MILITARY INC BY AYESHA SIDDIQA REVIEWED

By Afreen Baig

Dr Ayesha Siddiqa's 'The Military Inc.' is a book deflective of reality, highly derogatory and against the very notion of sovereignty.

Dr Ayesha Siddiqa launches the book by giving the impression that her intention is to cover the entrepreneurial activities of military worldwide. However, in depth reading reaffirms suspicions that her book massively targets the Pakistan Military and the top echelons of the Armed Forces, most of which are based upon self serving assumptions and intentional hoodwinking. A labyrinth of financial figures is presented to further obscure the ordinary reader's intelligence.

The book sets forward four arguments. First, that MILBUS (Military Business) is military capital that perpetuates the military's political predatory style; and is kept concealed and includes questionable transfer of resources from public sector to individuals connected with armed Forces. Second, the military's economic greed increases in totalitarian systems. Third, Military convinces the citizens to bear additional costs for security on basis of conceived threats to the State. Fourth, the book considers the Pakistan Military the cause of all ills, social disparity and democratic fiasco.

Let's start by setting the record straight. MILBUS in Pakistan - is the result of honest intentions and visionary policies - to raise independent resources, to self-finance the on-going national technological development, to modernize strategic assets, and most importantly, the determination to rely less on Foreign Aid. While at the same time, build facilities for retired military personnel and their families; and slowly withdrawing from National Defense budget allocation as a percentage of GDP.

MILBUS also exists in well developed countries like the USA, UK, France, China, Israel or even Turkey. The Milbus or the PMEs (Private Military Enterprises) are generally known as the Private Military Industry. Famous US PMEs include Halliburton, Black-water worldwide, Defensecurity, Titan Corporations, Kellogg Brown & Root, Air Scan, DynCorp's, CACI International, etc. Famous UK PMEs include Black-Op's and Aegis Defense Services. Most of these are active beneficiaries of the Iraq War. The worldwide PME industry is now worth over $100 billion a year. Thus, this is not just a Pakistan specific industry.

MILBUS in Pakistan is being criticized unnecessarily, with the sole intention to malign the Armed Forces. The Pakistan military has never intended to deliberately conceal their economic activities and they do not cause injustice by weighing heavily on civilian corporate sector or individual leaders.

The book 'Military Inc' is based upon a series of presumptions and false accusations. Throughout her book, the author obstinately insists that the growth of Military economy is the case of self interest and predatory acquisition by senior officers, in which it allow the Generals to seek benefit for themselves and their clients.

The author fails to provide, any concrete evidence that could confirm her allegations, that questionable transfer of wealth is made to individuals connected with armed forces. All she could give in example were the 500 sq yard official plots given to the Generals at the end of their service, as part of their benefits, and hence her assumption that a retired general is worth from Rs.150 million to Rs.400 million.

Rarely do critics mention, that nominal deduction from the pay of all military officers are made during their service, in return for a small apartment or a small housing, which is handed over at the time of their retirement. However, this facility is still not available to all retiring servicemen.

Next, the book alleges that the military's economic greed increases in totalitarian systems, where the general public, private businessmen, civilian corporate sector and national business units are all oppressed to encourage and endorse military business units. Her book focuses largely on the four welfare projects managed by the Pakistan Military i.e. The Fauji Foundation (FF), the Army Welfare Trust (AWT), Shaheen Foundation (SF) and Bahria Foundation (BF), and in some places the Frontier Works Organization (FWO).

The author believes that "the profit earned by military is directly proportional to power and gives the armed forces a sense of being independent of the incompetent civilians" - which can only be considered as an extremely reckless comment.

There was great wisdom behind establishing these welfare projects. The visionary minds knew that "the profit earned by the military will be directly proportional to Sovereignty of the Country and the Institution".

The Military established its first welfare foundation in 1954, with funds received from the British as part of Pakistan's share of the Post War Services Reconstruction Fund. In India, those funds were distributed immediately amongst those who fought the Second World War. Unlike India, Pakistan's wise military opted to use those funds to establish projects that would ensure the overall well-being, availability of jobs, and a decent pension for their armed forces.

The initial purpose of these welfare projects was to create employment opportunities for the honorable retired or disabled military personnel. Servicemen - whose only obligation is defending the borders of Pakistan.

This one wise decision, not only raised the morals of the serving military men, but also gave the ordinary citizens a reason to join the Armed Forces of Pakistan and serve their country. Assured that their future is protected, the servicemen live their lives in testing times on borders, remote locations and a life away from family.

The Fauji Foundation, Shaheen Foundation and Bahria Foundation were all established under the Charitable Endowments Act 1890. The Army Welfare Trust was established under the Societies Registration Act 1860.

Then all these entities are registered Tax-paying Companies. The Army Welfare Trust and the Fauji Foundation pays tax at 20% of their profits. Shaheen Foundation and Bahria Foundation pay Taxes at 30% of their profits. Fair enough!

This limited industrial base that evolved over years added to the military's credibility and resolves to contribute towards the Nation's socio-economic development and Pakistan's Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Like any ordinary successful businessmen or multi-national corporations (MNCs), the Pakistan Military utilized their available structure, nominal budget and dedicated their human resources for the welfare of the uniformed men and civilians working in those companies. While also pioneering technology, developing expertise and establishing quality control.

The book 'Military Inc' accuses the Pakistan Armed forces of running business (MILBUS) that are diverse in nature, ranging from small scale to large scale corporate enterprises. As examples, it quotes Schools, Banks, Insurance Company, Radio and TV, a Fertilizer company, Hospitals and Clinics, Cement plant, Universities and institutes, etc.

Dr. Ayesha Siddiqa left no opportunity to magnify and exaggerate the limited and partial presence of MILBUS competing in Pakistan's broad based expanding economy.

Let's analyze the limited magnitude and negligible worth of these Military run ventures, compared to similar mega business entities currently present in Pakistan.

According to State Bank of Pakistan, there are total 73 Banks in Pakistan. From which, there are 24 Limited banks, 11 Foreign Banks, 8 Financial Banks, 4 Specialized Banks, 13 Investment Banks, 7 Micro-finance Banks and 6 Islamic banks. Out of these total 73 banks - Dr Ayesha Siddiqa tends to be intolerable towards ONE 'Askari Bank' run by Military? In 2007, Askari Bank paid a Tax of Rs. 743 million.

According to Federal Bureau of Statistics, there are 24 Cement plants in Pakistan, and only ONE owned by 'Fauji Cement Company Ltd'. A Tax-paying company listed on the Stock Exchange.

According to State Bank of Pakistan, there are total 59 Insurance companies in Pakistan. There are 4 in the Public sector, 50 companies in the private sector and 5 are incorporated abroad. Why should anyone be narrow-minded towards ONE owned by military - 'Askari General Insurance Ltd', which is listed on the Stock Exchange and pays Tax?

According to the Health Division and the P.M.D.C, there are around 924 Hospitals, 12,726 Medical Institutions, 560 Rural Health Centers and 4712 Dispensaries all over Pakistan. Out of these, if 10 Hospitals and 20 Medical Centers are being run by Fauji Foundation, what's the hue & cry about? These Medical services are offered to the military and civilians alike. Even the prestigious Aga Khan Health Services (AGHS) own 7 Hospitals and 164 Medical Centers.

According to State Bank Pakistan, there are above 10 Fertilizer Plants in Pakistan from which 6 are State owned and the rest are private. Out of these, only ONE is military owned, the 'Fauji Fertilizer Company Ltd', which is listed on the Stock Exchange and audited by KPMG Taseer Hadi & Co, and pays Tax annually.

According to Higher Education Commission, there are 122 Universities in Pakistan. Out of which, 65 are in the Public sector and 57 in the private sector. Foundation University and Bahria University are the only two affiliated with Armed Forces providing quality education to all citizens alike.

Foundation Schools have 90 branches all over Pakistan; compared to the City School which has more than 150 branches and the Beacon-house School which has around 130 branches. We as a Nation should triumph the quality education being promoted by the Foundation schools and the model paradigm implemented.

The Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP) has 50,125 companies registered with it. From these only 9 are MILBUS projects. Why can't Dr. Ayesha Siddiqa accept these 9 MILBUS projects out of the 50,125 projects broadmindedly?

