States of Change
BY
J.J. MESSNER
Which countries gained and declined the most in this year's Failed States Index?

In the seven years of the Failed States Index, Somalia has had the ignominious distinction of occupying the worst spot for the past four years straight. Even with a relatively functional and pretty much autonomous "statelet" in the north, Somaliland, the country as a whole still manages to score badly enough to make up for that glimmer of unrecognized hope.

Worse still, Somalia is in no danger of losing its position anytime soon. A combination of widespread lawlessness, ineffective government, terrorism, insurgency, crime, abysmal development, and a penchant for inconveniencing the rest of the world by taking merchant vessels hostage has given the country a score that -- much as they seem to try -- neither Chad, Sudan, Zimbabwe, or the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) can hope to match.

At first glance, the map tells a broader story of stagnation. A few outposts of relative order -- Western Europe, the north and south extremes of the Americas, Australia, and New Zealand, along with Japan and South Korea -- represent the world's hubs of sustainability and relative stability. But between those areas of green and yellow is an awful lot of red and orange, representing different degrees of danger. With some exceptions, the deepest shades of red can be found in South Asia and across Africa's middle, where conflict is frequent and human suffering all too common. Sadly, the colors have not changed much over the years.

But it would be wrong to assume that one year's Failed States Index map is a carbon copy of its predecessors. This year, Mother Nature was to blame for some of the most significant worsening. Haiti, which saw a devastating earthquake in January 2010, suffered the most, climbing to the fifth spot on the index. Another massive temblor shook Chile in February, killing as many as 500 people and destroying buildings and infrastructure. Deadly floods in Benin, the worst since 1963, displaced nearly 700,000 people and led to significant outbreaks of cholera. Drought and poor harvests led to a food crisis in Niger. Although natural disasters affecting major population centers will almost always have a significant impact on countries, the state's capacity to adequately respond makes the difference between a manageable crisis and a humanitarian catastrophe.

Elsewhere in Africa, ethnic violence in northern Liberia and renewed separatist troubles in Senegal's Casamance region led to setbacks in both countries' progress. In Rwanda, the increasing authoritarianism of President Paul Kagame, including further restrictions on the media and opposition groups, did no favors for the country's score card. But the picture in Africa is not all bad, with three of the top 10 most improved countries for 2011. Sudan and Chad improved their scores slightly largely due to minor abatements of existing conflicts in both countries; Algeria also improved substantially, in no small part due to the government's more effective combating of regional terrorist groups.

Surprisingly, two of the 10 most significant declines came in Western Europe: by Ireland, a victim of severe economic woes and recipient of an EU bailout, and Belgium, where even the threat of senior politicians' wives abstaining from connubial duties failed to inspire the formation of a government. Ireland's score worsened by 2.9 points, the fourth-worst year-on-year performance of any country, and Belgium's score worsened by 2.1 points, representing the tenth-greatest decline. (In a historic shift, Finland upended Norway as the best-performing country on this year's index.)

After Haiti, the second-most significant worsening was experienced by Kyrgyzstan, whose 2010 uprising, marred by ethnic and regional violence, has largely been forgotten as the world's attention has been diverted to the upheavals of the Arab Spring. (Stability is slowly returning under the interim government of Roza Otunbayeva.) Another of the largest deteriorations recorded was actually by Tunisia, the one Arab country whose revolution began within the index's data collection period.

There are, thankfully, some good news stories from this year's index. Although only three years ago the world looked on as Russian tanks rolled into Georgia, the small Black Sea country experienced the largest improvement of any state in the 2011 index, though much of it was recovered ground following the devastating war that uprooted thousands. Georgia has profited from significant government reforms to the security apparatus, including greater transparency and accountability, as well as a clampdown on endemic corruption. Both policies have led to a substantial reduction in organized crime and thus greater internal stability.

Serbia's score improved the second-most, helped by more arrests of war-crimes suspects and a continued path toward European integration. The Fund for Peace's decision to remove Kosovo from Serbia's calculations, and thus relieve Serbia of what had become -- statistically, at least -- somewhat of a millstone around its neck, also contributed to the country's improvement. Nevertheless, like Georgia, Serbia's progress is still painfully slow.

Continued economic growth saw the scores of China and Peru improve markedly, with respective annual growth rates of 10 and 8.7 percent. Even Sudan, Chad, and East Timor -- all of which continue to experience significant hardship -- made modest improvement. In the Arab world, two countries largely untouched by much of the recent uprisings, Algeria and Lebanon, also happened to be two of the most improved countries on the index.

Looking forward to 2012, and given the events of 2011 so far, it is fairly safe to assume that the likes of Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, and Yemen will probably be the source of much discussion in next year's index. And let's not forget that on July 9, it is widely expected that Southern Sudan will be recognized as an independent country and U.N. member state.

Although all states are subject to pressures, stable and successful ones demonstrate an ability to deal with them effectively, and especially through their capacity to absorb shocks such as economic crises, protests, and natural disasters. The sad reality is that continued failure or inability to deal effectively with their problems will keep countries like Somalia, Sudan, and the DRC firmly anchored at the top of the Failed States Index for years to come.

All of Pakistan’s troubles have been written off rather simplistically by the western media, think tanks and governmental bodies as an increasing chasm of sectarianism. The reality is that Pakistan is badly caught between Modernist Islamist Saudi influence and Western Secularism. The irony of it all, is that Pakistan is neither. Thus in a tug of war between the two, Pakistanis are being asked to pay the price in terms of loss of sovereignty, an anemic GDP, a degenerating law and order situation, and the penultimate and infuriating – loss of lives.

Wahabi Primer
Without delving into long history and philosophy, it must suffice to say that Wahabism(1). may be deemed as new interpretation of Islam. This interpretation is synonymous with Modern Christian Fundamentalist movements in the West. It must also be understood, that the Wahabis came to power by sheer violence at the consternation and annihilation of the previous Sunni order. In a Hanafi majority state as Pakistan, the Wahabis stick out like soar thumbs. The best defenders of Wahabism are found in the West. And sadly, the best allies the West has are also House of Saud in Arabia. We are reminded by westerners that the political and clerical apparatus in Saudi Arabia are separated as had been the practice throughout Muslim history in the Classical times as far as the Sunni world was concerned, meaning that the political rule is of the House of Saud, while the alleged Islamized legislation becomes the burden of the Wahabi elite. In Classical Islam (3) there always had been a healthy tussle between the ruler and the Ulemas (clerics), however, in Saudi Arabia there exists a perfect Theological-Political Collusion. It may have illusions of being structurally sound but its utterly ignorant, un-intellectual, literal, misogynistic in its world view which may have more in common to archaic Levitical Law than Islamic epistemology.

