.
.
.
By Hilary Clinton clarifying the issue in terms of its true nature than a better understanding can be made of the Pakistani problem. Pouring more money no matter how well intentioned is not going to solve the problems of Pakistan, and one thinks of South Vietnam during 1963-1975.
Some of Pakistan's national problems:
1. Terrorism
2. Religious Intolerance/religious fatalism, "Allah Hukum's"
3. Water Shortage
4. Inflation
5. Corruption
6. Provincial Disharmony---relationship between center and state etc.
7. Devalued Currency
8. Unemployment
9. Low Education levels/low government investments in education/madrases funded by Saudi Arabia.
10.Weak inconsistent Foreign Policy/ the foreign policy preferred by the military and that preferred by the civilian government.
11. Rogue corrupt military./huge military 800,000 unofficially, 300,000 paramilitary---their involvement in politics covertly, and economic activity.
12. ISI.
13. Failed state characteristics.
14. Foreign interference...USA/UK.
15. Rapid population growth......400 million by 2050.
16. Poor governance, especially by the center.
17. Poorly performing agricultural sector.
18. Post colonial elite...which has no fealty to Pakistan.
19. Poor infrastructure.
20. Small industrial base...low investment in this sector.
21. Weak financial system.
22. Capital flight.
23. Feudal society----backward, culturally and psychologically.
24. Aid dependent...foreign assistance.
25. Weak Civil society.
26. Weak compromised judiciary/justice system.
27. Corrupt and incompetent, lowly paid post-colonial police force.
28. Widespread malnutrition....stunted growth among children/poor health care.
What Pakistan really requires is competent effective administration which is not corrupt, with the full overt public backing of the USA. Zardari the felon who clearly is not competent needs to be replaced with a better team which should run Pakistan, for everybody's interests.
Sharif my do marginally better, but he also has his faults. Like Zardari, he too is a billionaire without doing a lot of business............however one does feel he will be better than Zardari, and he will make better use of the USA's investments in Pakistan.
- Sharif never served two complete terms in office, so the two term rule clearly does not apply to him.
- There are accusations that he tried to amass too much power whilst in office especially between 1996-1999, like almost those that of a dictator. I am going to give him a pass over this one because in light of the situation in Pakistan, where the military dominate I wouldn't blame him in trying to centralize and increase his power.
- There are persistent accusations that he is in reality a "soft fundamentalist" who was in favor of introducing sharia law into Pakistan...............well the reality is that in his two terms in office he actually didn't introduce Sharia law in the whole of Pakistan, though clearly he intended to do so. He is however close to Wahabi Saudi Arabia, and is a protege of Zia ul Haq, the military general who introduced from the 1970's the Islamization of Pakistan. Perhaps the passage of time has convinced him that the introduction of Sharia laws will not begin to solve Pakistan's fundamental problems stated above but will merely intensify them. Further the introduction of sharia law will only embolden the extremist religious elements who will see the introduction of such laws as a tacit government approval of their agenda's, groups such as the Taliban who of course have no intention what so ever of sharing power with other parties (Afghanistan 1994-2001, Iran 1979--2009). Sharia law introduction was certainly the talk of the town in the 1980's and 1990's, and who can blame Sharif in trying to introduce it in light of his background and right wing credentials. However he must realize that in Pakistan's special case the introduction of Sharia law will have dangerous consequences for the country if he were to introduce it now.
- There are persistent rumors and allegations, and court action over the years which state that Nawaz Sharif is corrupt, just like most civilian Pakistani politicians, and that as such he is no exception. He is among the richest men in Pakistan, and is part of the 30 "Commercial" families, where through political wheeling and dealing he amassed his wealth, and not through good honest business acumen, so the allegation goes. Well what can one say except if anybody ever finds the solution to the age old problem of politicians and corruption, they will most certainly be awarded the Nobel Prize for political economics.
Pakistan was a failed state before the USA invested in fundamentalists..........so the fundamental problems of Pakistan goes beyond the problem of the Pakistani backed fundamentalists groups operating in Pakistan, Afghanistan and India. The fundamental structural problems of Pakistan will not go away with the Taliban's disappearance, but their mere presence highlights the clear weaknesses and failures of the state as a failed state number 9.
The racism of American and British officials and how they relate to the country plays a significant part, but ultimately it is the Pakistanis who must see the problems of their country, and confront it together arm in arm.
Here is a unique change of policy that fights terror more effectively in Pakistan. We know clearly the link between the Pakistan military ISI and the Taliban, so why give the Pakistan military more military aid......................so that they can further pretend to be fighting the Taliban.........."We have killed 40 extremists today in X, Y, Z part of the North West Frontier, blah, blah, blah"...........can the Pakistan military be believed, after the Swat surrender? Why not divert that security aid to the Pakistani police? Lets bolster their wages.....from $150 a month to $300 a month, through American security assistance. Better training, better wages, better equipment to fight terror inside Pakistan if Pakistan is indeed the most dangerous country in the world. Absolutely no sense in giving this security aid to the Pakistan military who will of course use it against India, as before under Bush's military aid to Pakistan.
In fact lets take this a little further. Instead of giving the assistance to the central government of Pakistan, the $7.6 billion IMF loan; the $7.5 billion USA ; the $3 billion military assistance and finally the $5.28 billion very recently....why not make these $ aid really count and give the money to the state governments in Pakistan who will use the money more effectively, in fighting terror and expenditure on social welfare programs. The huge amounts of money given to Zardari will be wasted, and his central government will not utilize it properly either because they are incompetent or because of corruption, or both.
As to the USA role in Pakistan that has clearly been negative.........
____________________________________________________________
USA also responsible for current situation in Pak: Hillary.
By Times of India
Even as she came out strongly against the Pakistani establishment for lagging willingness to take head on the terrorists, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Friday said that the US was also partly responsible for the present mess as it virtually abandoned Pakistan after the Soviets left Afghanistan.
"There is a very strong argument, which is: It wasn't a bad investment to end the Soviet Union, but let's be careful what we sow, because we will harvest. So we then left Pakistan. We said, okay, fine, you deal with the Stingers that we've left all over your country. You deal with the mines that are along the border. And by the way, we don't want to have anything to do with you," Clinton said testifying before a Congressional committee.
After the downfall of the Soviet Union, Clinton said the US stopped dealing with the Pakistani military and with the ISI. "We can point fingers at the Pakistanis, which is -- you know, I did some yesterday, frankly. And it's merited, because we're wondering why they don't just get out there and deal with these people. But the problems we face now, to some extent, we have to take responsibility for having contributed to," she said.
Clinton said the US has a history of moving in and out of Pakistan. "I mean, let's remember here, the people we are fighting today we funded 20 years ago. We did it because we were locked in this struggle with the Soviet Union. They invaded Afghanistan, and we did not want to see them control Central Asia, and we went to work," she said. "It was President (Ronald) Reagan, in partnership with the Congress, led by Democrats, who said, you know what? Sounds like a pretty good idea. Let's deal with the ISI and the Pakistani military, and let's go recruit these mujahidin. And great, let's get some to come from Saudi Arabia and other places, importing their Wahhabi brand of Islam, so that we can go beat the Soviet Union. And guess what? They retreated. They lost billions of dollars, and it led to the collapse of the Soviet Union," Clinton said. And what is happening in Pakistan today is a result of that policy, she acknowledged, so the US should also take a part of the responsibility.
