Pakistani establishment is waging a new war: against its own media

• RFE/RL Gandhara

Pakistan’s Human Rights Commission says media firms facing attack for reports that are critical of security and intelligence agencies as well as militants.

Pakistan’s leading rights watchdog says it has documented the “unprecedented level” to which the freedom of expression and press freedom has shrunk in the country.

In its annual report documenting rights abuses in the predominantly Muslim country of 207 million people, the nongovernmental Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) revealed a startling decrease in individual and collective freedom of expression in 2018.

“Media coverage was severely inhibited amid a climate of intimidation and fear, most specifically in reporting on abuses by government security and intelligence agencies as well as militants,” the report noted.

According to the HRCP, Pakistani media companies were pressured by officials to avoid covering certain issues while journalists were intimidated into self-censorship as authorities punished violators of such bans by blocking television networks and the distribution of newspapers.

“Overt repression was attributed to national security concerns,” the report said. “In most cases, however, the incidences of interference and intimidation by state and non-state actors received no official acknowledgment and there was a complete absence of efforts to hold anyone accountable.”

The report documented an alarming trend of threats to freedom of expression. These include the naming of journalist Cyril Almeida in a treason case along with former Pakistani Prime Ministers Nawaz Sharif and Shahid Khaqan Abbasi for interviewing them. Almeida faced an arrest warrant and a ban on traveling abroad, which were later revoked.

“The media were reportedly also pressured into firing certain employees who were deemed too critical of the Pakistani [security] establishment,” the report said. “Prime-time news [television] show hosts Talat Hussain, Murtaza Solangi, Matiullah Jan, and Nusrat Javed either quit or lost their jobs.”

HRCP says protests and movements demanding security, rights, or accountably of officials faced censorship of their coverage.

“The most commonly tabooed subjects cited were: missing persons, the Pashtun Tahafuz Movement (PTM), Baloch separatists, and rights activists,” the report said, citing a survey the HRCP conducted to gauge how officials control and influence the coverage of Pakistani news media.

The report says journalists in the country’s print and broadcast media routinely receive advice from Pakistani civilian and military bureaucrats responsible for public relations.

“In some cases, state or intelligence agencies approached channel or newspaper owners directly, threatening their channel/publication or parent business with NAB or FIA cases or suspension of advertisements unless they agreed to abide by certain conditions,” report said citing the National Accountability Bureau and the Federal Investigation Agency by their acronyms.

But last year Asif Ghafoor, a spokesman for the military, rejected imposing curbs on the media.

“We have never told any journalist or media owner what to say and what not to,” he told journalists in June. “We have always told them that Pakistan needs to unite, and we need to bring forward its strengths and success. I thank the media for their willing cooperation.”

Pakistan is considered one of the most dangerous countries for journalists. According to the global media watchdog the Committee to Protect Journalists, 68 journalists have been killed in Pakistan since 1992. Pakistani journalists face censorship, beatings, threats, disappearances, and illegal confinements.

In an ominous sign of the threats faced by journalists, the HRCP says that even the editor of its annual State of Human Rights in 2017 report faced an armed raid thinly disguised as a burglary.

“In the hour-long visitation, her phones, laptop, and hard drives were removed, and documents inspected,” the report said. “She was questioned on her personal and professional status, including her religion, caste, and who was paying her.”

HRCP says that while some jewelry and cash were taken, the police admitted it was no ordinary burglary and she was advised against filing a complaint.

“An investigation never materialized and formal letters written to the authorities went unacknowledged,” the report noted.

Pakistani generals want to restore their golden era & that’s why Musharraf’s team is back

HUSAIN HAQQANI

Musharraf’s team was competent because it secured western assistance, pledging to fight terrorists while covertly assisting them at the same time.

Amajor reshuffle in Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan’s cabinet leaves key ministries in the hands of several technocrats and a former spymaster accused of protectingOsama bin Laden, all of whom previously served in General Pervez Musharraf’s military regime. Politicians loyal to Khan have also been sidelined.

The military, which assisted Imran Khan’s rise to power, used his celebrity status to tap into the yearning of change among Pakistani youth. But its objective all along was to restore what Pakistan’s generals see as their golden era. Under Musharraf, the military ran affairs of the state with the help of technocrats who managed a relatively booming economy.

In the minds of Pakistan’s generals, Musharraf’s team was competent because it secured large amounts of western assistance, pledging to fight terrorists while covertly assisting them at the same time. The civilian governments that succeeded Musharraf could not maintain the poker face and were, therefore, incompetent.

The soldiers believe in their own propaganda and do not realise that the double games of the Musharraf era have permanently eroded Pakistan’s international credibility.

The military set in motion a series of events – Khan’s sit-in outside parliament, disqualificationof then-Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif without a trial, corruption proceedings against major politicians, denial of media space to anyone the military did not like while building Khan’s image as a saviour – to help him win the deeply flawed elections of July 2018. Their purpose in doing so was not to bring the change Khan promised his young supporters but to undo the changes that had occurred since Musharraf’s removal from power.