The author also alleges that Military's Internal Economy is hampering the growth of Pakistan's free market economy - which of course is not true. For her information, under this same system and era, and under the leadership of General Musharraf, Pakistan's free market economy boomed from $75 billion in 1999 to become $160 billion in 2007.

In the last 6 years, the free market economy of Pakistan expanded by $85 billion. The expansion and growth the Civilian Corporate sector, National Business Units and Multi-National Corporations witnessed in these last 6 years remain unprecedented in Pakistan's Economic History. Hence proven, that Military's Internal Economy did not hamper Pakistan's free market economy!

According to Dr Ayesha Siddiqa's book, the worth of Fauji Foundation is $169m, the worth of Army Welfare trust is $862m, the worth of Shaheen Foundation is $34.4m and the worth of Bahria Foundation is $69m. Total worth of MILBUS entities in Pakistan arise to ONLY $1.135 billion.

Hence, the presence of MILBUS companies, in Pakistan's free economy of $160 billion, amongst these other sectors and enterprises arises to a negligible maximum 0.8%.

The Karachi Stock Exchange (KSE) Market Capitalization in January 2008 stood at $75 billion. MILBUS worth as compared to KSE again arises to only 1.5%.

It's amusing to note that Dr Ayesha Siddiqa wrote a whole book, to malign a system (MILBUS) whose worth does not exceed 0.8% of Pakistan's free market economy.

Dr Ayesha Siddiqa's desire to portray the Pakistan Military as a coercive and self serving breed aiming to consolidate their economic power at the expense of Pakistan, not only erodes her neutrality into bias, but the above economic comparisons also contradict all her presumptuous and sham claims. As MILBUS in Pakistan has been competing fairly in free market and contributing to today's knowledge-based economy. It has played an active role to generate revenue for Pakistan and in contributing to overall GDP.

One of the greatest wisdom foreseen, behind establishing MILBUS was to liberate the Pakistan Armed Forces of international aid assistance and interference. Classified financial autonomy gives the Armed Forces a sense of self-respect and confidence of being independent of the dominating 'International Coalition of the willing' and their foreign aid.

The Pakistan Army has received a total of around $17 billion from the United States for arms, equipment and compensation since 1954, the year the United States entered into defense pacts with Pakistan. Much of it was uselessly spend during the 1980's Afghan war and the wars Pakistan fought with India. After 9/11, the famous foreign assistance of $10 billion comprises 60% reimbursement costs for expenditure incurred by the Pakistani Military while patrolling on PAK-Afghan border, recorded in the 'Coalition Support Funds'. These worthless assistances have not helped the Pakistan Army contrary to perception propagated in media reports.

Because, with these insignificant and worthless assistance, follows a series of humiliating articles and editorials composed in American print media. The clueless and prejudice Pakistani media ignorantly picks up the chanting and further plays an important role in distorting and altering the actual facts and figures. No relevant person is approached to clarify and set facts straight. Authors like Dr Ayesha Siddiqa bank on such distortion to further slander the admirable Pakistan Military.

After year 2000, the $85 billion expansion of Pakistan's economy, decreased the ratio of US aid & assistance to Pakistan's economy by around 100%. Now the U.S aid & assistance account to only 6.25% of Pakistan's expanding economy. Pakistan is successfully wriggling out of foreign influence. Visionary MILBUS was the right step in the right direction at the right time!

Pakistan Military requires a proper platform utilized to clear the misperceptions being propagated against them and counter the sham allegations. In short, Pakistan military lacks the exposure to enhance their PR with the Public. Pakistani GHQ and ISPR should take up an active role similar to Pentagon and make their interactions more effective.

Next, the book 'Military Inc' considers Pakistan Military the root cause of social disparity and democratic fiasco. It alleges that socio-political fragmentation would result in strengthening the army's control over politics. Throughout her book, Dr Ayesha Siddiqa lambasts and scoffs at the concept of MILBUS accusing the military of building assets and calling them as the 'new land barons'.

In her desperation to smear the Army, she even fails to condemn the corruption practiced and coercive measures exercised by the inept political leaders. How these redundant leaders influence the bureaucracy, alter the constitution, plunder national institutions, stagnated the trade & exports, multiplied the foreign debts for the country, rob the country of the foreign reserves and accumulate their wealth in developed countries - is all together ignored by her conveniently.

The truth is that the Armed forces are forced to intervene reluctantly and take control of the state to save it from the irresponsible and hopeless politicians, who drag the country towards brink of collapse, every time they come to power.

In short, Pakistan's external debt rose from $18 billion in 1988 to become $38 billion by end of 1999. In 1999, Pakistan's total debt (internal & external) was almost 90% of its GDP. External debt in ratio to foreign exchange earnings were 347%. Debt servicing allocated in 1999 budget was 61% of total revenue resources. According to the World Bank, in 1999-2000 Pakistan was amongst the highly indebted countries.

Despite the above mentioned debacle for Pakistan - the substantial expansion in the personal wealth, land and business interests of Mr. Zardari and Mr. Nawaz Sharif has earned them a place in the 'Top 5 richest people' of Pakistan in 2007. Not a single General or military servicemen made it to the list of 'Top 40 Richest Pakistani'. Who should we consider a peril to Pakistan's existence - these fraudulent politicians or the reserved military?

The Raiwind complex of Nawaz Sharif, build on an area of around 2000 acre, consist of palatial residences, 300 acre farm, 500 bed hospital, a school, 200 acre dairy farm, etc - constructed at a cost of above Rs. 800 million. He personally owns Ittefaq foundries, three Sugar mills, numerous Textile mills, Steel Mills, Paper Mills, Spinning mills, Engineering companies, and numerous other business units. He owns several residential properties in Lahore and Muree. He owns vast acres of lands in Sheikhapura, Chunian, Raiwind, Multan and Bhopattian. These feudal turned politicians can easily be labeled as the 'old Pakistani barons'.

Dr Ayesha Siddiqa also alleges that the military convinces the citizens to bear additional costs for security on basis of conceived threats to the State. She wants the public to believe that their taxes are being exploited at the expense of the notion 'National Security'. This statement of hers is an attempt to ignore and snub the volatile situation Pakistan faces at its borders.

She also remains oblivious to the fact, that India allocates 5 times that of Pakistan's defense spending.

However, under President Musharraf, the military spending DECREASED as percentage of GDP and National budget. It now stands at 3% of GDP and 15% of National budget. It strikes out though, how Dr Ayesha Siddiqa veils and ignores the bulk of the National budget of 85% that lies at the disposal of the manipulative hands of our shady politicians. The public has the right to know, what proper utilization has been brought about with that unaccountable 85% in the 1990's?

This derogatory book 'Military Inc' intends to sow seeds of disenchantment amongst the general public against the modest and patriotic institution of the Armed forces of Pakistan, and lower its grace. Those Armed Forces of Pakistan that run to protect and deliver relief, to ordinary Pakistanis in times of calamities, natural disasters, floods, train accidents, and earthquakes. Does Pakistan have any other force or institution which is as disciplined and effective in providing speedy help immediately? Shouldn't we strengthen this only institution that we have?

The publication of Dr Ayesha Siddiqa's own book 'Military Inc' in 2007, in President Musharraf's era, repudiates her claims to term the military rule as manipulative and suppressive. It's evident that no subtle or coercive measures were taken against her or any arm-twisting to curb the publication of this highly controversial book! Where would she find such boundless and gracious freedom? The book 'Military Inc' has become a checker of the chessboard being maneuvered by the unknown and ambiguous foreign powers interested in Balkanization of Pakistan.

The ultimate objective of the book 'Military Inc' is to perpetrate friction and cause dissent amongst the ranks of the disciplined Armed Forces. By deliberately triggering upheaval within the lower ranks, the intention appears to encourage internal revolt. As a consequence, the unity, discipline and allegiance of the Armed Forces of Pakistan can be destroyed.

Thus, to protect the allegiance of the Armed Forces, the whole concept of visionary MILBUS is justified, as a set of activities for the development of Pakistan's military might, meant to counter the rising regional threat convergence and decreasing dependence upon foreign aid - ultimately protecting the sovereignty of Pakistan and its savior Armed Forces!

