Ankh ke taroon ki corruption - II

Nawaz Sharif Contd.:

In a story reported by all major newspapers in Pakistan on Nov. 12, 2009, it has come to public knowledge that one of the cases withdrawn by Pervez Musharraf under "Jeddah Deal" was a money laundering case.

Ironically, there exists a confessional statement of Ishaq Dar, a close associate and father-in-law of Nawaz Sharif's daughter, confessed before interrogating agencies that he helped Sharifs do money laundering of around US$ 15 million through Hudabiya Paper Mills accounts. It is also worth-noticing that Sharifs during there second term gave deadline for those owning black money to turn it legal.

Ironically, neither the money laundering of Sharifs, for which Ishaq Dar gave a confessional statement, nor the general amnesty given under Sharif's for money launderers has ever been taken up by the "azad adaliya". Neither did "azad adaliya" intervene to ask that under what law the investigation and case of money laundering against Sharifs was dropped despite Ishaq Dar's confessional statement (Link).

Sharifs' spin doctors said that Mr. Ishaq Dar gave the confessional statement under torture and the allegations were politically fabricated. Now here lies the inherent hypocrisy of the whole accountability crusade. Even PPP claims that cases against them are politically motivated. Not only that on at least two occasions, the courts (when SC turned HC judgment and forced HC judges to resign on grounds that the trial and judgment were biased against BB and AZ) and the prosecutors (Musharraf issuing NRO) have accepted that the trials were politically motivated. Also, unlike Sharifs there has never been a single confessional statement of any accused. Even then, the Sharifs of Jeddah want to persecute PPP while want to remain untouched and their beloved judiciary so far is ensuring this for them.

With such track record of judiciary and a one-sided focus on accountability, it seems evident that the "crusade" against corruption is yet another false start.

Supreme Court ki ankh ke taroon ki corruption - I

In the hearing on NRO cases, NAB admitted that it had spent over PKR 2 billion on investigations against Benazir Bhutto and Asif Ali Zardari. Despite spending this hefty amount, nothing could be proved against the two. In this series, I am trying to highlight the allegations on Right-wing politicians, bureaucrats, army officials and media personnel. For the sake of justice, I want these allegations to be thoroughly investigated with an equivalent inflation adjusted amount spent and brought to logical conclusion. In the spirit of investigation against BB and AZ, I would suggest that the fairness demands that the prosecution team for these allegations be chosen by PPP leadership to have a level playing field.

Nawaz Sharif:

Here is a list of allegations of corruption against Nawaz Sharif - in a five clip series.











Nawaz Sharif had two convictions against him, one is a case of hijacking and treason and the other of corruption in purchase of a helicopter. He had a number of corruption cases pending against him and many inquiries under way. As a result of the presidential pardon given in response to written request by Nawaz Sharif and other family members, the inquiries were stopped, all cases were dropped and sentences were removed as a result of a presidential pardon.


Nawaz Sharif himself acknowledged the deal (worse than any NRO) - Express Link. The guarantors intervened to force Nawaz Sharif to stick to the deal till Benazir Bhutto and NRO paved way for his return (Dawn Link).

Ironically, without probing into the detail of the allegations, investigations dropped and convictions, Supreme Court in a haste set aside all allegations against Nawaz Sharif. Unlike NRO, it did not question non-probing of Federal and Provincial Govts. on political grounds.

Another shameful allegation against Mr. Sharif is his involvement in attack on Supreme Court.









Mr. Sharif and his cronies say that Musharraf could not find anything against him in his 9 years. It's a blatant lie because under Mr. Sharif's exclusive NRO (known as Jeddah deal for Sharif's of Jeddah) Musharraf dropped all allegations, cases and investigations against him and his family and they were never opened during his tenure. Nation needs a thorough investigation into these allegations on the lines of allegations against Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto and President Zardari and trial of all cases against him under international observers.

His foreign business interests and assets should also be probed much the same way as has been done against President Zardari. It's a fair demand and I invite you all to support me on this.