Khan is a narcissist celebrity, with little experience of government, who also believes in his own propaganda. He assumed that as long as he did the military’s bidding in foreign policy and pursue the army’s critics with a vengeance, the civilian government and the military would remain on the same page.

The military leadership has now decided to change the writing on the page they share with the civilian prime minister. They want the economy to be run as efficiently as they believe it was run under Musharraf and they want cabinet ministers who can cover the tracks of Pakistan’s disreputable intelligence services.

As the generals see it, Pakistan did not face Financial Action Task Force (FATF) sanctions during the Musharraf era although a number of Jihadi terrorist groups operated openly. There was also less global criticism of enforced disappearances and mistreatment of religious minorities. Even the discovery of A.Q. Khan’s nuclear Walmart did not attract scrutiny that would have jeopardised Pakistan’s economy or security.

Thus, in the generals’ thinking, it is all about who presents Pakistan’s case to the world and how, not about changing the situation on the ground. Khan’s outgoing ministers did a poorer job than Musharraf’s team, hence a return to Musharraf’s team for key portfolios.

At the top of the list of Musharraf’s men inducted into Imran Khan’s cabinet is the new interior minister, Brigadier (R) Ijaz Shah – a former intelligence officer who served as director of the Intelligence Bureau under Musharraf. Shah is reported to have run terrorist operations in Jammu and Kashmir when he served in Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and his role as Musharraf’s hatchet man did not earn him a particularly good reputation either.

When Musharraf tried to nominate Ijaz Shah as High Commissioner to Australia, the Australian government withheld consent to that ambassadorial appointment – a rare occurrence in contemporary diplomacy.

Shah was also accused of playing a key role in harbouring Osama bin Laden and was named by Benazir Bhutto before her assassination as someone plotting to kill her. His appointment as minister in-charge of law and order is unlikely to advance the claim that Pakistan has turned the corner on sponsoring Jihadi terrorism at a time when FATF is considering blacklisting Pakistan. But Shah probably qualifies as a competent spymaster inside Pakistan’s hyper-nationalist bubble.

Another controversial appointment is that of Nadeem Babar, a businessman with interests in private power companies and a supposed expert on energy, as special assistant to the PM for petroleum and natural resources with the rank of a minister. Babar cannot be designated minister because he is not a member of parliament, one of 16 such persons in Khan’s 47-member cabinet.

There is a clear conflict of interest in making a person with business interests in the energy sector as the head of the ministry dealing with the sector. But there are other reasons why Babar should not have been appointed to the job. Apparently, his company Orient Power failed to pay Pakistan Rupees 800 million to Pakistan’s Sui Northern Gas Pipelines, ignoring the decision of the London Court of International Arbitration.

Abdul Hafeez Shaikh, a technocrat who served as Musharraf’s privatisation minister and was brought back as finance minister under Asif Ali Zardari, will replace Asad Umar as adviser for finance. Shaikh did well in his previous stints in government, but his appointment hardly represents change.

Fawad Chaudhry, who was the information minister and like Shaikh had served in the Zardari and Musharraf governments, has been appointed minister for science and technology. His replacement in the information ministry, Firdous Ashiq Awan, is also a veteran of the Zardari regime as are several others in the cabinet.

Considering that Imran Khan and the military blame Pakistan’s decline on elected leaders like Zardari, the choice of many of Zardari’s ministers in the new government suggests that Zardari was better at selecting members for his team than the new Captain.

As is often the case, there is always something to laugh about in otherwise disturbing news from Pakistan. Ijaz Shah’s appointment as minister of interior might be frightening, the rise of unelected advisers and the reinstatement of Musharraf’s team might be disconcerting, but the designation of Shehryar Afridi as minister for states and frontier regions is downright funny.

Khan’s government had announced the abolition of the Ministry for States and Frontier Regions (known as SAFRON) in September 2018. Afridi, who was interior minister until the cabinet reshuffle, might be a good choice to be minister of an abolished ministry because he believes Imran Khan can talk to the dead.

He is also the man who was filmed holding out assurances that Hafiz Saeed, head of the terror organisation Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), would never be harmed by his government because Saeed and others like him raise their voice for “Pakistan and righteousness”.

As Pakistan’s generals might say, the new interior minister may have harboured bin Laden as alleged, but at least he was competent enough not to be filmed with him.

America Should Stop Supporting The Lavish Life Of Pakistan's Rich

Panos Mourdoukoutas

America should stop providing aid to Pakistan, which ends up supporting the country’s rich and powerful.

It should let China and Saudi Arabia do it.