Glory and Triumph to Pakistan Armed Forces!

Afreen Baig is an independent analyst majoring in International Relations and Economics.

MILITARY INC BY AYESHA SIDDIQA REVIEWED

By Afreen Baig

Dr Ayesha Siddiqa's 'The Military Inc.' is a book deflective of reality, highly derogatory and against the very notion of sovereignty.

Dr Ayesha Siddiqa launches the book by giving the impression that her intention is to cover the entrepreneurial activities of military worldwide. However, in depth reading reaffirms suspicions that her book massively targets the Pakistan Military and the top echelons of the Armed Forces, most of which are based upon self serving assumptions and intentional hoodwinking. A labyrinth of financial figures is presented to further obscure the ordinary reader's intelligence.

The book sets forward four arguments. First, that MILBUS (Military Business) is military capital that perpetuates the military's political predatory style; and is kept concealed and includes questionable transfer of resources from public sector to individuals connected with armed Forces. Second, the military's economic greed increases in totalitarian systems. Third, Military convinces the citizens to bear additional costs for security on basis of conceived threats to the State. Fourth, the book considers the Pakistan Military the cause of all ills, social disparity and democratic fiasco.

Let's start by setting the record straight. MILBUS in Pakistan - is the result of honest intentions and visionary policies - to raise independent resources, to self-finance the on-going national technological development, to modernize strategic assets, and most importantly, the determination to rely less on Foreign Aid. While at the same time, build facilities for retired military personnel and their families; and slowly withdrawing from National Defense budget allocation as a percentage of GDP.

MILBUS also exists in well developed countries like the USA, UK, France, China, Israel or even Turkey. The Milbus or the PMEs (Private Military Enterprises) are generally known as the Private Military Industry. Famous US PMEs include Halliburton, Black-water worldwide, Defensecurity, Titan Corporations, Kellogg Brown & Root, Air Scan, DynCorp's, CACI International, etc. Famous UK PMEs include Black-Op's and Aegis Defense Services. Most of these are active beneficiaries of the Iraq War. The worldwide PME industry is now worth over $100 billion a year. Thus, this is not just a Pakistan specific industry.

MILBUS in Pakistan is being criticized unnecessarily, with the sole intention to malign the Armed Forces. The Pakistan military has never intended to deliberately conceal their economic activities and they do not cause injustice by weighing heavily on civilian corporate sector or individual leaders.

The book 'Military Inc' is based upon a series of presumptions and false accusations. Throughout her book, the author obstinately insists that the growth of Military economy is the case of self interest and predatory acquisition by senior officers, in which it allow the Generals to seek benefit for themselves and their clients.

The author fails to provide, any concrete evidence that could confirm her allegations, that questionable transfer of wealth is made to individuals connected with armed forces. All she could give in example were the 500 sq yard official plots given to the Generals at the end of their service, as part of their benefits, and hence her assumption that a retired general is worth from Rs.150 million to Rs.400 million.

Rarely do critics mention, that nominal deduction from the pay of all military officers are made during their service, in return for a small apartment or a small housing, which is handed over at the time of their retirement. However, this facility is still not available to all retiring servicemen.

Next, the book alleges that the military's economic greed increases in totalitarian systems, where the general public, private businessmen, civilian corporate sector and national business units are all oppressed to encourage and endorse military business units. Her book focuses largely on the four welfare projects managed by the Pakistan Military i.e. The Fauji Foundation (FF), the Army Welfare Trust (AWT), Shaheen Foundation (SF) and Bahria Foundation (BF), and in some places the Frontier Works Organization (FWO).

The author believes that "the profit earned by military is directly proportional to power and gives the armed forces a sense of being independent of the incompetent civilians" - which can only be considered as an extremely reckless comment.

There was great wisdom behind establishing these welfare projects. The visionary minds knew that "the profit earned by the military will be directly proportional to Sovereignty of the Country and the Institution".

The Military established its first welfare foundation in 1954, with funds received from the British as part of Pakistan's share of the Post War Services Reconstruction Fund. In India, those funds were distributed immediately amongst those who fought the Second World War. Unlike India, Pakistan's wise military opted to use those funds to establish projects that would ensure the overall well-being, availability of jobs, and a decent pension for their armed forces.

The initial purpose of these welfare projects was to create employment opportunities for the honorable retired or disabled military personnel. Servicemen - whose only obligation is defending the borders of Pakistan.

This one wise decision, not only raised the morals of the serving military men, but also gave the ordinary citizens a reason to join the Armed Forces of Pakistan and serve their country. Assured that their future is protected, the servicemen live their lives in testing times on borders, remote locations and a life away from family.

The Fauji Foundation, Shaheen Foundation and Bahria Foundation were all established under the Charitable Endowments Act 1890. The Army Welfare Trust was established under the Societies Registration Act 1860.

Then all these entities are registered Tax-paying Companies. The Army Welfare Trust and the Fauji Foundation pays tax at 20% of their profits. Shaheen Foundation and Bahria Foundation pay Taxes at 30% of their profits. Fair enough!

This limited industrial base that evolved over years added to the military's credibility and resolves to contribute towards the Nation's socio-economic development and Pakistan's Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Like any ordinary successful businessmen or multi-national corporations (MNCs), the Pakistan Military utilized their available structure, nominal budget and dedicated their human resources for the welfare of the uniformed men and civilians working in those companies. While also pioneering technology, developing expertise and establishing quality control.

The book 'Military Inc' accuses the Pakistan Armed forces of running business (MILBUS) that are diverse in nature, ranging from small scale to large scale corporate enterprises. As examples, it quotes Schools, Banks, Insurance Company, Radio and TV, a Fertilizer company, Hospitals and Clinics, Cement plant, Universities and institutes, etc.

Dr. Ayesha Siddiqa left no opportunity to magnify and exaggerate the limited and partial presence of MILBUS competing in Pakistan's broad based expanding economy.

Let's analyze the limited magnitude and negligible worth of these Military run ventures, compared to similar mega business entities currently present in Pakistan.

According to State Bank of Pakistan, there are total 73 Banks in Pakistan. From which, there are 24 Limited banks, 11 Foreign Banks, 8 Financial Banks, 4 Specialized Banks, 13 Investment Banks, 7 Micro-finance Banks and 6 Islamic banks. Out of these total 73 banks - Dr Ayesha Siddiqa tends to be intolerable towards ONE 'Askari Bank' run by Military? In 2007, Askari Bank paid a Tax of Rs. 743 million.

According to Federal Bureau of Statistics, there are 24 Cement plants in Pakistan, and only ONE owned by 'Fauji Cement Company Ltd'. A Tax-paying company listed on the Stock Exchange.

According to State Bank of Pakistan, there are total 59 Insurance companies in Pakistan. There are 4 in the Public sector, 50 companies in the private sector and 5 are incorporated abroad. Why should anyone be narrow-minded towards ONE owned by military - 'Askari General Insurance Ltd', which is listed on the Stock Exchange and pays Tax?

According to the Health Division and the P.M.D.C, there are around 924 Hospitals, 12,726 Medical Institutions, 560 Rural Health Centers and 4712 Dispensaries all over Pakistan. Out of these, if 10 Hospitals and 20 Medical Centers are being run by Fauji Foundation, what's the hue & cry about? These Medical services are offered to the military and civilians alike. Even the prestigious Aga Khan Health Services (AGHS) own 7 Hospitals and 164 Medical Centers.

According to State Bank Pakistan, there are above 10 Fertilizer Plants in Pakistan from which 6 are State owned and the rest are private. Out of these, only ONE is military owned, the 'Fauji Fertilizer Company Ltd', which is listed on the Stock Exchange and audited by KPMG Taseer Hadi & Co, and pays Tax annually.

According to Higher Education Commission, there are 122 Universities in Pakistan. Out of which, 65 are in the Public sector and 57 in the private sector. Foundation University and Bahria University are the only two affiliated with Armed Forces providing quality education to all citizens alike.

Foundation Schools have 90 branches all over Pakistan; compared to the City School which has more than 150 branches and the Beacon-house School which has around 130 branches. We as a Nation should triumph the quality education being promoted by the Foundation schools and the model paradigm implemented.

The Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP) has 50,125 companies registered with it. From these only 9 are MILBUS projects. Why can't Dr. Ayesha Siddiqa accept these 9 MILBUS projects out of the 50,125 projects broadmindedly?

The author also alleges that Military's Internal Economy is hampering the growth of Pakistan's free market economy - which of course is not true. For her information, under this same system and era, and under the leadership of General Musharraf, Pakistan's free market economy boomed from $75 billion in 1999 to become $160 billion in 2007.

In the last 6 years, the free market economy of Pakistan expanded by $85 billion. The expansion and growth the Civilian Corporate sector, National Business Units and Multi-National Corporations witnessed in these last 6 years remain unprecedented in Pakistan's Economic History. Hence proven, that Military's Internal Economy did not hamper Pakistan's free market economy!

According to Dr Ayesha Siddiqa's book, the worth of Fauji Foundation is $169m, the worth of Army Welfare trust is $862m, the worth of Shaheen Foundation is $34.4m and the worth of Bahria Foundation is $69m. Total worth of MILBUS entities in Pakistan arise to ONLY $1.135 billion.

Hence, the presence of MILBUS companies, in Pakistan's free economy of $160 billion, amongst these other sectors and enterprises arises to a negligible maximum 0.8%.

The Karachi Stock Exchange (KSE) Market Capitalization in January 2008 stood at $75 billion. MILBUS worth as compared to KSE again arises to only 1.5%.

It's amusing to note that Dr Ayesha Siddiqa wrote a whole book, to malign a system (MILBUS) whose worth does not exceed 0.8% of Pakistan's free market economy.

Dr Ayesha Siddiqa's desire to portray the Pakistan Military as a coercive and self serving breed aiming to consolidate their economic power at the expense of Pakistan, not only erodes her neutrality into bias, but the above economic comparisons also contradict all her presumptuous and sham claims. As MILBUS in Pakistan has been competing fairly in free market and contributing to today's knowledge-based economy. It has played an active role to generate revenue for Pakistan and in contributing to overall GDP.

One of the greatest wisdom foreseen, behind establishing MILBUS was to liberate the Pakistan Armed Forces of international aid assistance and interference. Classified financial autonomy gives the Armed Forces a sense of self-respect and confidence of being independent of the dominating 'International Coalition of the willing' and their foreign aid.

The Pakistan Army has received a total of around $17 billion from the United States for arms, equipment and compensation since 1954, the year the United States entered into defense pacts with Pakistan. Much of it was uselessly spend during the 1980's Afghan war and the wars Pakistan fought with India. After 9/11, the famous foreign assistance of $10 billion comprises 60% reimbursement costs for expenditure incurred by the Pakistani Military while patrolling on PAK-Afghan border, recorded in the 'Coalition Support Funds'. These worthless assistances have not helped the Pakistan Army contrary to perception propagated in media reports.

Because, with these insignificant and worthless assistance, follows a series of humiliating articles and editorials composed in American print media. The clueless and prejudice Pakistani media ignorantly picks up the chanting and further plays an important role in distorting and altering the actual facts and figures. No relevant person is approached to clarify and set facts straight. Authors like Dr Ayesha Siddiqa bank on such distortion to further slander the admirable Pakistan Military.

After year 2000, the $85 billion expansion of Pakistan's economy, decreased the ratio of US aid & assistance to Pakistan's economy by around 100%. Now the U.S aid & assistance account to only 6.25% of Pakistan's expanding economy. Pakistan is successfully wriggling out of foreign influence. Visionary MILBUS was the right step in the right direction at the right time!

Pakistan Military requires a proper platform utilized to clear the misperceptions being propagated against them and counter the sham allegations. In short, Pakistan military lacks the exposure to enhance their PR with the Public. Pakistani GHQ and ISPR should take up an active role similar to Pentagon and make their interactions more effective.

Next, the book 'Military Inc' considers Pakistan Military the root cause of social disparity and democratic fiasco. It alleges that socio-political fragmentation would result in strengthening the army's control over politics. Throughout her book, Dr Ayesha Siddiqa lambasts and scoffs at the concept of MILBUS accusing the military of building assets and calling them as the 'new land barons'.

In her desperation to smear the Army, she even fails to condemn the corruption practiced and coercive measures exercised by the inept political leaders. How these redundant leaders influence the bureaucracy, alter the constitution, plunder national institutions, stagnated the trade & exports, multiplied the foreign debts for the country, rob the country of the foreign reserves and accumulate their wealth in developed countries - is all together ignored by her conveniently.

The truth is that the Armed forces are forced to intervene reluctantly and take control of the state to save it from the irresponsible and hopeless politicians, who drag the country towards brink of collapse, every time they come to power.

In short, Pakistan's external debt rose from $18 billion in 1988 to become $38 billion by end of 1999. In 1999, Pakistan's total debt (internal & external) was almost 90% of its GDP. External debt in ratio to foreign exchange earnings were 347%. Debt servicing allocated in 1999 budget was 61% of total revenue resources. According to the World Bank, in 1999-2000 Pakistan was amongst the highly indebted countries.

Despite the above mentioned debacle for Pakistan - the substantial expansion in the personal wealth, land and business interests of Mr. Zardari and Mr. Nawaz Sharif has earned them a place in the 'Top 5 richest people' of Pakistan in 2007. Not a single General or military servicemen made it to the list of 'Top 40 Richest Pakistani'. Who should we consider a peril to Pakistan's existence - these fraudulent politicians or the reserved military?

The Raiwind complex of Nawaz Sharif, build on an area of around 2000 acre, consist of palatial residences, 300 acre farm, 500 bed hospital, a school, 200 acre dairy farm, etc - constructed at a cost of above Rs. 800 million. He personally owns Ittefaq foundries, three Sugar mills, numerous Textile mills, Steel Mills, Paper Mills, Spinning mills, Engineering companies, and numerous other business units. He owns several residential properties in Lahore and Muree. He owns vast acres of lands in Sheikhapura, Chunian, Raiwind, Multan and Bhopattian. These feudal turned politicians can easily be labeled as the 'old Pakistani barons'.

Dr Ayesha Siddiqa also alleges that the military convinces the citizens to bear additional costs for security on basis of conceived threats to the State. She wants the public to believe that their taxes are being exploited at the expense of the notion 'National Security'. This statement of hers is an attempt to ignore and snub the volatile situation Pakistan faces at its borders.

She also remains oblivious to the fact, that India allocates 5 times that of Pakistan's defense spending.

However, under President Musharraf, the military spending DECREASED as percentage of GDP and National budget. It now stands at 3% of GDP and 15% of National budget. It strikes out though, how Dr Ayesha Siddiqa veils and ignores the bulk of the National budget of 85% that lies at the disposal of the manipulative hands of our shady politicians. The public has the right to know, what proper utilization has been brought about with that unaccountable 85% in the 1990's?

This derogatory book 'Military Inc' intends to sow seeds of disenchantment amongst the general public against the modest and patriotic institution of the Armed forces of Pakistan, and lower its grace. Those Armed Forces of Pakistan that run to protect and deliver relief, to ordinary Pakistanis in times of calamities, natural disasters, floods, train accidents, and earthquakes. Does Pakistan have any other force or institution which is as disciplined and effective in providing speedy help immediately? Shouldn't we strengthen this only institution that we have?

The publication of Dr Ayesha Siddiqa's own book 'Military Inc' in 2007, in President Musharraf's era, repudiates her claims to term the military rule as manipulative and suppressive. It's evident that no subtle or coercive measures were taken against her or any arm-twisting to curb the publication of this highly controversial book! Where would she find such boundless and gracious freedom? The book 'Military Inc' has become a checker of the chessboard being maneuvered by the unknown and ambiguous foreign powers interested in Balkanization of Pakistan.

The ultimate objective of the book 'Military Inc' is to perpetrate friction and cause dissent amongst the ranks of the disciplined Armed Forces. By deliberately triggering upheaval within the lower ranks, the intention appears to encourage internal revolt. As a consequence, the unity, discipline and allegiance of the Armed Forces of Pakistan can be destroyed.