Understanding Militant Extremism

Unfortunately the definition of and discourse on militant extremism in Muslim world in general and Pakistan in particular is being defined by the same elements who are this extremism's biggest proponents. With Pakistan and the society facing the existential threat at the hands of militant extremism, understanding the true element of militant extremism is an exercise worthy.

The most popular conception is that extremism stems from poverty and injustice. However there has never been given any empirical evidence to prove either. For all the arguments around, the argument of injustice is the most bizarre. Never even once have we been shown that the suicide bomber who detonated himself was actually related to someone directly affected by war. Neither was any of the executioner of 9/11 or any later attack in the West a Palestinian, Afghan or Kashmiri. Saying that injustice causes those affected to seek revenge is biggest divergence for commoners to identify the root cause of extremism.

Same goes for poverty and illetracy, just when they are labeled as causes of extremism, the reality is a little bit contrary. Before I move on, let me clarify that I in no way am saying that poor or illiterate do not indulge in militant extremism. On the contrary, they too do. But the real cause of them indulging in such activities is not poverty or illiteracy but something we will discuss from here on. If poverty would have been the reason for this, how come the men at the helm of this "terrorist jihad" rich and famous?

An objective review of the situation and we will realize that the rise of extremist tendencies in Pakistan is because of educated, well-to-do individuals. If one tries to profile these individuals most of them will be in seek of recognition, mostly confused about their individual as well as national identity, and with the tendency to be assertive without any objective knowledge. Their quest for recognition gets fully exploited by Religion Inc. and in the process they get the importance they so desperately seek. Piety becomes their tool for recognition and in the process they start treading a path to become holier than thou. In the process, they seek a schizophrenic state where they start considering them divinely ordained to do God's work. These people, often educated and wealthy, use their influence to rope in the have-nots in their circle of influence.

To ensure that it hooks them to fullest, Religion Inc. indoctrinates the disciples fully with a world view where they find themselves the most wronged and also the ones with the divine ordeal to right the wrongs. This indoctrination inculcates biases and hate that is the root-cause of the ills of religious terrorism. No amount of military operations or economic support can root out the menace of terrorism till this indoctrination in the name of hate is stopped. World will need to review the doctrine of free speech in the light of this emerging reality. A balance needs to be created between protecting the sacred ethos of free speech and curbing the inculcation of hate in the name of free speech.

For our part, the menace that we are facing requires us to adopt stronger anti-hate speech and anti-enticement to terrorism speech laws than any of the anti-hate laws the world has ever known. We need not be confused with all the rhetoric of exploitation of anti-hate laws to curb the free speech. For me the line is clear. One has the right to criticize anything and everything but using the criticism as a tool to justify acts of violence or terrorism or inculcating hate against a race or community must not be tolerated. This is where the devil will be chained.

Need for a Charter of Security

Is anyone else also at loss with the recent assertion of PM Gillani that a rise in US troops will lead to increased militancy in Pakistan as a result of influx of Taliban from Afghanistan? Is it not that a few weeks ago, when Waziristan operation was launched our security apparatus showed its displeasure at lack of American troops on the other side of the border and the fact that this leads to Taliban fleeing into Afghanistan? And is it not that it is Pakistan who since 2005 is asking Americans to do more? Then why this sudden change of heart? Where is the consistency in country's security doctrine? Or is there a security doctrine in the first place?

The fundamental problem with Pakistan's security doctrine is that the security establishment in the country thinks critical to their strategic interests the elements (read Taliban and other extremists) and tactics (read blatant intervention) that have become extremely unpopular with the people of Pakistan. To defend them the establishment is ducking behind one facade after another from raising hue and cry about Indian involvement to blaming US for doing less and doing more in the same breath.

Something that makes this fundamental problem aggravate is the fact that for most players in the country's security doctrine, the beliefs seem not be based on ground realities but cliches. I do not think it has been since ages (I think since the days when Mododites under Zia inculcated the Jihad doctrine as the cornerstone of security/foreign policy) that a candid review of the emerging realities in our region and the direction for foreign and security policy has been undertaken.