Saudi Arabia : The Trusted Ally
On the surface the historical alliance between the two nations is time tested. Both nations were allies of the US during the Cold War and effectively worked tirelessly to ward off Soviet Communism. This aversion to Communism made them friends of the US and the West. Post Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, the alliance of the three seemed to have degenerated a degree, in that US trotted off angrily, as Secular forces were subdued effectively by Pakistan’s famed ISI ( Inter Services Intelligence) in favor of ultra-orthodox misogynistic un-intellectual Saudi educated clerical theocrats – The Talibans, who were needed to keep the Iranian expansionist Shia revolutionaries at bay. Saudi Arabia allegedly paid for Pakistani US made F-16s. Pakistan even collected a $ 2 billion oil subsidy from the Kingdom. In return, Saudi Arabia is supposed to have purchased six nuclear tipped missiles from Pakistan, however, the veracity of the claim is at best, a conjecture (4). Pakistan reciprocated by stationing battalions of Pakistani army units on Saudi soil. Saudi intelligence may have been helping Pakistan in its pseudo-Taliban insurgency. There is talk of Pakistan insuring Saudi security in case Iran goes nuclear etc.

However, there is a dismal facet to the relationship between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Its not so much that the likes of members of Saudi royalty that visit frequently on hunting trips to Pakistan where the they are given State protocol, or that Pakistanis living and working in Saudi Arabia are treated lowly like many others national groups, but that Pakistanis being a majority Hanafi sect of Sunni Islam, are being marginalized in their own nation by the Modernist (Jadidi) upstarts like Saudi Wahabis with the tacit approval of Pakistani State, is surely a travesty. This would be Theological Cannibalization by the Wahabis of fellow Muslims, if the Wahabis can be labeled as such. It must be understood that Wahabis are deemed Sunni, perhaps simply, due to the fact that they are not Shi’a.

Thus Wahabi domineering takes the forms of seemingly unlimited funds pouring into Pakistan to stage Wahabi madrassahs, both makeshift in homes and organized ones as well, publishing of Wahabi books and pamphlets that are beginning to crowd out the mainstream Hanafi Islam. Hanafi Islam is steeped in tradition of rational thought, is spiritual, and intellectual, whereas the Wahabi thought is rigid, reactionary, extreme and definitively lacks wisdom. This would be yet another example of how certain aspects of Modernity do not suit us Muslims. If Wahabism is Modern (Jadidi) then Muslims are better off without it. Reactionary Pakistanis must come to terms with the foolish adage “ but that’s how they do it in Saudi Arabia” as deeply flawed. There was a time the Pakistani state struggled to curb the revolutionary zeal of the Iranian Shi’a revolution, but that is no longer the case. The threat now is the petro-dollar enabled renegade Khawarijism of Wahabi/Salafist domineering and it is eating up theological, moral foundations of Classical Islam.

United States: A primer
We are all familiar with the reasons why the Mayflower came to sail towards the New World. The Founding fathers vision of a future distinctly different from its European confines specially in matters of governance and freedom of religion. Not only is the United States, of the West, from the West, but a stark contradiction to the Europe’s ancien regime. United States, specially after the WWII became the leader of a Western centric Modern world. Thus, the United States represented freedom from oppressive religious totalitarianism as was practiced in Europe in the Dark Ages. And it celebrated a spirit of creativity driven prosperity of the Free Markets system. Like the Virginia Slims commercial , it must be said about the United States, “ you’ve come a long ways baby”. Its one thing to mature, but another to degenerate from a republican form of government.

Pakistan’s relationship to the US has been tenuous at best in the best of times. United States utter smothering of Pakistani politics has largely contributed to rather fine mess that Pakistan finds itself in at the moment. There was a reason why the Pakistanis were burning US Embassy when Ka’aba was run over by the scourge of Juhayman the ultra-orthodox rabid Wahabi. The memory of a popular Pakistani Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto being hanged behest a Pro-US dictator must have been fresh in the minds of liberal and young Pakistanis.

The US and Pakistan remained allies due to a shared perception of the threat of Soviet interventionism in the region. Other common held perceptions in Pakistan that US was a unreliable partner, that failed them in their dire times of need, are actually a failure of full disclosure on part of Pakistani leadership to their own populace of their treatise with the West. Pakistan’s wars with India had its roots in the collective shared animosity and history of the bloody partition as the British were departing. The US would have been directly involved only if the Soviets themselves had attacked Pakistan. The US shied away back them and to this day still shies away from Pakistan confronting India. US encourages certain issues, media talking heads may wish Pakistan to become a image of westernized Turkey, but do not necessarily push hardcore secularism. In fact, US found its allies within the domestic Pakistani political front of the Islamist parties not necessarily moderate secular PPP Bhutto types.

The US follows a milder version of Western Secularism in that its not as hard edged as that practiced in some European nations. The US being a leader of the West wishes to install US Grand Narratives like Freedom, Democracy and Equality. However, the ground reality in both Afghanistan and Iraq clearly betray the broader narrative under US occupation. In America’s War on Terror, Pakistan is crucial. Afpak – the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan is a fault line between the futuristic visions of two different competing and clashing interests, one Western Secular, the other Modernist Islamist. Modernity is a common denominator to both. The only thing Pakistan shares with Modernity is its origin – its status as a Post Colonial independent Nation State. Otherwise, Pakistan is home to majority Sunni populations who are adherents of Sunni sect of the Hanafi Fiqh of Classical Islam.

Pakistan : The road ahead
It would be in the interests of the people of Pakistan to pursue their interests by giving in to legitimate interests of the US as in trade, security, and a committed pursuit of Al-Qaeda elements from a law enforcement perspective. The US should be made to stop drone attacks immediately. If the drone attacks continue, the United States may have another Iran in the making in Pakistan which could have dire consequences for US interests in the region. The United States in return needs to stop alienating Pakistanis by halting the drone attacks.

As noted above, Western Secularism, that is the non-theocratic nature of governance and the Free Markets are ideas not alien to Pakistanis. Temptation should be avoided to see a society deeply steeped in religious piety as being theocratic. Pakistan, on the other hand, needs to challenge the Wahabist Saudi Arabian trained and educated fundamentalists to protect the very foundations of the State. The distinction needs to made to protect the Islamic nature of Pakistan without falling prey to Khawariji doctrine. Khawarijism of Saudi Arabia in the form of Salafist Wahabis is an existential threat, not just to Pakistan, but threat to Islam as well. Pakistan must not fight a Khawariji fight. The US must be coerced and seduced into a negotiated settlement for a post US Afghanistan and a broader comprehensive trade, commercial and security policy for the region. Pakistanis can work with the United States, in that they know the difference between religion, culture, and geography vis a vis the United States. However, the nefarious and pernicious modern ideology of Wahabism poses a clear and present danger to Islam from within.

__________________
When Problems are so Big & Your Strength is no Longer enough to CaRRy them, Don't Give uP; Because where your Strength Ends the Grace of Almighty ALLAH Begins

On July 11, Israel announced it was not interested in having the United Nations become involved as a mediator in its maritime border issues with Lebanon.

But when it comes to recruiting other countries to assist in the enforcement of its naval blockade of Gaza, or having international airlines deny entry to passengers destined to the occupied territories from flying, Israel is keen to have other countries help.

