Trading troubles

STAGNATING exports and soaring imports have widened the trade gap to dangerous proportions. That, in short, is the woeful story contained in the trade figures released the other day by the Federal Bureau of Statistics. Exports are stagnating because our textile and clothing sector has been under-performing over the last two years, and also because the list of exportable surpluses has remained static for several years. So has the list of export destinations. Imports are soaring because of escalating international oil and food prices and also because of the insatiable appetite of our rich for luxury items. By the end of the current year, the trade deficit is expected to reach a record level of $15bn.

There are no simple solutions to the looming trade problem. With limited exportable surpluses and low quality manufactured items there is no way one could improve export earnings. And there is no way one could add to exportable surpluses or improve the quality of made-ups without improving the performance of our manufacturing and agriculture sectors. Similarly, it is impossible to curb imports without proper economic prioritising and innovation to encourage import substitution. The international prices of food items have doubled in the last one year while freight costs have also increased sharply on the back of rising fuel prices. The food prices are rising on a mix of strong demand from developing countries; an increasing global population and the biofuel industry’s demand for grains.

Given this situation and the fact that the production of wheat, rice and sugarcane grew by a yearly average of 1.23, 0.59 and 1.87 per cent respectively during the seven years from 1999-2000 to 2006-2007, the most immediate task of the new government is to review the procurement prices of the next crop, especially of wheat. At the same time, it should undertake and promote massive investment in the rural areas with prudent incentives to attract private and private-public partnership in infrastructure and agro industries for producing exportable surpluses of quality. This should be done even at the cost of over-shooting the budget because fiscal deficit resulting from expenditure on productive areas does not cause any harm to the economy. Meanwhile, in order to bring inflation under control immediately, the new government could allow the duty-free import of all food items as a short-term measure and keep wages globally competitive. Simultaneously, it must increase taxes on non-productive areas or include those not under the tax net to reduce deficit, cut taxes on productive sectors to boost investment, production and exports, eliminate guaranteed profits to oil companies to lower or minimise increase in domestic oil prices and immediately undertake the exercise of rightsizing the government. Fiscal incentives and lower energy costs would give a shot in the arm to the industry to increase exports.

No spirit of consensus

ACRIMONY has once again come to characterise the tone and tenor of national and intra-party politics. It indicates that the new-found unity among previously warring groups and individuals may prove a flash in the pan. The issue of prime ministerial nominations has created bad blood between sections of the PML-N and PPP, as well as within the ranks of the latter. The legal notice sent by PPP’s Amin Fahim to PML-N’s Khwaja Asif for allegedly maligning Mr Fahim and questioning his loyalties is a manifestation of this. As a partner in the forthcoming coalition government, the PML-N has every right to disagree with a particular nomination for whatever reason — even if it is the prerogative of the PPP to make the final choice. However, doing so in public — on national TV in this case — and in a manner calculated to arouse resentment can hardly be called sensible. The prudent way would have been to thrash it out away from the public glare.

The PPP, too, must shoulder its share of the blame for contributing to this atmosphere of political uncertainty. By allowing its internal differences to surface, it has caused some quarters to predict the formation of a forward bloc within the party comprising supporters of Mr Fahim. The party stalwarts do not realise that putting down each other publicly — Asif Zardari’s swipe at Mr Fahim in Bhurban is one example — and creating confusion, as in the case of Mr Fahim’s ‘missing’ invitation, will detract from its triumph. Such displays of divisiveness — be they between parties or within one political group — will give the presidential and religious camps an opportunity to question the abilities of the next government. That could lead to anti-democratic forces paving the way for another phase of authoritarian rule.

With the first session of parliament scheduled for next week, the two parties would do better to reach without delay a consensus on government formation and concentrate on issues that are crucial to the uplift of the common man. Spiralling prices, militancy, the lack of proper education and healthcare, gender inequality and inter-provincial discord are among the many issues that are crying out for attention. The parties would be in no position to deliver on their promises to the electorate if they continued to air their quarrels in public. Similarly, straying from the consensual path within individual party ranks would also send out a negative message to political observers and undermine the democratic process. This is the broad picture that must be kept in mind if progress is to be made on rescuing the country from the dire straits that it finds itself in.

Caretakers or change-makers?