Thus, to protect the allegiance of the Armed Forces, the whole concept of visionary MILBUS is justified, as a set of activities for the development of Pakistan's military might, meant to counter the rising regional threat convergence and decreasing dependence upon foreign aid - ultimately protecting the sovereignty of Pakistan and its savior Armed Forces!

Glory and Triumph to Pakistan Armed Forces!

Afreen Baig is an independent analyst majoring in International Relations and Economics.

Afghanistan put on the back burner?

This is a Pakpotpourri Exclusive

By: Yasmeen Ali

Has the world forgotten Afghanistan? The developments recently in Libya seem to have diverted world media to America’s new play field. The old one lies, ravaged, raped, destructed and now, ignored like yesterday’s newspaper.

Libya was attacked by America, as in Iraq, and Afghanistan, it was first preceded by an avalanche of propaganda against it’s ruler. Eric Margolis, in an article, stated and I quote,” America’s glaring double standard in the Mideast and Muslim world is a major reason for growing hatred of our nation. America would be hailed as genuine liberator of long-suffering Libyans if it also intervened in Bahrain and Yemen — and perhaps Saudi Arabia — to protect civilians from the ferocity of their despotic governments and promote real democracy. But it’s only oil-rich Libya that is getting the “humanitarian” treatment from the US and oil-hungry western European former colonial powers”. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-margolis/after-bombing-libya-what-_b_838548.html

Coming to Afghanistan, America & her allies, must have by now realized that the physical invasion of a country is a far cry from subjugation of the will of the people of the country and holding that country as captive. Superior technology, well developed war toys, can make invasion the easier part, it is what follows thereafter is the difficult part.

Karzai is not a person the Afghans trust. He is seen as an American front man and someone in a position for the sake of serving American interests. The increasing corruption of his government does not help either.

A report of February 28^th, 2011 states that Maj. Gen. John Campbell, commander of NATO coalition forces in eastern Afghanistan, said he has been repositioning some of his troops since last August to make them more effective in the region that borders Pakistan.

The terrain that is the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan is the toughest in the world. Also, impossible to man, owing to the area, geography and weather conditions.

The question, Obama must ask of himself , is, what gains have been attained after invading Afghanistan. Have the terrorist attacks ended? The answer, is a resounding No. Afghanistan, invaded by US and British forces in direct response to the September 11 attacks, saw a rise from very few before 2003 to 802 since then. The “war on terror” seems to have made the world a more insecure, a more dangerous place to live in.

What then, should the USA and her allies do, to bring peace to the region, if, that is the objective?

Killing and attacks is not the answer as the years of their presence in Afghanistan has already proved.

The answer lies in reverting to the Rule of Tribal Balance. There are many tribes in Afghanistan and FATA/NWFP areas. But all, subscribe to the code known as “Pashtunwali”. It may be interpreted as the “way of life of the Pashtuns”. Those who digress, face the repercussion of being denounced by their tribe. One principle of the code, is revenge from the wrong doer, committed in any date, even 1000 years ago. An invasion of their homes, thereby taking away their honor, is definitely considered as a wrong doing. America’s presence in their homeland will thereby, always be opposed and resisted by this race.

Historically speaking, it is the Pashtunwali that made the system of “jirga” successful with the Pashtuns. . A Loya Jirga(Tribal Jirga), is a mass meeting to choose a new king or, discuss an emergency of mammoth proportions. It is a forum unique to Pashtuns of Afghanistan and Pakistan, bringing the tribal elders together. However, all tribes are given equality within decision making, hence the success of Rule of Tribal Balance.

The Barakzai clan, successfully ruled Afghanistan from 1826 to 1929, or 1973 after the end of the rule of Mohammad Zahir Shah.

America has not understood the cultural norms and the local traditions of the country she purports to rule. The traditional western solution of Presidential rule will fail in Afghanistan. History has proved, anything that is forced upon a nation, in contradiction to their code of life, will fail to hold.

Any solution that is based away from the one respected, understood and followed by the Afghans, will and must, fail. What America needs to do, is to feel the pulse of the nation. And not to foist an individual, a system that may have worked in America, but instead, to put a system in place that is acceptable and workable with the local people of Afghanistan.

Yasmeen Ali is a lawyer teaching in a university in Lahore. You may visit her website at: http://pakpotpourri2.wordpress.com/ .

1 Vote

Releasing Raymond Davis

Why I Agree With Zardari

By YASMEEN ALI

Lahore

The atmosphere in Pakistan is charged with emotions: fury at the release of Raymond Davis, the U. S contractor who killed two Pakistanis in cold blood. The government, especially the President, is coming under firing for “doing” this. A rally by Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf was organized in a few hours. All kinds and shades of experts are speaking 24/7 on the electronic media airing their views. Print media is working over time trying to prove the government is ineffective and the “deal” struck between the victims families and Raymond Davis is immoral, wrong, without justice.

Pakistan is being labeled as a “bargain basement”, ridiculed. Emotions aside, let us examine the facts:

Pakistan refused to accept the diplomatic status of Raymond Davis. In spite of the pressure on the Pakistan by the powerful executives of the U. S government, During a press conference in Washington, no less a person than Obama himself, said that the US official, identified as Raymond Davis, enjoys diplomatic immunity. "If our diplomats are in another country, then they are not subject to that country's local prosecution," Obama stated. The Pakistan Government did not back down! They did not cave in!

The case was registered as per law of the country, and the matter referred to the court. The entire nation, media, politicians, rejoiced. Pakistan had decided to stand up to The Power and go by the Law. Raymond Davis was kept in the Koth Lakhpath jail throughout the period of the hearing of the case.

The Court indicted Raymond Davis for double murder after rejecting plea for diplomatic immunity. This had made every Pakistani proud. There is faith in the justice system that has decided the case according to the tenants of law and not pressure, no matter how immense.

Then came disillusion. News broke out that the families of the victims have accepted “blood money”, Raymond Davis has not only been released but flown out of Pakistan, as have the families of the victims. The latter to USA.

Let us first explore the concept of “blood money” under which this was made possible. In the Qisas and Diyat Ordinance Section 315 is relevant in the case under discussion:

Section 315:Qatl Shibh-I-Amd.

Whoever with the intent to cause harm to the body or mind of any person causes the death of that or of any other person by means of a weapon or act which in the ordinary course of nature is not likely to cause death is said to commit qatl shibh-I-amd.

Punishment : whoever commits qatl shibh-I-amd shall be liable to Diyat [compensation specified in section 323, payable to the heirs of the victim by the offender, Eds] and may also be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term up to 14 years as ta’zir.

When we say ”may also” it becomes an option in law. Court may or may not add imprisonment as part of the punishment. In a case where the victims forgive the accused after accepting diyat, the punishment will not accrue.

Here rises the question whether or not the families of victims were pressurized into accepting the diyat. This decision, is to be taken by the free will of the heirs.

According to the lawyer representing the victims, pressure was exerted. However, to be admissible as proof this has to be certified by the concerned parties themselves and not by others.

The pressure could have been from either side, to accept the diyat and also by others not to accept diyat. Let us remember they were poor people with no contacts to save them from the repercussions of pressures or threats. Thereby, it made sense, for their own safety, to remove them to a place of safety from their abodes.

We, as a nation, need to make a focused decision. Do we want to accept the decision on the basis of law or on the basis of emotions? If our vote is for the former, then let us accept that the decision was taken lawfully. Yes, the speed with which all events took place; the court’s indictment, Davis’s release, his departure, has made politicians and “analysts”, play on the emotional pitch of their countrymen they understand so well.

A friend wrote to me, on the protests against Davis’s release:

“[As for]the parties protesting, except for the Pakistan Muslim League, no one gave the families any financial aid. They are just using this for their political gains. The special fund created by an advocate with the help of AAJ TV got only Rs,49,000;this too from poor people. No rich person contributed any thing! What a shame. If the nation had contributed if not billions but at least a decent sum; one rupee per person even then these protests would have been justified.”

What should have been questioned by politicians, media and the civil society, is not the case of diyat which is a perfectly acceptable Islamic option, but as to why, when Lytton Road police had put Davis’ arrest on record in the second FIR registered against him under charges of carrying an illegal pistol (Express Tribune February 3rd 2011), this finds no mention in the final analysis. All focus was on the murder charges and not on the offence committed by him against the State.