In 2010, Israel faced the worst kind of media exposure when its military raided the Mavi Marmara, shooting dead nine activists and wounding 40 others, evoking global condemnation and a beginning a tectonic shift in its relations with Turkey.

Rather than risking direct confrontation with activists taking part the recent Freedom Flotilla II, or the ''Flytilla'' of activists who attempted to fly into Tel Aviv's Ben Gurion airport, Israel instead chose another strategy that has proven quite effective.

Anchoring the flotilla

In June, ten ships carrying some 200 activists from 20 countries were to take part in what came to be known as "the second Freedom Flotilla", whose goal was to break through the Israeli naval blockade of Gaza.

Israel began its campaign to keep the vessels from reaching Gaza by warning journalists on June 26 they could be banned from entering the country for ten years if they travelled aboard the aid flotilla.

The Israeli government also said journalists could also have their equipment seized, in addition to other sanctions placed on them.

Jay Bushinsky from the Foreign Press Association in Israel questioned the constitutionality of the Israeli government's warning, and said it could be overruled by Israeli courts. He told Al Jazeera: ''If the steps are taken, it will reflect an unwise policy and a losing proposition.''

Israel backtracked and retracted the warning.

The next day, June 27, activists aboard the Swedish ship Juliano reported their vessel had been sabotaged by divers. In a statement, they said, ''hostile divers had destroyed the propeller house and cut the propeller shaft''.

At approximately the same time, Israel escalated a media campaign that was geared towards demonising flotilla activists. According to Tel Aviv daily Yedioth Aharonoth, military sources said participants of the flotilla were planning to pour chemicals, such as sulphur, on Israeli soldiers, and senior Israeli officials claimed that ''radical elements'' among the flotilla activists had stated an intention to ''spill the blood of Israeli soldiers''.

Then on June 30, three days after the Juliano was sabotaged, the Irish ship Saoirse had to abandon plans to set sail, because of what it called Israeli sabotage. Activist Huwaida Arraf told Israel's Army Radio that the ship's engine was damaged while in port and could have led to deaths on board.

"When the engine was started, it completely bent," Arraf said. "While out at sea, if this would have happened, if it would have bent in this way, the boat would have started taking on water and it could have led to fatalities."

The alleged sabotage occurred at the Turkish coastal town of Gocek where the Saoirse has been berthed for the previous few weeks, according to organisers.

Israel refused media requests for comment on both allegations.

Also in late June, an anonymous private legal complaint was filed against the Freedom Flotilla. The complaint alleged that the US boat, The Audacity of Hope, was not seaworthy and therefore was unfit to sail. In response, the harbour master in Athens, Greece, where the boat was docked, told the crew that he could not allow them to leave until the complaint was resolved.

Two days later, the Israel Law Center, Shurat Hadin, accepted responsibility for the complaint, that, while baseless, was a very successful exercise in legal harassment that kept the boat docked. Shurat Hadin is a Tel Aviv-based law centre that, according to its website, specialises in lawsuits against ''terrorists''.

This, coupled with mounting pressure from the Greek and US governments, kept most of the boats moored in Greek ports. Under the watchful eye of the Greek coastguard, when the US and Canadian boats tried to sail, they were both commandeered by coast guard personnel who brought the captured vessels back to port. The captain of the US vessel was jailed for three days, before eventually being released.

Activists with the US boat claimed that Israel had threatened economic sanctions if Greece did not cooperate in preventing the flotilla from leaving Greek ports.

Khalid Tuhraani, an American-Palestinian activist whose ship was stuck in the port of Corfu, told Al Jazeera: ''Many of the Arab countries have, like Greece now, become hostages of the political will of the United States and Israel.

"We chose Greece because this country has a history of support for the Palestinian struggle for freedom,'' he said. "Unfortunately we did not expect the Greek government to just roll over and die. But the Middle East Quartet issued a statement against our flotilla, so I think the pressure on the Greek government just might have been too enormous for it to bear."

Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu publicly acknowledged Greek Prime Minister Georgios Papandreou's cooperation in efforts to stop the flotilla.

Israel's 'no fly' zone

The ''Flytilla'' campaign that took place on July 8 involved an estimated 600 Tel Aviv-bound Palestine solidarity activists whose stated goal was to challenge Israel's policy of not allowing freedom of movement between Ben Gurion airport and the West Bank, and to show the injustice and human rights violations imposed on the Palestinian community by Israel.

However, roughly half of the activists were not allowed to board their planes in their home countries.
Nearly 100 activists were not allowed to board their Lufthansa Air flights at Charles de Galle airport in Paris on Friday morning.

"We came this morning at 4:30am to get our 6:30am flight," Satina, an activist who asked that only her first name be used, told Al Jazeera. "When we arrived and wanted to check in, they told us to go to another check in point, where there they told us they could not check us in. We grouped together and asked why, but they didn't give us anything in writing."

Her group then began demonstrating in front of all the airlines that were not allowing the activists to board, shouting "Collaborators, collaborators!" to condemn the French authorities for their action. In addition to Lufthansa, other airline operators that disallowed activists from boarding were Air France, Alitalia, Malev Hungarian Airlines and easyJet. The Lufthansa-owned Swiss-branded flight operator also banned would-be protesters from their planes.

"We asked why they wouldn't check us in and they would not give a reason, they simply said we could not board this flight," Satina added.

Most of the passengers not allowed to board were French citizens with valid passports, according to Satina, who said activists were "supposed to go on two Lufthansa flights and one Swiss Air flight in terminal one, and Air Italia and Air France flights in Terminal two."

Israeli immigration spokeswoman Sabine Hadad admitted that Israel had given airlines a list of 342 "unwanted people" and warned airlines that those passengers would "immediately be turned back at the expense of the companies".

After the warning was issued, Haddad said, "The companies have already refused to take on board around 200 of these passengers," and added that two US activists who arrived overnight had already been sent back to the United States.

But Donzel Jean Claude, a spokesperson for the Swiss airline, told Al Jazeera that this issue is regulated by the International Civil Aviation Organization, and the position of the airlines was clear.

"If a country informs the airline that somebody will not be allowed to enter, that person will not be allowed to board the flight," he explained, "This problem happens with a lack of visa, or invalid papers, or if in this case we have information from the country these people will not be allowed [in]. For the airline, we have to follow it and we cannot transport the passenger."

Jean Claude said the airline was "legally obliged" to decline boarding said passengers, because "any country has the right to refuse entry. We are obliged to transport somebody having a ticket, but if their papers are not correct or if, for some other reason, they will be denied entry by the country they are travelling to, then we are not obliged."

Dr Mark Ellis is the Executive Director of the International Bar Association in London. He told Al Jazeera that, while Israel's move to bar the passengers from flying is controversial, the country was within its legal right to do so.

"It's a little like the US no-fly list, in the sense the Homeland Security Department is sending out lists of individuals not allowed to enter the US. This has been controversial, especially in Europe. Anytime a country bars someone from entering and it requires an airline to initiate this, it's controversial, but it's not illegal." Ellis explained that flight restrictions are permitted under a country's domestic laws.

