabi and endorsed by Haris Gazdar — if the mere substitution of aid from the West (channelled through the IMF and the World Bank) by that from our oil-rich ‘friends’ who have been as complicit in setting the direction of our polity as the former would help matters greatly.

It needs to be recognised, as Haris Gazdar implicitly does, that a nexus between the two most affluent economic groups in the world is causing the worldwide inflation and financial crisis which most developing countries, especially those with weak political structures, are unable to cope with.

Regardless of the political business cycle whose periodic regularity has come to be accepted as inevitable, the basic problem facing the country is its failure to date to evolve a resilient economic and political system which would be responsive to the needs of the impoverished and deprived sections of its population and would be immune to the manipulation and control of its ruthless elites. The Feb 18 elections had provided a glimmer of hope that this may be within the realm of possibility within a decade or so.

But the present stalemate — for which no plausible explanations are forthcoming — has all but extinguished it. If the political cycle is cut short by another military misadventure, Pakistan’s survival as a nation state would be jeopardised for ever. The dream of its emergence as a bridge between Central and South Asia, much less of its becoming an Asian tiger, will also be consigned to history.

The political and economic destiny of the country are inalienably linked and to think that we can have an efficient and equitable economy with a dysfunctional political system is a delusion. Any attempt to de-link the two is unlikely to serve Pakistan well at this juncture.

syed.naseem@aya.yale.edu

Hazards for Obama

AS Barack Obama jets around Europe, the Middle East and Afghanistan this week, his every utterance will be closely monitored back in Chicago, ground zero for his administration in waiting. A single misstep, an off-the-cuff foreign policy initiative or even a mispronounced name will be pounced on by his Republican rival, John McCain.

There are hazards aplenty ahead as he travels from Iraq on to Israel and the West Bank before arriving in Western Europe during the second half of the week. He is the first black candidate with a shot at the presidency, and is likely to be met by an adoring public, but there is nevertheless anxiety in the chancelleries of Europe.

Before he enters Downing Street to greet Gordon Brown or sits down with David Cameron, the Democratic candidate will be as carefully briefed as though he were a sitting president. Britain needs to know just what Mr Obama has in mind when it comes to direct talks with the Iranian leadership, or how abruptly or carefully managed he would withdraw US forces from Iraq. To help him avoid any political landmines while abroad, the candidate will be relying on a team of 300 foreign policy advisers who keep him as fully briefed as possible. Most were senior foreign policy players in the second Bill Clinton administration.

By 8.00 am every day these advisers in Chicago have sent him two emails: a news briefing on world developments and a series of questions and suggested answers for questions that are likely to come his way during the day.

The core team is led by Anthony Lake (Bill Clinton’s national security adviser from 1993 to 1997) and Susan Rice, the assistant secretary of state for Africa under Clinton. Ms Rice was the top national security adviser in John Kerry’s failed 2004 presidential bid.

Mr Obama has already pledged a new era of inclusive American diplomacy. But during this trip he will be putting Europe leaders’ feet to the flames, demanding that they respond in kind to his overtures by sending far more their own soldiers to fight and if necessary die in the battlefields of Afghanistan and elsewhere.

”The stakes are very high for Obama,” said Lee Hamilton, of the Woodrow Wilson International Centre. “Foreign policy is one area where they [voters] have their doubts” about him.

Mr Obama is due to deliver a major foreign policy speech in Berlin, amid arguments with the government of Angela Merkel about whether it will be at the Brandenburg Gate or elsewhere. Huge crowds are expected for this event.

— © The Independent, London