Just when it is a pathetic situation to be in as being world's 7th nuclear power, it offers an opportunity as well. For just 5 years back, the country had no internal doctrine as well just as it does not have an external doctrine. The political forces in the country, the biggest two, seized the moment and initiated a dialogue which led to the Charter of Democracy. Charter of Democracy provided a comprehensive consensus on the movement ahead on the internal issues and is fast turning into the first consensus document since 1973's constitution. Slowly but gradually, it is helping democracy take root in the country and address the balance of power between civilian institutions. And despite political opportunism (which must be taken as a ground reality), it has helped set the game plan and rules which act as a deterrence when the hostility goes overboard.

What the nation needs is a same effort on the lines of Charter of Democracy for its security and foreign policy doctrine. All political parties and political leadership has either been naive or cautious in not treading the courses on security doctrine which fall out of the realm of existing cliche. It is high time that country's leadership comprising all segments of a diverse Pakistani nation sit together and answer some fundamental questions like

• What should be the broader objectives of our foreign policy? And in line of these objectives what goals should we pursue across the globe in line with the existing ground realities to best serve Pakistan's interests?
• Where lies the ownership of the policy?
• Who will be responsible to implement what goals?
• To what degree should the intervention be part of our security doctrine?
• A candid analysis of how soft power can help further our security/foreign policy objectives?
• Do we want to be an expansionist state or not?
• Who would have the power to modify and monitor the objectives?
• What should be the role of 6 key external players (US, China, Saudi Arabia, UK, Iran and India) in Pakistan's international relations?
• How to devise a mechanism to review and change the foreign policy objectives in line with ever-changing world around us?
  

I have views on each and everyone of these issues. For instance, I do not agree with the doctrine of strategic depth, but if after a genuine dialogue between the representative forces (read political parties) emerges on continuing with it, so be it. Army and Intelligence Services should be involved in the process, for they are at the forefront of security issues. But Army and Intelligence Services should enter into this to debate and not to bully?

Army must also realize the squeeze in which the nation is and must acknowledge that the old doctrine and methodologies need be changed. Army by its design and mandate is an executing authority and despite the brainy resource pool is incapable of security and foreign policy formulation because of the constraints in the very make of an executing institute. Even the security doctrine that Army followed for the last 4 decades was conceived by a civilian Z. A. Bhutto. Everything that stands at the center of our security doctrine (except the ideological fervor of Madodites) was Bhutto's mastermind be it nuclear weapons, intervention in Afghanistan, hostile posture towards India, pan-Islamism, opening up to China, removing Middle Eastern influence from Balochistan; it was all a civilian's brainchild which Army made cornerstone of its doctrine. However, having operations and not strategy focus, it failed to realize what were the objectives of these doctrines and when to get the best bargain for changing the policy.

A critical external element in this strategy will be to take US and China on board. I think of a number of international issues that they are trying to settle between them, a consensus policy on Pakistan should be a priority. US must realize that her decision to abandon Pakistan in 1990s has cost her influence here that turned out to be China's gain. As a fair bargainer, it should be willing to pay the price for her action while trying to consolidate what it could.

Army is a powerful institution but consensus among main political players of the country on foreign policy, safeguarding national and party interests, will be very hard for Army to go against. We have little time left and the challenge of devising a rational and coherent foreign and security policy and a corresponding monitoring/control framework awaits our political leadership. On it hinges survival of democracy and of Pakistan.

An assessment of Pak-US Relationship!

Diagnosing Pakistan


By Kathy Kemper - 11/10/09 02:34 PM ET

Husain Haqqani offered a candid assessment of where Pakistan stands at my IFE / INFO Global Connections Public Policy Roundtable last Friday. In addition to being Pakistan’s youngest ambassador to the U.S., Haqqani was a strong advocate of the late Benazir Bhutto, who stood as a symbol of democracy in a country where dictatorship has long prevailed. 