The only way to get to the West Bank is through Israel-controlled crossings - either by arriving at Ben Gurion Airport and driving to the West Bank, or from Jordan, passing through the Israeli-controlled crossing on the Jordan-West Bank border.

Similar to the strategy the Israelis used to pressure the Greek government keep the flotilla from sailing, most of the "flytilla" activists never got off the ground. For those who did arrive in Ben Gurion, detention and interrogation by Israeli security was followed by deportation.

Political and economic pressure

For the "flytilla", Israel's tactic of exploiting airlines' policies of watching their bottom line was used to their advantage.

If a passenger flies to Tel Aviv and is denied entry, the airline is responsible for flying them back to their place of departure and has to cover the cost. Thus, it makes no economic sense for an airline to fly a passenger if their destination country informs the airline in advance that said passenger will be denied entry. Hence, Israel's blacklisting the "flytilla" passengers they were able to identify before takeoff.

For the Greek government's role in carrying out Israel's wishes of never having the flotilla set sail, the most obvious point of leverage is also economic.

The Greek economy is expected to shrink 3.7 per cent this year, following a decline of 4.5 per cent in 2010, and two per cent in 2009, while unemployment has shot up to over 16 per cent. Citizens who have held on to their jobs have lost much of their pensions, had their salaries slashed and face yet more job cuts in the years to come as Greece slims down its public sector due to its imposition of internationally mandated spending cuts amid its economic crisis.

Debt-ridden Greece is currently negotiating a second economic rescue package, on top of the $158 billion it was granted a year ago. However, these loans depend on harsh "austerity measures" and an overhaul of Greece's economy, designed to bolster the country in the long-term, but which will most certainly worsen citizens' financial pain in the short-term.

Greece is in a state of economic desperation and chaos, and enraged protests of hundreds of thousands battled riot police on the streets of Athens while the flotilla was being kept in port by the Greek coast guard. For Israel to exert economic pressure on Greece at this time would obviously prove fruitful in having Greece carry out its wishes against the activists.

The US, always the stalwart ally of Israel, also reportedly exerted political pressure on Greece to abide by the wishes of Israel regarding the flotilla.

A friendship based on mutual need

Greece was the country of choice for flotilla activists because, during the 2010 flotilla the country was very accommodating, in addition to its geographic proximity to Gaza.

But, as political relations with Turkey soured in the wake of the 2010 flotilla disaster, the political and economic climate between Greece and Israel improved, and many of the reasons why are clear.

Greece has seen a 50 per cent increase in Israeli tourists over the past year, while in the same period the number of Israeli tourists visiting Turkey has dropped by nearly 90 per cent.

When Turkey downgraded its military and political ties to Israel in the wake of Israel's 2008 attack on Gaza, the political vacuum this caused between Turkey and Israel was filled last year when Greek Prime Minister Georgios Papandreou became the first Greek prime minister to visit Israel in nearly three decades.

A few months after this, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu became the first Israeli leader to pay an official visit to Greece. Greece, who had once been a staunch supporter of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation, has recently transformed itself into Israel's new best friend.

It is a relationship is based on mutual need: Greece remains in economic crisis and the country is frantically looking for new markets and a different source for its tourism, which plays a huge role in the Greek economy, while Israel needs a new strategic political and military ally.

As need dictates, Israel, with the full backing of the US, will likely be forging more relationships such as this. This ability does not bode well for activists seeking governments supportive of future actions.

__________________
When Problems are so Big & Your Strength is no Longer enough to CaRRy them, Don't Give uP; Because where your Strength Ends the Grace of Almighty ALLAH Begins

The Water Politics- World Bank’s role in international Water Dispute resolution
By
Afshan Bangash

The President of World Bank, Eugene Black (1949-63) was once asked in an interview to name the most significant of the tasks he had performed while being on that position. The answer was: facilitative and mediatory role on international water disputes, particularly, the Indus basin disputes between India and Pakistan and Middle Eastern water conflicts. In the same interview, Mr Black also ruled out the possibility of any “political matters” to be taken up for facilitation or mediation by the Bank, unless some financial issues were involved. However, by then, the World Bank’s political face had already manifested itself, through its controversial role in various international water conflicts, where the Bank’s actions so obviously appeared to be driven by global political agenda.

Critics associate serious weaknesses of quality considerations in quantity decisions and rights allocations, disproportionate political power by special interest, and neglect for environmental concerns, human security and development in water-resource agreements, which were reached with direct involvement of the Bank. Moreover, a strong perception has persistently developed over the past six decades, that Bank’s decisions to finance a particular project, or which disputes to be taken up for the Bank’s mediation , or who will get the loan, how and how much, might have significant political implications to it.

Historically on the global scale, the most dramatic influence affecting the construction of the Aswan High Dam was the Egyptian shift from its political alliance with the West to the Soviet Union. In 1956 the USA, Great Britain and the World Bank withdrew their offers to Egypt to construct the High Dam because of Egyptian policy towards neutrality and its alignment with the then USSR. Subsequently, Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal in order to finance the construction of the High Dam with profits from the Canal. The World Bank later on, played a notable role to sort the matter out with Nasser regime over the dispute Suez shareholders’ compensations, mainly safeguarding the British interests.

In the Indian Ocean region, water politics complemented militarism and colonial wars in the post First World War era. Partition of Indian subcontinent into India and Pakistan in August 1947 and the signing of the Indus Treaty in 1960 are two key events in the political history and economics of the subcontinent. It is important to contextualise both ‘conflict’ as well as ‘cooperation’ over Indus waters in overall geo-historical and structural processes of colonialism, neo-colonialism, and imperialism in the region.

The World Bank and the United States (U.S) played a strong mediatory role in the treaty negotiations and mobilised bilateral multilateral organisations, and a consortium of Western governments to back the mediation with large infusions of aid to “stabilise” the water conflicts between India and Pakistan, brokering the Indus Water Treaty in 1960. The treaty provides that the use of water from the Indus River and its tributaries would be divided between India and Pakistan. Though the treaty is perhaps the most enduring pact between the two nuclear powers for the past fifty years, it is coming under increasing strain. Over the past decade, India and Pakistan held a series of talks on the issue of Baglihar Dam but could not resolve the matter within the framework of the Indus Water Treaty.

Political analysts present some strong “political justifications” for the U.S. and World Bank’s voluntary interventions in the Indus basin disputes. In the late 1940s, the Chinese revolution on the India Pakistan border, the invasion and subsequent withdrawal of Soviet Union from Iranian territory adjacent to Pakistan’s western border, the Iranian political turmoil relating Ahmad Reza Shah’s rule and the relevant U.S. political interests in the early 1950s, the infusion of Soviet influence into Afghanistan and the post partition conflict on the newly formed India Pakistan border were feared to harm the interests of the post World II imperial power, i-e. the U.S. The threat of Chinese and Soviet possible intervention into the India Pakistan water conflicts in the Indus basin, had already become a huge concern for the world’ biggest players and thus needed an urgent ‘fixing up. The U.S and World Bank’s further involvement in the water resource development in the Indus Basin during the cold war period further substantiates the political angles to the Bank’s mediatory roles in international water disputes.