The case of Raymond Davis will have far reaching effects on the relationship of both the countries. For one, the world realizes that irrespective of the country of origin, a wrong doer will be nabbed and charged in Pakistan.

Second, after the arrest of Raymond Davis, Pakistan has began scrutinizing records of the Americans living in Pakistan and discovered several discrepancies, causing many suspected American operatives to maintain a low profile and others to leave the country altogether.

Extract from a report by Express Tribune by Asad Kharal published Februray 23rd 2011:

“The foreign ministry states that there are 851 Americans with diplomatic immunity currently in Pakistan, of whom 297 are not working in a diplomatic capacity. However, sources at the interior ministry put the number of non-diplomats at 414. The majority of these ‘special Americans’ (as the ministry refers to them) are concentrated in Islamabad, with some also residing in Karachi, Lahore and Peshawar. Interior ministry records show that most of the “special Americans” live in upscale neighborhoods in Islamabad and Lahore, with smaller presences in Karachi and Peshawar.”

Third, this should be a lesson to Pakistan not to put all its eggs in one basket!

Yasmeen Ali is a lawyer based in Lahore, teaching in a University. See her site, http://pakpotpourri2.blogspot.com/ and

http://pakpotpourri2.wordpress.com/

THIS IS A CROSS POST FROM COUNTER PUNCH.

LINK:

http://www.counterpunch.org/yasmeen03182011.html

Needed: Democratic Infra structural Changes in Pakistan

This is a Pakpotpourri Exclusive

By: Yasmeen Ali

Since it’s inception in 1947, Pakistan has been riddled with the question of finding a system of governance tailor made for her needs. In the quest,Pakistan has had affairs with Parliamentary System, Presidential System, semi-Presidential System…..but has been unable so far, to determine what suits her best.

All shades of governments and rulers came and went. Democracy was replaced by Dictatorship and Dictatorship by Democracy. Governments formed, mostly in coalition by the winning party joining hands with one winning provincially to form a majority and set up government.

If we look at the 2008 General Elections results, it provides an enlightening picture. Pakistan Peoples Party won a total of 94 seats excluding 4 for minorities and 23 reserved for women, bringing the score up to 130 seats. Pakistan Muslim League- N bagged 95 seats, including 3 for minorities and 17 reserved for women. Pakistan Muslim League-Q secured 55 seats including 2 for minorities and 10 reserved for women. Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) walked away with 26 seats, including 1 for minorities and 5 for women. Pakistan Muslim League-Fazlur Rehman Group nabbed 5 seats including one reserved for women. Pakistan Peoples Party –Sherpao Group took 1 seat as did the National Peoples Party. Baluchistan National Party-Awami, bagged a whooping 18 seats .

Thereby, a total of 226 seats were contested for and won by various parties in elections, 60 reserved for women, 10 reserved for minorities, bringing the total to 336. Jamiat-Ulema-e-Islam (F) did not contest.

The picture becomes clear as the mist clears by figures quoted.

Collaboration and partnership of Muttahida Qaumi Movement becomes mandatory if the party bagging most votes needs to set up a government in Sindh. Once done,there are the constant tantrums thrown, and the provincial party, following in the footsteps of a film heroin, falls out with her lover, then is cajoled with sweets, flowers, and more expensive offerings. There are situations leading to a near complete break up of the love-hate relationship, only to realize, by both, near the brink ,how important the partnership is,managing to pull back and embrace- letting bygones be bygones- till the same cycle happens all over again!

Likewise, in Baluchistan, the active support of Baluchistan National Party (BNP) is mandatory to form government in province.

In Peshawar, it was Awami National Party that won 13 seats, but none from Hazara. To form government, support by ANP to the party forming the provincial government is needed.

What clearly emerges from the above scenario was that no single party is, across the board acceptable to the people of Pakistan. PPP emerges as the only party with representation in all four provinces securing half the seats in Sindh, one-third of seats in the Punjab, and roughly 30 per cent seats in NWFP and Baluchistan. PML-N, the second largest party is routed to Punjab only, with no representation in Sindh and Baluchistan, and, in NWFP, secured seats only in the non-Pushto speaking Hazara area. Ethnicity has started playing a big role in electing candidates-a dangerous trend.

The net result of this scenario is the following of an Appeasement Policy in dealing with the parties on board by the ruling party-whichever party is in the steering position, the 2008 General Elections results used as an example only. Instead of focusing on issues that should be focused on, time , energy, funds and resources are misdirected towards keeping the coalition partners happy and willing to keep government intact. Good governance suffers. It becomes relegated to the back burner. Insults are hurled at each other, accusations, counter accusations hold the day. Then miraculously, a ministry here, a promise there, and the sun comes out, bright and clear, till the next round!

The interests of these small pockets of seats won by local parties may,and do, differ widely on issues from that of the ruling party. In the long run, it may be the national interest that is sacrificed at the alter of Appeasement!

Who is to be blamed? The smaller parties? The ruling party? Or both?

I think it is the wrong system that is to be held responsible. So long there are smaller parties nibbling in the pie, demanding a slice, good governance will continue to suffer.

Pakistan must seriously look at changing over to a Two Party System rather than a Multi-Party System it presently is. This is something we have never tried. Something so basically, glaringly wrong in our whole approach to democracy, that that it has effected governance by whomsoever government has been in power.

Yes! It is time for those democratic infra structural changes in Pakistan.

(Yasmeen Ali is a lawyer based in Lahore. She also teaches in a University and moderates her blog Pakpotpourri2).

America's secret plan to arm Libya's rebels

Obama asks Saudis to airlift weapons into Benghazi

By Robert Fisk

Desperate to avoid US military involvement in Libya in the event of a prolonged struggle between the Gaddafi regime and its opponents, the Americans have asked Saudi Arabia if it can supply weapons to the rebels in Benghazi. The Saudi Kingdom, already facing a "day of rage" from its 10 per cent Shia Muslim community on Friday, with a ban on all demonstrations, has so far failed to respond to Washington's highly classified request, although King Abdullah personally loathes the Libyan leader, who tried to assassinate him just over a year ago.

Washington's request is in line with other US military co-operation with the Saudis. The royal family in Jeddah, which was deeply involved in the Contra scandal during the Reagan administration, gave immediate support to American efforts to arm guerrillas fighting the Soviet army in Afghanistan in 1980 and later – to America's chagrin – also funded and armed the Taliban.

But the Saudis remain the only US Arab ally strategically placed and capable of furnishing weapons to the guerrillas of Libya. Their assistance would allow Washington to disclaim any military involvement in the supply chain – even though the arms would be American and paid for by the Saudis.

The Saudis have been told that opponents of Gaddafi need anti-tank rockets and mortars as a first priority to hold off attacks by Gaddafi's armour, and ground-to-air missiles to shoot down his fighter-bombers.

Supplies could reach Benghazi within 48 hours but they would need to be delivered to air bases in Libya or to Benghazi airport. If the guerrillas can then go on to the offensive and assault Gaddafi's strongholds in western Libya, the political pressure on America and Nato – not least from Republican members of Congress – to establish a no-fly zone would be reduced.

US military planners have already made it clear that a zone of this kind would necessitate US air attacks on Libya's functioning, if seriously depleted, anti-aircraft missile bases, thus bringing Washington directly into the war on the side of Gaddafi's opponents.

For several days now, US Awacs surveillance aircraft have been flying around Libya, making constant contact with Malta air traffic control and requesting details of Libyan flight patterns, including journeys made in the past 48 hours by Gaddafi's private jet which flew to Jordan and back to Libya just before the weekend.

Officially, Nato will only describe the presence of American Awacs planes as part of its post-9/11 Operation Active Endeavour, which has broad reach to undertake aerial counter-terrorism measures in the Middle East region.

The data from the Awacs is streamed to all Nato countries under the mission's existing mandate. Now that Gaddafi has been reinstated as a super-terrorist in the West's lexicon, however, the Nato mission can easily be used to search for targets of opportunity in Libya if active military operations are undertaken.

Al Jazeera English television channel last night broadcast recordings made by American aircraft to Maltese air traffic control, requesting information about Libyan flights, especially that of Gaddafi's jet.