Pakistanis, Haqqani noted, believe that the U.S. has long used their country, not engaged it. Hillary Clinton’s trip there was significant to the extent that they saw a different side of our country. In attending town halls and visiting colleges and universities, she tried to demonstrate that the U.S. is genuinely concerned with Pakistan’s welfare. Polls showed that Pakistani approval ratings of the U.S. went up by 7 percent after her visit. Unfortunately, though, one high-profile visit is unlikely to do much, because many of the country’s woes are historically rooted. Pakistanis had no idea what suicide bombers were prior to 9/11. The U.S. supported radical Islamists in their fight against the Soviet Union, but it’s precisely those Islamists who are now waging jihad across the globe, including in Pakistan; many Pakistanis regard the Taliban as an existential threat to their country.

Although Pakistan’s economy is back on track (largely due to IMF lending), insecurity limits its ability to achieve sustained economic growth. It shares a border with a hostile neighbor (India), with a desperately poor country in which the Taliban is reasserting its influence (Afghanistan), and with a nation that’s in the midst of tremendous domestic upheaval (Iran). Being in a near-constant struggle against internal and external threats, real and imagined, has its consequences: Pakistan spends far more on defense than education, with the result that the country has only a 38 percent literacy rate. As both Ambassador Said Jawad of Afghanistan and Ambassador Husain Haqqani say, "We live in a dangerous neighborhood."

Haqqani noted that India is perhaps the biggest elephant in the room. Pakistan is wary of the Indo-U.S. relationship, which is robust and multifaceted. He mentioned that India is Boeing’s largest customer, and also that 26 members of the Obama administration are Indian-American; facts like these naturally make Pakistan nervous.

As much as it’s concerned with India, Pakistan is also anxious to see how its relationship with the U.S. evolves. Haqqani noted that Pakistanis want to receive credit for their counterterrorism efforts; Pakistan has killed or captured more al Qaeda leaders than has any other country. He concluded by saying that the U.S. won’t truly be able to win hearts and minds there until it adopts a more comprehensive engagement strategy — one that has a political element and a socioeconomic element. Haqqani encouraged American companies to invest in Pakistan, offering a Thomas Friedman-like thought that Pakistanis need to be making boxer shorts for Wal-Mart, not boxes of bombs.

Whether or not that hope is realized will depend a lot on how Pakistan’s military fares against the Taliban. Let’s hope that it succeeds.


Kathy Kemper is founder and CEO of the Institute for Education, a nonprofit foundation that recognizes and promotes leadership and civility locally, nationally and in the world community.

Source:
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/foreign-policy/67203-diagnosing-pakistan