In 2005, Pakistan approached the World Bank for mediation. The Bank noted that it was “not a guarantor of the treaty,” but had the authority to appoint a neutral expert. In 2007, the appointed neutral expert Professor Raymond Lafitte of Switzerland delivered a verdict rejecting most of the Pakistani objections. With decades of painstaking negotiations ending in vain, in May 2010, Pakistan filed a case with the International Arbitration Court to stop India from building the dam on another location in the Indus basis, named as Krishanganga Hydroelectric. To this day, Pakistan remains dissatisfied over the Lafitte verdict.

Another example is The Nile basin, which is one of the five regions, which have been identified as critical regions in the analysis of inter-connections between water, food, poverty, and urbanisation. In 1959, Egypt and Sudan resolved their dispute over the sharing of the Nile waters and the construction by Egypt of the High Dam by concluding an Agreement for the Full Utilization of the Nile Waters. However, seven other riparians of the Nile at that time were left out of the process, raising questions about the fairness and sustainability of that Agreement.

Yet another example is intensive problem of the Aral basin and the Agreement on Cooperation in the Management, Utilization and Protection of Interstate Water Resources which was signed on 18 February 1992 by representatives from Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. The Programme has been supported inter alia by the World Bank. Concerns have been raised about the potential effectiveness of these plans and institutions. Some allege that not all promised funding has been forthcoming and there were duplications and inconsistencies in the agreements with legal problems inherent in these agreements.

The whole scenario leaves us with some crucial questions:

Has the World Bank’s role on water disputes been increasingly in violation of its own developmental goals?

Are the world’s river basins being shaped up with an agenda to look after (inter alia) the U.S.’s global strategic interests than the civilian needs?

Did the regime change in water basins in Asia, Central Asia and Africa, occurred more in the international order than domestic?

Some say, yes. In recent years, the rules of the game have changed significantly particularly after the World Bank’s change of policy in 1994. It is now becoming increasingly difficult to receive external support for a “disputed project” in the international basin. The end of the Cold War has also stopped the alternative source of borrowing from the Eastern Bloc (e.g. Soviet assistance to the Aswan Dam Project in the 1950s and 1960s). In spite of increasing water demand, this new development restricts many upstream riparian countries (e.g. Ethiopia in the Nile basin, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan in Aral Sea basin) to undertake new projects, which might become the source of violent conflict in the basin.

Most of the developing countries need financial and technical aid and assistance to undertake a large water project. Very few developing countries like Turkey with GAP Project, China with Three Gorges Project and India with Narmada Project could actually undertake expensive water projects on their own, but it comes with a heavy economic and political “price tag”.

A clear understanding of the details of how water conflicts have been resolved historically is vital in discerning patterns that may be useful in resolving or precluding future conflicts. Detaching itself from the political agendas, World Bank must follow prevailing principles of international law in its funded projects, fairly. World Bank’s “no appreciable harm” priorities must be practised in their true sense, while soliciting funding for water resource development. Moreover, Public involvement is highly recommended in international water conflict management agreements achieved with the involvement of the World Bank. The incorporation of an effective and systematic mechanism of alternative dispute resolution , particularly Arbitration, in the World Bank’s handling of water resources is need of the time.

__________________
When Problems are so Big & Your Strength is no Longer enough to CaRRy them, Don't Give uP; Because where your Strength Ends the Grace of Almighty ALLAH Begins

Ever since the US occupation of Afghanistan began almost 10 years ago two fictions, common in nuclear families, have dominated the discussion on American-Pakistan relations. The first is that neither side is fully aware of what the other is doing; the second is that a total breakdown of the relationship is imminent.

As long as the Pentagon bankrolls the Pakistan army to fight its wars and Nato troops remain in Afghanistan there will be quarrels, charges of infidelity, a reduction in the household allowance, perhaps a separation – but a divorce? Never. The cash-arms nexus is crucial to this most recent phase of the AmPak relationship. In return, as WikiLeaks revealed, Washington defines the rules of the marriage. It drones the country, it violates its sovereignty, its agents kill citizens on public highways. International law is arbitrary and Pakistan’s latest response suitably mild: the expulsion of 100 US army special trainers.

It is in this context that the US government’s threat this week to reduce military aid by $800m (a third of the total annual payment) will hurt, but not too much. General Ashfaq Kayani, the military chief, has been contemptuous of the cuts in aid. Why not give the same amount for civilian purposes, he wondered aloud, knowing full well that any money on this scale given to the Zardari government would end up abroad.

Figures released by Transparency International claim a rise in corruption from 195bn rupees (£1.42bn) in 2009 to 223bn rupees (£1.62bn) last year, but these are an obvious understatement since most of the corrupt deals are conducted without paperwork and many involve the accumulation of valuable property at knockdown prices.

Cronyism and protection rackets have made Karachi, the country’s largest city, a war zone, with rival gangs affiliated to rival political groups. More people died in Karachi last year than in Waziristan or as a result of Afghan war-linked suicide terrorism. The social fabric of the country is being torn apart and an implosion is inevitable.

The AmPak marriage goes back to the 1950s, but was given an enormous boost when the Soviet Union occupied the country in the 1980s. The Pakistan army became a conduit for western support to the mujahideen. The Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI) expanded beyond its wildest dreams and acquired a relative autonomy by dealing directly with the US and the mujahideen. That is when every single group currently fighting AmPak was created to the hosannas of western governments and media. The Afghan war currently under way has not been a happy experience for either side. The Pakistan army was compelled after 9/11 to roll back its only military triumph: the capture of Kabul with the Taliban guerrillas it had trained. The links created over 20 years were less easily broken. It is simpler for powerful empires to execute a 180-degree turn than for the vassal state.

That there is real tension between large chunks of the Pakistan army and the US is indisputable. This has existed ever since the Pentagon called on its Pakistani friends to clear out the AfPak border zone of “militants and terrorists”, and came to a head with the Abbottabad incident and the video-recorded execution of Osama bin Laden.

At a stormy meeting of corp commanders younger generals reported that the high command was getting isolated within the army. If the US goes hunting again to kill more people in the country, tensions could reach breaking point. The fact that the command structures in the Pakistan army have held firm over the years should not be taken as a permanent guarantee. A quick Nato exit from Afghanistan is the only basis to stabilise Pakistan.

__________________
When Problems are so Big & Your Strength is no Longer enough to CaRRy them, Don't Give uP; Because where your Strength Ends the Grace of Almighty ALLAH Begins

There is no doubt that a number of security lapses have occurred since 2 May 2011, when USA took a unilateral action against Osama Bin Laden and let the ISI, Air Force and the Army down. Similarly, the poor performance of Pak Navy was also exposed due to Taliban’s attack. There is no excuse for all these lapses and measures must be taken by all the institutions to ensure that such incidents don’t occur again and all those who are found responsible must be taken to task. On the other hand Parliament should also review its strategy and level of cooperation with USA and Afghanistan. We know that USA always ditched Pakistan and walked away after fulfilling its goals.