CARETAKERS are supposed to keep the house under their care as it is while the original inhabitants are away. Their job is to ensure that nothing changes as far as the setting, the ambience and the furniture inside the house is concerned, barring an emergency that has to be addressed. Hence bringing about basic changes may not constitute a crime, but it amounts to moral discrepancy. Unfortunately, the caretaker government in Punjab has allowed itself to breach this moral code more often than not. A lot has been written and said about the failure of the provincial caretakers to remain neutral in the Feb 18 election without eliciting a clarification, let alone a rebuttal. But the sad part of this blatant partiality is that it continues even after polling day. Last Thursday, two senior officials closely linked to the administration of the former chief minister, Chaudhry Pervaiz Elahi, were given key posts. The outgoing head of the provincial police was appointed as the member of the provincial public service commission, the highest body to select and appoint bureaucrats of the future. The special secretary at the chief minister’s secretariat, a specially created post in the first place, was appointed the secretary of the Punjab Assembly, the highest legislative body in the province. A number of other middle-ranking officials were also transferred and posted the same day without waiting for the new administration to assume office and appoint officers of its own choosing.

With the new provincial government waiting in the wings to take over, all these changes in the bureaucracy make little sense unless they are seen as last-ditch efforts to reward the loyalists and favour the favourites. Caretakers, however, have no business doing that. They are supposed to have no agenda other than holding the fort for the election period. After the polls are over, the caretakers are expected not to change things much before an elected government takes over. By failing to do so, they are only allowing charges of partiality against them to stick.

Elections and the US

PAKISTAN has just been through elections likely to result in the restoration of democracy to the country. The US elections, though still eight months away, will hopefully also usher in a major transformation, repudiating the administration’s failed policies that include an alarming penchant for going against all that is good and great about the US.

With the two countries linked inextricably by their cooperation in the war against terror, it is no surprise that while we follow closely emerging trends in the US, there too Pakistan has continued to occupy centre stage in the foreign policy debates among presidential candidates.

With many Americans acknowledging that the administration committed serious errors in its war on terror, the elections are likely to be most contentious. Moreover, with none of the candidates an incumbent, there is neither a presumed successor nor an assured front runner. In fact, all candidates have expressed reservations about Bush’s policies, though none has been as sharply critical as the unorthodox Senator Barack Obama.

He created quite a stir last August when he indicated that the US should be willing to strike Al Qaeda targets inside Pakistan, without the consent of its government, if the US “has actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will”. The remark was seized upon by the administration as evidence of Obama’s lack of understanding of foreign policy issues, though it was no different from its own policy.

Obama later clarified that he had “never called for the invasion of Pakistan” and that US troops would enter Pakistan only if there were “actionable intelligence reports” and only if “the Pakistani government was unable or unwilling” to go after the terrorists.

Obama also came in for criticism from his rival, Senator Hillary Clinton, who pointed out that though she “had long advocated a much tougher approach to Musharraf and to Pakistan”, she did not consider Obama’s position as wise. She revisited the issue recently, when she promised to end the Bush administration’s “one-dimensional” policy because it focuses on Musharraf and ignores the people.

Characterising the Pakistan-Afghanistan border as “one of the most dangerous regions of the world and one of the most strategically important to the US”, Clinton pledged to increase non-military assistance to Pakistan, especially as “recent elections are a key step towards the return of democracy to Pakistan”. Senator McCain, the Republican Party candidate, is however closely toeing the official line, aware that he has to carry the conservatives who are suspicious of his liberal stance on domestic issues.

Incidentally, after his recent visit to Pakistan, Senator Joseph Biden, who heads the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, proposed tripling US economic assistance as “a democracy dividend” and to emphasise education and economic development as keys to stabilising society and weaning away of tribal and rural support from extremists.

Of course, US interest and involvement in Pakistan remains intense as evidenced by the many important visitors descending down on us, a worrying but understandable development given our critical role in the furtherance of US strategic objectives in the region. Over the past seven years, our relations with the US have acquired an unprecedented scale, but this cooperation has never been debated in parliament nor the political leadership taken into confidence. The result has been a serious disconnect between the military leadership and the people who have developed serious misgivings about its long-term implications, convinced that the war on terror is simply not their war and is being fought to promote US interests.

The election results, coming in the wake of year-long turmoil, have renewed the faith of Pakistanis in themselves. But they appear to have disappointed Washington and led to fears that the emerging democratic dispensation may not be as amenable to its bidding as the current regime. This is inevitable as the overwhelming majority has come to view Pakistan’s close embrace of Washington as having caused the country great grief even if it has brought it substantial sums of money, much of which has however gone into non-productive ventures. The major political parties too are distancing themselves from this ‘alliance’, not only because they have their reservations about it but because they wish to be in tune with popular sentiment.

Though there is now some recognition of the shifting realities in Pakistan, the Bush administration remains much too deeply attached to the person of Musharraf rather than the people of Pakistan. This has been deeply disappointing to those who expected the US to play a helpful role in furthering the democratic process. Meanwhile, other ‘revelations’ in the US media are even more worrying. These include reports that we have been pushed into accepting US military personnel to train us in counter-insurgency, even though we have one of the world’s biggest and finest armed forces.