Power Play in Pakistan - Analysis and Consequences

On recent political developments, I would not waste my time on dealing with the principled arguments, for post mid-night GHQ meeting, the Jeddah dealers (who happened to be convicts as well) had taken the highest moral ground in opposing NRO (a law for mere accused). Neither am I going to ponder on the dichotomy that the biggest beneficiary of NRO, MQM has become its principled opposition. For in power play, talk of principles is waste of time.
The realistic analysis thus should revolve around the following questions:
• Why Army wants Asif Ali Zardari out?
• In this battle of Army (Establishment) vs. PPP, will army succeed in ousting Asif Ali Zardari?
• What are the options that Army has, and how practical they are?
• What are the options of Asif Ali Zardari?
• What will be the consequences if establishment succeeds? What will be the consequences if it fails?
I think the reason to oust Zardari can be traced back to PPP’s confrontation with Army on issues like India policy, Kerry Lugar Bill, civilian control over ISI, difference of opinion on good Taliban vs. Bad Taliban doctrine of national security establishment, and difference of opinion on permanent settlement of Afghan issue. More importantly, there is a genuine fear on part of elements in Army that if the current process is allowed to get unchecked, it will close the doors for a military intervention forever because of public mood against military intervention and commitment of international powers for a democracy in Pakistan.
Asif Ali Zardari has been continuously under attack by his opponents led by Army. Starting from Long March, when Army’s support seemed covert (though civilian bureaucracy’s was overt) to Kerry Lugar Bill and now NRO, it seems the design to undermine the reemergence of PPP to the helm of affairs in Pakistan through the Frankenstein of judiciary is well on its way. The only difference is that this time the PPP’s rise is backed by a wave of a massive international support coupled with her large vote bank.
Till now the establishment has succeeded in undermining PPP on at least two occasions, one on the issue of restoration of judges and the other on NRO. On the contrary, in the greater scheme of things, PPP’s wins have been securing all key political posts and a victory on Kerry Lugar Bill issue.
Establishment, led by Army, in this battle has been organized and is in full control of mass media. On the other hand, PPP seems to have her share of gaffes when it comes to managing the issues of on-going power play. First it erred in not having a comprehensive plan to tackle the post-Governer Raj situation in Punjab. You cannot plan on stopping long march while having Shahbaz Sharif’s loyal bureaucracy in place. It seems the docile, all-compromising nature of Prime Minister Gillani was to be blamed for it. Another failure came on media management front. If you plan on surviving in a hostile power game, you cannot do it with Fauzia Wahab as your media manager. Even bigger folly came in taking the support of allies for granted on KLB and NRO, without realizing their close relationship with the establishment.
From where things are, Asif Ali Zardari seems under considerable pressure. But for now, he cannot be taken out through any constitutional process, for 2/3 majority in parliament is not there to impeach him and because of immunity he enjoys being the president; he cannot be removed through courts even if NRO is set aside by the courts. Army’s best bet is to pressurize him, force his closest team members out through courts, and in the process hope that a larger chunk of PPP MPs breakaway.
Army’s another problem is that if PPP is ousted; no coalition can be formed without combining Q and N factions of PML. This arrangement will be hard to negotiate. Army will be hoping on a breakaway in the PPP led by PM Gillani for its plan to fall in place. Army’s biggest advantage is that it has shown beyond doubt that it still controls enough political parties in Pakistan to turn a government with comfortable majority into a minority government. Another thing on which Army is banking is that in the present regional situation, US and Western powers will overlook any political adventure on part of Army because of their reliance on it. We analyze this in detail below.
For Asif Zardari, he still holds card of PPP vote bank and his strong support in Sindh. He will also be banking on support from Western powers. The biggest variable, yet unknown for its silent style of diplomacy, is China. How far will China go to extend support to any post-Zardari government and how clear it signals her role in post-Zardari Pakistan will be a key piece to solve the political puzzle of Pakistan. Same goes for United States. Pakistani establishment’s calculation is that America wants to cut-and-run from Afghanistan, just as they did in Iraq. This assertion to me seems flawed on two accounts. First, a deep analysis of Americans withdrawal plans from Iraq clearly indicate that US is not leaving Iraq for foreseeable future and second, it is not showing any signs of disengagement from Afghanistan to the extent it is disengaging from Iraq. Also, any quick disengagement from Afghanistan will be preceded by something on the lines of Joe Biden’s Pakistan first doctrine where drone attacks on Quetta etc are highly likely. Pakistani establishment’s calculation is that because of its inevitability, US will accept its actions. Now whether US is willing to revert to a policy of 90s, leaving Af-Pak to Pakistani and Saudi security apparatus, is yet to be seen. One thing that can be said for sure is that positions US and China take will play very heavy on the eventual outcome of this conflict. But above all, Asif Zardari’s survival will depend on his ability to mobilize a resistance in the event of his ouster and how well he displays the potential resistance at his ouster to his opponents.
If the present setup falls, Pakistan is likely to head into a period of extensive political instability. The length of this period will depend on the relationship between Q and N and the success of establishment in tearing apart PPP’s parliamentary party. It will also depend on the response of Mr. Zardari and PPP workers to any such act. Moreover, removal of Mr. Zardari is likely to lead to a major policy shift in war on terror where the distinction between good and bad Taliban will be back and will lead to a resurgence of religious extremism under government’s patronage carried out by good Taliban. Ouster of Mr. Zardari also has a potential of increasing Pakistan’s international isolation and economic hardship. More so, it will escalate the already existing threat of a nuclear conflict between India and Pakistan if, God forbid, another Mumbai like incidence happens.
For his part, if he survives this recent attack, Mr. Zardari and PPP will emerge stronger and it will be first major setback to Pakistan’s establishment in their fight with civilian leadership. Ironically, this battle for civilian supremacy, once again, has to be fought by PPP and PPP alone.