The drumbeat of USA that they are giving billions of dollars to Pakistan and Pakistan is not doing enough is absurd. Even Pakistani scholars are misled due to American and western propaganda. Najam Sethi in his tv programme blamed that $14 billion (bn) have been given to Army and $ 6 billion to government by USA. As per Army only $1.4 bn has been received in Coalition Support Fund (CSF) and $1.023 bn in kind out of $12.522 bn received by the government ($8.647 bn in CSF as incremental charges and $3.875 bn as assistance in kind)out of alloted $20bn since last ten years as per Congressional Research Service (CRS) report (available on net). American’s repay us the incremental charges after lot of questioning and it seems as they are giving charity to us. The money which we spend and claim is rejected up to 40%. USA charges the cost and pay of trainers, advisors, training to FC, courses and visits etc from the allotted in kind funds. Similarly, the items sent by them are at time of no use to Pakistan and the prices are also inflated.

There are spare parts sent by the American at their own, which are lying useless and they are not ready to take them back. If we study the CRS Report 2008, we shall come to know that USA is spending more than $76871 per month on maintaining a soldier in Afghanistan and $ 85640 in Iraq and incremental charges paid to Pakistan come to approximately $900 per soldier which is a peanut. We have more than 1000 posts on Pak-Afghan border with 150,000 soldiers where as Coalition Forces are having approximately 80 posts to control the cross border movement but blame is always on Pakistan.

I request the media not fall prey to the false propaganda and must confirm news before making it public.Pakistan has lost more than $60 billions in this War on Terror, and given the sacrifices of nearly 5000 security personnel and more than 35000 civilians. Our economy has meltdown; there is no investment, no tourism, no security, no jobs, people are dying daily but do more mantra is still continuing. US threaten to cut the peanut aid and their politicians always talk about putting strings along it. The problem lies with us because we didn’t define the parameters and level of cooperation with USA. It’s time to look after the national interest first and then of any other country.

Coming on to Afghanistan, the root causes of terrorism are poor law and order situation and the Narco Money which is being supplied by the Afghan Taliban. As per UN report 93% of Narcotics are produced in Afghanistan. Coalition forces reportedly look away from the Narcotics business and no crackdown is being carried out. Moreover, as per American newspapers USA firms even pay the Taliban for safe passage of their men and material. They are talking and contacting Taliban and asking Pakistan to facilitate but Pakistan is not permitted to negotiate with them. More than three million Afghan refuges are still on our soil and as per an official report approximately 600 million rupees per month are being spent by Pakistan. Karzai is not ready to take refugees back and says they will destabilize Afghanistan and so thinks the international community.

What a contrast the destabilization of Pakistan economically and security wise is not a concern of any one. Cross border movement of terrorists is a major issue raised by USA, NATO and Afghanistan but they are against fencing. Biometric system installed in 2007 has been made dysfunctional due to the resistance by Afghan government and people. Indians have been brought on our western borders, foreign funded terrorists are attacking from Afghanistan and now we are fighting on two fronts. Our strategic partner betrayed us and launched Abbottabad operation from Afghanistan, so how can we believe that Indians or even Afghans will not carry out any misadventure.

I think time has come to safeguard our national interests very jealously and take radical measures to over come the menace of terrorism. The solution to get out from this vicious circle is not easy but it’s not impossible also. If we all work sincerely on one point agenda that is to root out terrorism then we can do it. There is no doubt that military and civil governments committed blunders whether individually or collectively and damaged Pakistan and people were and are the main sufferer. If we continue on the diverging axis then no one can save us from the disaster. The mess which has been created by all of us has to be cleared by ourselves. The criticism on the security forces is on the rise. There is no harm to criticize with a view to reform but when the criticism is with a hidden motive to degrade, point scoring or defame, then it’s a dangerous situation which must be arrested. Nawaz Sharif is calling the shots against army.

Altaf Hussain in his address blamed that 80% of the national budget is spent on Army. It’s wrong in 2010/11 it was Rs 442bn i.e. 15.99% for the armed forces including ISI, SPD, and 16 other defence related organizations and Army budget was only Rs 207bn. Instead of cutting the teeth we should look in to the wastage of national exchequer and control it also. Defence forces budget has already being kept minimum and even COAS has asked the government to spend approximately $6bn received in CSF for the welfare of the people. Over Rs 400bn losses and subsidy in Steel Mill, Pepco, PIA and more than 1000bn goes in corruption. Similarly theft of gas and electricity has not been controlled. Armed forces pay billions of rupees in shape of taxes and last year it paid over 72bns.The remarks by Asima Jahangir that “now Pakistan will remain or Army” are very astonishing. The president of Supreme Court Bar Association is saying opposite to what is essential for each other.

The Army is for protection of Pakistan and it’s a famous saying “if there is no army in any country then army of any other country will be there”. Similarly, the National Assembly’s standing committee on human rights convened an extraordinary emergency meeting in connection with extra judicial killings by law enforcement agencies. It blamed the armed forces for extra judicial killing. The official note released to the press reads “The behaviour of Police / FC / Ranger / Armed forces is rude and like barbarian”. The fault is of individuals but all the security institutions are being degraded. I don’t advocate that army be treated as a sacred cow but mistakes of individuals should not be taken as fault of the institutions. We need to strengthen all the institution, may it be civil or army. If we don’t back our forces then how these soldiers who are sacrificing their lives will perform?

The present socio political, law and order and economic situation of the country is very bad. Dozens are being gun downed in target killing, poor are committing suicides and industries are shifting to other countries but no immediate concerns are shown by any one. The commission on 2 May and strategy on counter terrorism has not been made but some people are creating rift between the security forces and the people.

This nation has the potential of playing a role in the world politics but we must first put our house in order, set our direction right and work for nationalism rather than individualism. The process of accountability must be very fair and no one could be allowed to break the law, may it be a president or a common citizen. We have enormous resources, high mountains, fertile land, vast sea belt and very talented youth but are deficient of sincerity and hard work. We are cheating no one but our selves. We are cutting the same branch on which we are sitting. The noose is being tightened not only by our arch enemy India but our strategic partner USA who has a history of betrayal.

The indo – Israel and USA nexus is becoming very dangerous but we are still divided on the question that this is our or American’s war. We must rise from the petty personal interests and give this nation a direction. We spent lot of money and hard work to build the nuclear capability and our enemies are talking very openly about capping, dismantling or putting UN safeguards. As per a British news paper, USA has already ear marked the forces to land on nuclear sites, incase these are threatened by terrorists. The bomb explosions and suicidal attacks are in daily routine and some day any incident near to these installation by the foreign funded terrorists will provide the opportunity to USA/West to put sanctions on us as has been done in the post.