An American Awacs aircraft, tail number LX-N90442 could be heard contacting the Malta control tower on Saturday for information about a Libyan Dassault-Falcon 900 jet 5A-DCN on its way from Amman to Mitiga, Gaddafi's own VIP airport.

Nato Awacs 07 is heard to say: "Do you have information on an aircraft with the Squawk 2017 position about 85 miles east of our [sic]?"

Malta air traffic control replies: "Seven, that sounds to be Falcon 900- at flight level 340, with a destination Mitiga, according to flight plan."

But Saudi Arabia is already facing dangers from a co-ordinated day of protest by its own Shia Muslim citizens who, emboldened by the Shia uprising in the neighbouring island of Bahrain, have called for street protests against the ruling family of al-Saud on Friday.

After pouring troops and security police into the province of Qatif last week, the Saudis announced a nationwide ban on all public demonstrations.

Shia organisers claim that up to 20,000 protesters plan to demonstrate with women in the front rows to prevent the Saudi army from opening fire.

If the Saudi government accedes to America's request to send guns and missiles to Libyan rebels, however, it would be almost impossible for President Barack Obama to condemn the kingdom for any violence against the Shias of the north-east provinces.

Thus has the Arab awakening, the demand for democracy in North Africa, the Shia revolt and the rising against Gaddafi become entangled in the space of just a few hours with US military priorities in the region.

(Robert Frisk is a world renowned writer and political analyst.He is Middle East Corrospondent of The Independent , UK)

NOTE:This is a cross post from The Independent, UK.

An imperial hubris

Editor's Note: The edited version of this article under a different headline was carried by a newspaper today. The writer has offered unedited version of the same to be used exclusively on Pakpotpourri2.

By: Shireen M Mazari 
Once again Pakistan is being subject to the usual US imperial arrogance – this time on the Davis case. We have had threats of all kinds simply to get a murderer released and even President Obama has jumped into the fray, imperially claiming Davis has diplomatic immunity! Of course US Presidents, in recent times at least, have been known for their lies with Bush commencing his Iraq war on the WMD lie and Colin Powell brazenly lying to the UN Security Council! So Obama may be following yet another Bush tradition – after his exuberant adoption of the drones’ policy. Such imperial hubris reflected in the threats of aid and meetings’ cut-offs should be seen as an opportunity by the Pakistani state to re-evaluate its whole relationship with the US and restructure it more favourably. If the whole “strategic” edifice is under threat over the issue of Raymond Davis, one really wonders whether there ever was such a relationship to begin with. Take the example of our longstanding strategic ally China: has this relationship ended despite the targeted killings of Chinese in Pakistan?




Perhaps if the US could see beyond its imperial arrogance, it would realise that right now its own interests would be damaged far more than the suffering the Pakistani nation may suffer – as opposed to the ruling elite – especially in terms of its so-called “war on terror”! But the US rarely sees reality beyond its blinkered vision and its contemptuous arrogance towards the Pakistani state is so immense that it has chosen not to have a lawyer represent Davis in the Lahore High Court!



It is also amusing and ironic to see the Obama Administration, as well as US lawmakers, suddenly accuse Pakistan of not abiding by international law! Given how the US not only flouts international law at every opportunity but refuses to subscribe to accept the International Criminal Court and any International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion that goes against it (Remember the Nicaragua harbour mining case?), it is hardly in a position to adopt the high moral ground on international law. Only recently, the US violated the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) it had put its signature to, when it signed its nuclear deal with India – something Senator Kerry felt he should educate us on in terms of the Vienna Conventions. By going for this deal the US contravened Articles I and III:2 of the NPT, which amongst other restrictions, forbid transfer of sensitive and dual use technology to non-NPT states.



However, what is the Pakistan government up to with its Ministry of Foreign Affairs seeking three weeks further to give a simple response to the issue of Raymond Davis’s immunity issue? As if the absurd proclamations and retractions of the PPP office bearers and ministers were not folly enough, we have now had the Punjab Chief Minister state that Interior Minister Rehman Malik had informed him that the Federal Government was going to give Davis diplomatic immunity and would be informing the Lahore High Court of the same. Clearly that too did not happen on Thursday as the case got underway and the nation must be grateful for these small hiccups in the path of total subjugation to the US Will. Unfortunately, the LHC has had to stay the proceedings till the federal government overcomes its habitual pusillanimity when confronted by the US and plucks up the courage to take a clear position on the immunity issue.



But why is the Pakistani political leadership so hesitant on the Davis case since whichever legal perspective one takes, there is no ground on which Davis can claim diplomatic immunity. In view of the documents already in the public domain, including the “official visa” – and there is a qualitative difference between his visa and a diplomatic visa – there is no ground on which Davis could be placed in the category of a diplomat. However, even if one were to concede the US argument of his being “Administrative and technical staff” and thereby entitled to “diplomatic immunity” under the 1961 Vienna Convention; for such staff this “immunity” is not applicable to actions outside “official functions” under Articles 31:1c and 37:2.



In any case, with the material evidence, including photographs of sensitive military offices, recovered from Davis as well as his pay slip for the period beginning September 2010, he clearly falls into the category of being hired by the US State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security and is in all probability a CIA “stringer” intelligence agent. In fact, as the facts of Davis come to light, it appears he may have deliberately allowed the second car to speed away as it may have had more covert operatives in it. Interestingly, in November 2009 and later in 2010, Davis was caught in restricted military locations in Peshawar and sources state that the Foreign Office verbally asked the US Embassy to remove him from Peshawar. Proper interrogation of Davis is essential now for Pakistan to discover the linkages with a range of US covert activities.



While we can sigh with relief over the halt in drone attacks since the arrest of Davis, the cause for this halt is probably the US fear that the location of other stringer agents may be revealed through these attacks. That brings up another interesting aspect of the Davis case: the possibility of charging him with espionage given the massive evidence already available and made public. After all, if the federal and provincial governments manage to persuade, through fair means or foul, the families of the victims to accept “blood money”, Davis still needs to be detained on espionage charges and tried for the same. This is one criminal who must not be allowed to get away with impunity.



Most important, though, the Davis case should persuade the Pakistani state to rein in the thousands of US operatives – both CIA and private security contractors – and rid the country of them as soon as possible so that there is no repeat of this lethal incident again on our territory.
(The writer is a former editor of The Nation and ex-head of the Institute of Strategic Studies in Islamabad).

Raymond Davis, Murder and Vienna Convention 1961

By Yasmeen Ali

This ia a Pakpotpourri Exclusive

By: Yasmeen Ali

You cannot open the TV, or read a paper here without more and more news about Raymond Davis and his murderous act. His killing on Jan. 27 of two young Pakistanis has created international waves, too, plunging the Pakistan-America relationship into stormy waters.




A great deal has been written about the case: Raymond Davis’s employment status, whether he is a diplomat or not, who his victims were and what led to their demise at his hands, and finally whether or not Davis can be detained and ultimately tried under the Pakistani Law.



Interestingly though, nobody in the media has made a study of the Vienna Diplomatic Coventions that discuss diplomatic immunity. The convention of 1961 gets cited routinely by the American government, which claims it grants all diplomatic workers immunity from prosecution.



But that claim overstates the case. The actual document — never actually quoted — is more nuanced.



A friend notes, “The issue is not who the two Pakistanis were. The real issue is: The US media has confirmed what the US government is denying: Davis runs a private security firm. He is a military contractor. He is registered in Colorado as the owner of a security firm.” He says the questions that should be asked are: What was his real job in Lahore/Islamabad/Peshawar? And can a diplomats carry an unlicensed gun?”



This same friend also suggests that the indentity of the two Pakistani shooting victims — according to a number of Pakistani reports, and to several in the US, including ABC News, they were working for Pakistani intelligence and were tailing Davis — is a distraction. He says the real issues are what Davis was doing here and secondly, can a so-called “technical advisor”–the term the US State Department finally settled on to describe his job — claim diplomatic immunity?



I would argue, though, that the real issue is a general ignorance concerning what diplomatic immunity is, and whether such immunity extends to all acts of any nature committed by an individual, even if that individual does qualify as a diplomat. All other questions are a distraction.