Sugar Crisis – Shouldn’t we be thinking free market?

On October 29th, in Supreme Court, during a suo motto notice on sugar prices, Federal Govt. and mill owners agreed to sell sugar at a price fixed by the Lahore High Court. This has averted a standoff for now. However this seems to be an ad hoc arrangement on the pricing and is unlikely to address the shortage issue. There remain issues that need to be debated for they are not only linked with the current sugar crisis but go way beyond the sugar crisis to our overall economy. Unfortunately, the whole sugar debate has been argued in the gambit of superficial of greed and oppression and the real reasons for these events are a little deeper than what appear on the surface.
Pakistan’s economy has always been a variant of a socialist economy. The state has been sitting on the most lucrative economic opportunities directly (i.e. through nationalization) and indirectly. This is the reason of a whole range of economic issues we face and by devising a price formula, a problem created by the state’s intervention is being fixed by the same.
The food industries in general and sugar industry in particular are the most heavily regulated industries in Pakistan. The government has been controlling prices through imposition of import/export quotas and fixing prices. For sugar, the aim in the last decade was to protect a noncompetitive dying sugar industry. In real economic sense, the issue is not the higher price now but the price that people paid in the past to support a noncompetitive industry. If an industry is competitive no more, it better die down rather than being supported at the expense of consumers and taxpayers. To fix our economic mess, we need to consider this not only in the case of sugar but a whole range of other industries. Successive governments, in vain, have been trying for years to protect the textile industry. Same is for sports good industry and IT industry. And for this protectionism, a consumer in Pakistan is paying on average $1000-$3000 more for an average car of the same built and make and of poorer quality than does one in India. When the competitive advantage is lost, the smart societies plan a smooth transition of resources to the sectors which are still competitive. For us, protectionism remains our first big folly that has led to the present disaster.
Second folly is price control itself. Assume that some 25 miles from Lahore in Amritsar, the sugar is sold at India Rupees 32 (Appox. PKR 60). Sugar has a very large distribution network, involving dealers and sub-dealers in thousands across the country. When the government fixes a price at mill that is significantly below the regional price and enforces mills (the only entity where government can practically manage the price) to sell sugar to dealers at PKR 36 assuming that it will be sold at the retail at PKR 40, it leads to nothing but hoarding or smuggling to Amritsar or Afghanistan. Distributors can simply wait till the shortage forces the government to allow the import of the sugar at a higher than PKR 40 price thus allowing them to sell their stock at a higher price. Even if 10% of the distributors indulge in this, what you get in market is shortage of the commodity. One can argue that this act on the part of distributors is cruel but it does not change the ground reality and the public policy needs to be formulated on rationality and not the utopia.
Price fixing, at the best, partially solves problem in the short-term while making it emerge more severely in the future. Last year, we were dealing with shortage of wheat which we decided to fix with fixing the price of wheat. That has led to the lower production of sugarcane and a sugar crisis. Now, the rice crisis is on the horizon. This cannot go like this. Someone needs to take a bold step of deregulating the food market completely. Government’s intervention in the market has made the market inefficient and has led to rampant corruption on the part of bureaucratic bodies like TCP and PASSCO. It is time that the government leaves the market to its own and let the prices and supply and demand settle based on market dynamics. Government’s role in food supplies should, at the best, be to have buffer stock of food for security needs and to deal with famine like situations.
The process will be painful initially. This is a pain that has to be suffered, for if delayed, these long queues for food items will descent us into a chaos similar to that of former communist bloc. You suffer a bit now or you suffer a lot later is the choice we have. The short-term solutions, like paying to poor and philanthropy, will somewhat ease the pain on an inevitable path. In the longer run, we need to focus on increasing the purchasing power of our masses, for in a globalized economy, we will be crushed if we do not increase our spending power. We as a nation have very little time to be agents of change or else we will become its victims.