Its time to wake up because our economy is going down which must be controlled immediately because Soviet Union broke due to economic melt down although its armed forces and nuclear weapons were still intact. Time is running out, therefore, all political parties and army needs to join hands together, a concerted effort on all fronts in needed and it’s not a job of one person or one party. The whole nation have to work, work, and work very hard before it’s too late. If we continue weakening own institutions then we don’t need enemies. Therefore, we have to get united and pull the country out from these crises and together we will surmount these challenges Inshah Allah.

The writer is a freelance columnist and defence analyst based in Rawalpindi who writes on variety of issues. His numerous articles have been published in print media and posted on different websites. He can be reached at 61shahid@gmail.com.

__________________
When Problems are so Big & Your Strength is no Longer enough to CaRRy them, Don't Give uP; Because where your Strength Ends the Grace of Almighty ALLAH Begins

THE Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the largest country on the Arabian Peninsula, and Pakistan, the second largest Muslim state after Indonesia, the world’s two leading Islamic countries, enjoy excellent relations. Saudi Arabia has always served as the solid foundation for eternal, unflinching and pure bondage of brotherhood and Pakistan is proud of its strong ties with the Kingdom.

Saudi Arabia has been a second home for Pakistanis and they feel blessed to contribute to the progress and prosperity of the Kingdom. Sentiments of brotherhood are rooted in culture, shared values and common faith. Pakistan holds Saudi Arabia in high esteem. Pakistani nation has deep respect for the people of Saudi Arabia. This relation and respect is centuries old and is beyond materialistic considerations. Every Pakistani wants to see the Kingdom strong and stable. They see the strength and stability of the Kingdom as their own strength and stability. Close geographical proximity, historic trade ties, religious bond and the economic assistance have created a strong bondage of trust between the two countries.

Saudi Arabia has always supported Pakistan on international forums. On the Kashmir issue, Saudi Arabia has been more supportive of Pakistan than any other country in the world. The Saudi media and the public in general have also been supporting Pakistan on this issue. Similar support has been extended in the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) meetings as well.

Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, being the founding members of the OIC, attach great importance to the cause of the Ummah. Both the countries have traditionally supported all Islamic causes.

Both Pakistan and Saudi Arabia strongly advocate dialogue among cultures, civilizations and faiths, so as to remove misgivings among the followers of different faiths. Incitement to racial and religious hatred has been identified as a threat to international peace and security. President Asif Ali Zardari said, “It is our firm belief that tolerance for cultural, racial, religious and linguistic diversities is essential for international understanding and friendship. Both the countries will continue to support and participate in all initiatives designed to promote inter-faith and inter-cultural harmony.” Saudi Arabia has been among the first countries to acknowledge Pakistan as a newly developed country and extended a helping hand to strengthen the newly developed state.

Saudi Arabia has helped Pakistan in many fields since its inception in 1947; Saudi Arabia has provided assistance in form of fuel donation, fuel credit. The most famous example is the Faisal Mosque in Islamabad.

The Kingdom’s Ambassador to Pakistan Abdul Aziz bin Ibrahim Al-Ghadeer speaking on the occasion of the Kingdom’s National Day once said, “Relations between the Kingdom and Pakistan, which began during the reign of the country’s founder King Abdul Aziz and Pakistan’s first leader Muhammad Ali Jinnah have reached their peak in the reign of Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah.”

These relations, he continued, stem from the bonds of religion, common customs and unified culture. “The two countries enjoy exceptional relations and share identical positions on several important Arab, Islamic and international issues,” the ambassador said, emphasizing the Kingdom’s keenness to enhance the national unity of Pakistan.

Al-Ghadeer said: The Kingdom stands first in the world in terms of the aid it has donated to Pakistan. Although the United Nations has fixed the percentage of donations to developing countries at no less than 0.07percent of a country’s income, Saudi Arabia donated SR245 billion between 1973 and 1993, which equals 5.5 percent of its average annual production during that period, he said. King Abdullah has said that no incident can affect the relations of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and in every difficult situation the Kingdom will stand with Pakistan.

King Abdullah had said in a meeting with one of the leaders of a political party of Pakistan, “Masses of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are like brothers and with the passage of time; relations of both countries will get more stability.” Saudi Foreign Affairs Minister, Prince Saud Al-Faisal in a meeting held in May with Federal Minister for Interior A. Rehman Malik, said that Saudi Arabia values its durable relations with Pakistan.

Successive Saudi leadership has visited Pakistan from time to time. King Saud visited Pakistan in 1954, King Faisal in 1966 and 1974 and King Khalid in 1976. Similarly, King Fahd, as crown prince, visited Pakistan in 1980 and King Abdullah went to Pakistan as crown prince in 1984, 1997, 1998 and 2003.

During his first tour to Asia, Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, King Abdullah included Pakistan as his final destination. During the visit five agreements/MoU encompassing political, economic, educational and scientific –cum-technical cooperation were inked by Pakistan and Saudi officials in the presence of heads of state of two countries. The two sides also issued a joint statement outlining points of convergence in their political views besides pinpointing activities they want to jointly undertake in future.

Saudi Arabia remains a major destination for immigration amongst Pakistanis, the number of whom living in Saudi Arabia stands between 900,000 and 1 million. Saudi Arabia is the largest source of petroleum for Pakistan.

It also supplies extensive financial aid to Pakistan and remittance from Pakistani migrants to Saudi Arabia is also a major source of foreign currency.

In recent years, both countries have exchanged high-level delegations and developed plans to expand bilateral cooperation in trade, education, real estate, tourism, information technology, communications and agriculture.

__________________
When Problems are so Big & Your Strength is no Longer enough to CaRRy them, Don't Give uP; Because where your Strength Ends the Grace of Almighty ALLAH Begins

The international community is failing to provide enough resources for Pakistan to recover from the devastating floods that struck a year ago, an aid agency said on Sunday.

Islamic Relief goes on to warn that Pakistan is not sufficiently prepared for the coming crises.

“Millions of people could be hit by floods because infrastructure, such as dykes and embankments, is weak, and the lack of funds means that some communities have not been able to adequately reconstruct their homes or restore their livelihoods as farmers,” the group said in a report, Flooded and Forgotten.

The worst floods in Pakistan’s history forced 11 million people from their homes and inundated a fifth of the country – the size of England. Nearly 2,000 people were killed and 1.7m homes destroyed.

Twelve months on, Islamic Relief says at least 8 million people still need basic healthcare, food, shelter or schooling, while the UN warns that up to 6 million could be affected by more floods during the coming monsoon season.

Fadlullah Wilmot, Pakistan director of Islamic Relief, said flooding had already begun, with 100 villages in Ghorki in Sindh province already inundated, affecting 10,000 people. Areas of Punjab were under three to four feet of water, she said.

“Malnutrition, which is already severe, is worse,” said Wilmot. “Scenes you see in Africa, you can see them in Sindh.”