The concept of diplomatic rights was established in the mid-17th century in Europe and since then came gradually to be accepted throughout the world. These rights were formalized by the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which protects diplomats from being persecuted or prosecuted while on a diplomatic mission.



However, if we examine the specific articles of that Vienna Convention of 1961, some interesting facts emerge.



First, Article 29 states that the person of a diplomatic agent shall be inviolable. He shall not be liable to any form of arrest or detention. The receiving or host state shall treat him with due respect and shall take all appropriate steps to prevent any attack on his person, freedom or dignity. But those, like the US State Department and Davis’s Pakistani attorney, who demand the release of Raymond Davis on this ground, have obviously neglected to read, or don’t want others to read, the related articles within the Convention which strip away any absolute blanket coverage under the guise of “diplomatic immunity” for visiting or appointed diplomats.



Article 38 of the Vienna Convention 1961 states that except where additional privileges and immunities have been specifically granted by the host State, a diplomatic agent who is a national of or permanently resident in that State shall enjoy only immunity from jurisdiction, and inviolability, in respect of official acts performed in the exercise of his functions.



The above article clearly differentiates between an act carried out as part of his official duties and those done as a personal act. Any actions done personally and outside the ambit of official consular duties shall not be covered by “diplomatic immunity.”



Article 37 of the 1961 convention goes on to reinforce the above limitation on immunity by stating:



…Members of the administrative and technical staff of the mission, together with members of their families forming part of their respective households, shall, if they are not nationals of or permanently resident in the receiving State, enjoy the privileges and immunities specified in articles 29to 35, except that the immunity from civil and administrative jurisdiction of the receiving State specified in paragraph 1 of article 31 shall not extend to acts performed outside the course of their duties.



The question then becomes not whether or not those murdered were Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI) agents, robbers or fruit sellers, but whether Davis did or did not have diplomatic immunity, but whether his fatal shooting of the two men was conducted while he was involved in performing his official duties.



If the answer to that question is no, Raymond Davis cannot claim diplomatic immunity.



The US State Department is also carefully avoiding mentioning a later treaty, the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 1963. That treaty, which extends and further clarifies, and where there may be a conflict, would supersede the earlier treaty, states in Section II, Article 41 in its first paragraph regarding the “Personal inviolability of consular officers”:



Consular officers shall not be liable to arrest or detention pending trial, except in the case of a grave crime and pursuant to a decision by the competent judicial authority.



The law here would seem to be quite clear. If Davis was in Lahore on anything other than official consular business, and if he killed two people “in cold blood” as the Lahore prosecutor has stated, then legal authorities in Pakistan are absolutely within their rights under the Vienna Conventions to be holding him for trial.



If he is released before a judicial determination regarding his claim of immunity, or if he is found to be properly detained but is released anyhow before standing trial for the killings, it would be not because he has diplomatic immunity, but because of political pressure from the US. But that would be something that is outside of the realm of the law.



Yasmeen Ali is a Pakistani attorney who lives in Lahore

NOTE:This article was published in PAKISTAN OBSERVER and COUNTER PUNCH

The civilized and the uncivilized

Humayun Gauhar

Populations are classified using different measures, like sex, rural-urban, income, education, age, profession, religious persuasion… The most misleading is ‘elite’. ‘Elite’ means crème de la crème, the best of the best in any field. What they mean is the ruling class and the ruled; both may have elite amongst them.

To understand the mentality and national psyche of a society one has to understand its value system and find a different classification. I believe the best is ‘civilized’ and ‘uncivilized’. It is most egalitarian because people separated by other convenient yardsticks can come into it. For example, a rich man can be an uncivilized upstart while a poor man can be dignified and civilized; an ‘educated’ person can lack wisdom while a poor man can be wise. However, to avoid one’s own definitions and prejudices interfering, one should go by certain markers that are universally accepted.

A person is civilized if he either belongs to a ‘civilization’ or subscribes to one. This informs his mentality. Such people are ‘civil’.

A civilization is a highly developed and refined society where people feel comfort in living.

It is rich in languages, poetry, prose, music and the arts.

It has an advanced education system and curriculum and teachers are so good that students look up to them.

It has rich cuisines and apparel.

All can practice their faith without fear of bigotry and dogma.

There is an advanced and competent judicial system based on due process.

There is distributive justice when society is balanced without vast differences between rich and poor. None is starving or without respectable shelter or adequate food or medical care.

Where people have dignity and recourse against slander and libel and protection is guaranteed by the State.

Where people have the basic things in life and enjoy their God-given birthrights – food with nutrition, free clean drinking water, justice with due process, egalitarianism, the right to develop their minds to their full potential, to medicine, travel and so forth. This can only come when society accepts that everyone has the right to earn an honest and respectable living.

Where the primitive feudal mindset is in retreat and people get fair wages for their labour.

Where there is no slavery or bonded labour.

Where there is gender respect and equality and women and children are not treated like chattel and are not the victims of vani and ‘honour’ killings.

Where society ensures all these rights by crafting a political, economic and social system that makes the State deliver those rights and make them affordable.

Where there is tolerance, moderation and enlightenment.

Above all, where the independence of a people is jealously protected.

Such societies are civilized.

Civilized people don’t abdicate their thinking to others, like churches and clerics of every ilk and let them do their thinking for them. Neither do they tolerate clerics in the camouflage of ‘scholars’.

Such people are civil because they belong to a vibrant and dynamic civilization.

They live within their means and like upstarts don’t show off beyond their means, so they won’t tolerate their country living beyond its means either and reducing them to beggary.

Their rulers are not corrupt and the ruled do not tolerate corruption. Rulers and the rich pay taxes, don’t default on fair loans and don’t accept pardons to escape accountability.

They are polite and tolerant. They respect their parents and elders.

Their parents instill the best value system in them.

They reject rituals, traditions and customs that negate their Faith and civilization.

They truly understand the meaning of the word ‘honour’ and realize that there is great dishonor in breaking the injunctions of God and the laws of the land.

They can tell the difference between right and wrong, good and evil.

They respect life, especially human life. They protect God’s creation.

They do not procreate endlessly without regard to their wives’ health or the health of their country.

They respect others’ right to hold different views – “to you your way and to me mine” – as long as they don’t infringe on the rights of others. They understand that there is no compulsion in religion.

An uncivilized people are the opposite. What do they do?

They abdicate their faith to the cleric and let him determine their faith. That is how clerics find space in our lives. If only the civilized would bother to learn to deliver a sermon, lead our few prayers and teach their children their Holy Book themselves, there would be no need for mullahs in our lives because we Muslims have no church, by whatever name called.

They don’t pray to God directly but go through someone or something else.

They practice black magic and voodoo and make their decisions hostage to stargazers, card readers, palmists and parrots.

They tolerate extremists who take hidebound positions and would throttle those who differ.

They enjoy their media blowing issues out of proportion, promoting lies, and hold up contemptible anchors as icons instead of dangerous clowns.

They elect the worst as their rulers, corrupt with fake graduation degrees. They find comical a chief minister’s priceless defense – “A degree is a degree whether fake or genuine” – instead of kicking the man the man who stopped mid-speech in a drunken stupor, legless.

They tolerate rulers stooping to the very personal while abusing each other, dragging in wives and daughters, not that many of the latter are icons of civilization either.

They tolerate rulers living in pomp and panoply while the vast multitudes live in wretchedness.

They tolerate judges issuing contempt notices against judges, lawyers beating up judges and forcing their transfers, lawyers beating up lawyers, politicians, journalists, cameramen, policemen and even their clients. They tolerate lawyers approving the ‘execution’ of a man by a crazed religious lunatic without giving him the chance of a free and fair trial. They join such lawyers in lionizing the murderer by showering flower petals on him and forcing his case out of its area of jurisdiction. Such people are truly uncivilized. Are lawyers not officers of the courts or are they someone’s storm troopers? A civilized society’s supreme court would take immediate action against such lawyers and disbar them, for they are a stigma on justice, society, civilization and Faith. They need re-education.

Such is an uncivilized society. It is mired in decadence and decay, unaware that it has not long to go.

(The writer is a political analyst & a columnist).

NOTE:This is a cross post.