Parliament gets to decide — finally
April 14th, 2012
In finally passing the Parliamentary Committee on National Security (PCNS) recommendations on resetting ties with the US, our lawmakers have asserted their authority in directing the future of our foreign policy. This needs to be warmly welcomed because — at least on the face of it — foreign policy (or significant parts of it) seems to have been extracted from the preserve of the GHQ and has been formulated by parliament. This is good in itself because it, at the very least, signals that for once the legislature is determining, perhaps the most important of the country’s bilateral relationships with a foreign power. The revised PCNS proposals represent a bold attempt to change the power balance between Pakistan and the US by calling for a halt to drone attacks and refusing to allow Pakistani airspace to be used by the US. That said, the proof of the pudding, so to speak, will lie in its eating, as in the extent to which America abides by them — especially with regard to the bete noire of the Pakistani public, drone attacks. On matters where the government coalition and the opposition parties could reach no agreement, they simply ignored the matter and left it to the executive to make a decision. Such was the case in the hotly-disputed matter of the resumption of Nato supplies. By passing the buck to the executive, the opposition parties have provided themselves cover should the transportation of supplies resume and anything untoward happens.
Even if these proposals are never fully implemented, the hope is that it sets a precedent for the future, where our elected representatives have a say in the conduct of foreign policy. Previously, the US has simply ignored parliament in its negotiations with Pakistan; now it may have to take into account the views of those who should be responsible for formulating laws in the country. That is a welcome development and does, in fact, suggest that the days where foreign policy was the exclusive preserve of the men in khaki may be gone forever, with elected civilians asserting themselves more. Perhaps, next to follow should be the country’s policy with India, where much could be done if a decision was made to break from the past.
The wheat glut
April 14th, 2012
Trust the government’s bad management to turn good news into bad. Despite two years of devastating floods, Pakistan is about to have a record crop of wheat, unto itself very good news in an economy that has otherwise been struggling. Yet, what should have turned into a year where farmers make record incomes for their wheat crop, may well turn into a disaster for the country as the government’s overflowing wheat reserves create a massive glut in the market, which will likely drive down prices and result in highly inefficient consumption. Given the higher wheat support price this year, farmers could reasonably have expected to look forward to a rise in their income levels. Yet, the cost of ploughing an acre of farmland has risen sharply over the past year. Farmers need prices to remain steady to make up for rising costs with their rising productivity. If the government had adequately forecasted this year’s crop using scientific methods, it would have reduced its wheat reserves in time to prepare for the harvest. As it turns out, the government did nothing and now wheat will be dumped into the market at very low rates, discouraging farmers from planting wheat next season and may even result in Pakistan having to import it next year.
We understand the government’s worries about wheat. Food security is an important government responsibility. But maintaining gigantic, unmanageable reserves and indiscriminately subsidising production seems to be a highly inefficient way of going about achieving this goal, especially when one takes into account the fact that the World Food Programme says that half of all Pakistanis remain food insecure. Surely, there must be a better way to do this. As it turns out, Brazil seems to have discovered a way to do so. In the 1970s, Brazil phased out almost all subsidies on agriculture and replaced them with research into raising agricultural productivity. There is no reason to believe that this model cannot be applied in Pakistan.