Wilmot said the Pakistan government is estimating that between 2 million and 6 million people will be affected this year.

“Many already vulnerable people who have not recovered from last year will be made more vulnerable,” said Wilmot. “It’s a dismal picture.”

Islamic Relief said a UN appeal for $1.9bn is $603m short, with the gap highest for housing and agriculture and food security. It praised Norway, Luxembourg, Denmark, Sweden, the US, Japan and the UK for giving generously, but singled out France and Italy as laggards.

“The global response has been inadequate,” said Wilmot. “The world community needs to come together and look at this situation. There is a famine in the Horn of Africa, but don’t let Pakistan fall off the radar, it’s too important for the world strategically. I have been to many villages, the people are very resilient, they are not looking for handouts but handups, a little bit of assistance to get them on their feet.”

In the long term, says Islamic Relief, there is a need for an international mechanism for providing adequate, predictable finance for developing countries affected by disasters related to climate change – a problem for countries which, like Pakistan, are vulnerable to the phenomenon. Another problem, it says, is that Pakistan is not recognised as a “most vulnerable” country under the 2009 Copenhagen accord, which commits rich countries to provide additional funding to tackle climate change.

__________________
When Problems are so Big & Your Strength is no Longer enough to CaRRy them, Don't Give uP; Because where your Strength Ends the Grace of Almighty ALLAH Begins

Reading The Rommel Papers, Erwin Rommel contends that governmental downfalls are inevitably preceded by a no-confidence in state policies by their own core teams. “Hannibal, Napoleon and Lee lost confidence of their commanders before succumbing to defeat, and Hitler was no different – Loss of Rommel was as much responsible for his defeat as was his genius in his victories.” Here at home the situation looks alarmingly similar. The economic team is disintegrating and that too quite fast – Governor State Bank resigned recently, the Chief Economist has also opted out and gone back to his teaching assignments in the USA, the commerce and the industries ministries continue to look rather ineffective, and the comments last week (in an English daily) by the Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission do not inspire much confidence either. He was lamenting the departure of his Chief Economist by complaining about the lack of independence cum autonomy enjoyed by imported technocrats working for the government and that owing to a lack of expertise available at home, the urgent need to jack up their pays in order to lure them back from abroad to work for Pakistan. While he definitely has a point in his first concern but regrettably, one cannot agree with his latter suggestion. History tells us that these so-called imported managers do more harm than good. Similar description is given in the age-old Chanakya’s doctrine that state service requires passion, commitment and a sense of nationalism, rather than monetary rewards. Further, linking statehood to personal financial gains leads to creating a corporate culture syndrome that hinges merely on bottom line results devoid of humane elements like equitable distribution and stately motherhood.

A good argument going for the government seems to be that things somehow keep on muddling through despite all the negative factors being cited by its critics. Governmental defence being that while it looks at the achievements regardless of how they came about, its critics just moan about the glass being half empty and refuse to give credit where due. Agreed, there is some weight in this thinking, but it would serve the country well if the policymakers can adopt the habit of being proactive to the looming dangers ahead instead of mostly resorting to damage control. During my days of association with the Chinese economic think-tanks while working with them in the formation of the BFA (Boao Forum for Asia), I was fascinated to note that every financial result announcement in China was accompanied by the following: (a). Original target benchmarked for that figure, (b). Net present value if the results had been advanced by year to calculate what they refer to as time value gain/loss, and (c). Projection for the next year. For example, the Pakistani government has been creating this hype about a 35 percent surge in its textile exports during the fiscal year that ended June 2011, but in China this would have been accompanied by a projected figure warning all concerned that given the domestic energy crisis and changed global realities next year is likely to turn out significantly different!

And it is precisely this lack of discipline and non-transparency in our statistics and reporting that makes our relationship with the international financing institutions rather rocky. Invariably they complain about not being able to take our numbers on face value and this lack of trust ultimately reflects in our weakness to negotiate packages that can be better suited for our needs. No lender is going to lend unless it sees seriousness on the part of the borrower to reform and to equally contribute (if not more) to its endeavour to recover. The recent bailout for Greece is a good example to emulate for other countries who also find themselves to be in a similar quagmire. While the ECB (European Central Bank) and the IMF provided for roughly $100 billion over longer term, the Government of Greece itself, its co-investors/partners and the Greek population will be contributing in excess of $130 billion (60 percent) both in the short-run and over a long-term period. The Greek banks (privately owned), which earned healthy profits through state patronage when the going was good but failed in their responsibility to filter in-coming debt will pick up close to $60 billion out of the 130 while the rest will come from a mixture of contribution from the Greek nation-state partners holding long-term Greek bonds and through sales of Greece’s state assets that thus far had been subsidising areas of public services.

Ironically, at the home front, we may find ourselves in Greek shoes sooner than we anticipate. If our expenses are not reduced quickly and the revenues do not pick up rapidly in the next nine months, then we could also very well be facing a default on our $1.20 billion payment due to the IMF in February 2012. Rumour has it that instead of finding ways to muster up the required amount (or a major part of it) we are instead looking for a bailout on a bailout from the IMF. Though the chances of such a request being accepted appear to be quite slim at the moment, the thing is that even if the IMF obliges, one fails to see how will such a supplementary package help our case beyond just meeting the looming instalment deadline?

The other evening talking to a very eminent senior (also my father’s contemporary at the Doon School), Mr Masood Hassan – who has rendered countless national services in his capacity as the Defence and Industry’s Secretary, In-charge of Pakistan’s First Missiles Programme and the pioneer President of The Chand Bagh School – I asked him that given his knowledge and experience, what is the one principal mistake that we are making in managing our economy? His answer in one line: “Too much emphasis on macro-management and too little on micro.” The devil is in the detail cum implementation and what we need are good management experts and not school economists. “My staff and I decided to ignore the unnecessary nonsense of the academia Economists as we needed to concentrate on the job in hand, which was implementing everything that was necessary to win the war we were in” – Field Marshal Rommel on his African Campaign.

This is where our government needs help. Unfortunately, over the last two decades the development in the bureaucratic human resource has not been able to keep pace with the expansion both in the size of the national economy per se and the population. Mediocrity in the political sphere has not helped either. It is about time for a serious rethink on how to manage our economic affairs going forward. Perhaps, a model similar in spirit if not in practice to the one being exercised in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs may be worth a consideration. Meaning, a consensus needs to be developed on our economic priorities regardless of which party is voted into the government and then a steady course has to be followed (free of political interference) by providing the economic managers complete job security and independence to formulate and implement the policies required to achieve the benchmarked national objectives.

__________________
When Problems are so Big & Your Strength is no Longer enough to CaRRy them, Don't Give uP; Because where your Strength Ends the Grace of Almighty ALLAH Begins

i can say that ur efforts are matchless
i passionately wait for ur posts!
thanks alot for sharing such nice articles and papers with us.
Allah bless you brother
plz keep it up !

__________________
Recite a Darood Shareef at least once and now.
(RAFIQUE AHMED KHOKHAR)