Similarly, reports to the effect that the CIA is spreading its presence in the country, while the US is engaged in constructing airstrips in the Northern Areas, are developments that cannot but cause us and our neighbours’ great concern. But the icing on the cake was the weekend report that the US had presented us a laundry list of demands that envisage the most remarkable concessions for its military and intelligence personnel.

Diplomatic observers are intrigued by its timing. Either the Bush administration has failed to appreciate that the centre of gravity is shifting, slowly but inexorably, away from Army House to parliament, or it believes that the Musharraf regime has been so discredited that it can obtain concessions now that would not otherwise be available to it later. Or is it the awareness that with a democratic government coming to power, the entire gamut of the Pakistan-US relationship will be re-examined, first of all to obtain the confidence of the elected representatives and only thereafter to build a domestic consensus for it, which is essential if we are to be effective partners in the war on terror.

For the past couple of years, I have advocated that the ‘terms of engagement’ with the US need to be renegotiated. The carte blanche provided by an authoritarian regime can no longer be sustained. Happily there is growing awareness of this in the US as well. Recently, Bob Hathaway of the Wilson Centre called upon Washington to base its partnership with Pakistan on “a compact with the people, rather than on any one individual”.

American foreign policy guru Henry Kissinger, too, warned this week that any US attempt to manipulate the political process in Pakistan could backfire. He also advised Washington to concede that internal developments in Pakistan are now “essentially out of the control of American decision-makers”. Earlier, Secretary Rice had affirmed that the US needs “to move from a Musharraf policy to a Pakistan policy”.

It is time to act on the wisdom contained in this approach. The US needs to immediately withdraw its patronage of an authoritarian ruler and signal its confidence in and unstinted support and assistance to the democratic dispensation. That is the only way the US can restore its credibility in this country and earn its ungrudging support in the war on terror.

OTHER VOICES - Middle East Press

In order of importance

The Jordan Times

THE agenda of the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC) summit in Senegal, on March 14, is loaded, as usual, with many items concerning relations among Islamic countries and suggestions of how to promote and strengthen their unity and cooperation and serve Muslim interests worldwide.

Topping the list is the issue of the very identity of this organisation established in 1969 in the aftermath of the burning of Al Aqsa Mosque by Jewish fanatics. The OIC passed through many stages in search of a true identity.

A preparatory meeting of senior officials and ministers of foreign affairs of Islamic countries will precede the summit in a bid to articulate a clearer sense of purpose and direction for the organisation.

Unless the OIC summit can come up with and agree on an updated charter, the organisation may have an unclear future course. The very relevancy of the OIC is at stake at this time when various country alignments spring up all over the globe.

The OIC has failed to deal effectively with the implications and consequences of the burning of Al Aqsa Mosque nearly 40 years ago, so how can it be expected to deal with modern issues that appear more and more insurmountable?

The Muslim world remains in disarray on several fronts, with extremists hijacking the true … teachings of Islam to promote their own political agenda through violence and terrorism. The acts of a few Muslims are the most dangerous enemies of Islam. This is what the OIC should address first and foremost, before moving on to forge cooperation among Muslims everywhere. — (March 11)

She never ‘lived’ anyhow!

Turkish Daily News

[ON] … International Women’s Day … the Turkish media remembered an otherwise often-ignored tragedy of women … highlighting the story of 17-year-old Lalihan from Batman…. On [that] day a group of people were silently lowering the dead body of Lalihan to the bosom of mother earth with a simple religious ceremony in Batman….

Her family had agreed with another family in their neighbourhood to exchange brides … [in a] tradition called ‘Berdel’ … The girls and boys intended to be married had grown up together like brothers and sisters…. They did not want to marry a brother or sister …

Lalihan could not understand how she could become a wife to Abdurrahman, whom she grew up playing and working with in the family fields as sister and brother. She objected. She could not even manage to discuss the issue with her father.

She decided to risk everything and say “No, I can’t agree to marrying someone I consider a brother!” The family was upset … [and] what ought to be done was clear in the minds of everyone, including Lalihan…. She would either commit suicide and clean the honour of the family … or Lalihan would be punished (killed) by either her brother, or the bridegroom-to-be.

… [The] bridegroom-to-be climbed the stairs to the roof of Lalihan’s house, took out his sharp knife, stabbed the body of the young girl who had refused to become his bride until she fell dead while an army of relatives watched the horrible scene from a distance! The honour of the family was restored! … — (March 10)