Providing financial aid to poor countries around the world makes a great deal of sense for America, both on humanitarian and geopolitical grounds.The trouble is that in some cases, American foreign aid ends up supporting the lifestyles of the elite rather than the lives of the poor. Pakistan is a case in point. For decades, Washington has been very generous to that South Asian nation , according to Akbar Zaidi, a Karachi-based political economist and Columbia University Visiting Scholar. It helped the country deal with chronic debt crisis.

“Washington support is often reflected in its endorsement of Pakistan’s applications for aid from international financial institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank,” says Zaidi. “It helps to have the United States as an ally when it comes to seeking assistance from multilateral sources.”

MSCI Pakistan ETF

 KOYFIN

Pakistan Central Government Debt

 KOYFIN

Like back in December 2001, when Washington brokered a $12 billion IMF debt relief package for Islamabad, in exchange f or support to fight Islamic militancy in the region.

So why Pakistan is running into debt problems that require foreign aid to solve them?

Because the country’s elite is refusing to pay its fair share of taxes, according to Zaidi.

“These problems are perennial—it would be incorrect to call them a “crisis”—largely because of the Pakistani elite’s ability to avoid taxing itself,” says Zaidi. “Instead, successive governments have preferred to leverage Islamic militancy, ignoring the risks of doing so) while relying on financial aid from outside countries with geopolitical interests in the region from international financial institutions.”

The Pakistani elite , he continues, “ frightens foreigners into proving funds to stabilize the country against a self-created, false threat of extremists taking over a nuclear state.”

Meanwhile, foreign aid allows the country’s elite to live a lavish life. “This is a classic moral hazard problem: the luxury of always being bailed out has allowed the Pakistani elite to live with great impunity. Beyond responsibility in cocoons of lavish unaccountability. They feel little need to undertake structural reforms of the economy and institutions that would result in a fairer, more just, and more equitable form of government and representation.”

Instead, they prefer London, New York, and Dubai more than they do Karachi -- when it comes to investing and partying with their money, that is.

That’s according to the former director of United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) for Pakistan , Marc-André Franche.

“You cannot have an elite that takes advantage of very cheap and uneducated labour when it comes to making money, and when it is time to party is found in London ; when it’s time to buy things, in Dubai; and when it’s time to buy property it invests in Dubai or Europe or New York. The elite needs to decide do they want a country or not,” Franche stated in an interview with the Business Recorder.

All good reasons why America should let China and Saudi Arabia, Pakistan’s new allies, support the lifestyle of their rich and powerful.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/panosmourdoukoutas/2019/04/20/america-should-stop-supporting-the-lavish-life-of-pakistans-rich/#7e2dec206dc0

Video Report - Two Saudi sisters seek asylum in Georgia out of fear for their own family

Video Report - Tens of thousands of people protest against military rule in Sudan

Video Report - Kellyanne Conway's husband calls for Trump's impeachment

Comedy Video - Colbert Gets His Copy Of The Mueller Report

An interview with an Iraqi scholar has led me to think very differently about Brexit and extremism in Europe

By Robert Fisk

In Shiasm,’ the great man, Sayed Hakeem, reminds me, ‘the more knowledge a scholar has, the more humble he must be – otherwise he will become a dictator’.

Sayed Mohamed-Hussain el-Hakeem is one of the most prominent Shia scholars in Iraq. When Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani eventually dies, Hakeem’s father Mohamed Sayeed is likely to inherit his role as the principal cleric in the land – and then, so they say, the mantle will fall to Hakeem’s brother, Riyadh. So this discreet man “speaketh of what he knoweth” and, in his precise way, he comes across as a supporter of humanism rather than mere theology. When you sit opposite him, you know you are listening to a voice that matters in the battered land of Iraq.

Dozens of Sayeds and turbaned students push out of the iron door to his lecture hall only a few hundred metres from the golden-domed shrine of the Imam Ali, cousin of the Prophet Mohamed. But Sayed Hakeem does not mince his words – neither political nor spiritual. No, you realise, Iran does not govern the minds of Iraq’s Shia. Nor does any fear of Isis. Or the west. Saddam haunts our conversation – as he does still all of Iraq – but so does the Shah, even the Ottoman Empire.

We start with the Ottomans. “They did not have any scientific achievement. They governed their people by force. They kept their people in darkness – they made them distant from science. When the west came with its science, its strategy was to divide countries so they could control them more easily. The First and Second World Wars left these internal conflicts to continue and the west looked after their own interests, not the UN or human rights. But wars are not just in this region – the conflict between Germany and France was like that between Iraq and Iran [during Saddam’s 1980-1988 invasion of Iran].”

So far so good, and all familiar stuff. “Then in Europe, political interests succeeded personal interests. They created the EU and tried to develop it. But if Europe gives way to rightest extremism, the conflict [here] will return back to Europe. If [the Europeans] allow this, they will not have a common basis to work on. We don’t wish this to happen. We hope that the conflict does not develop – and that the US does not feed right-wing extremists so that they prevail. They are already doing this – with Brexit!”

Smiles all round in the Sayed’s little office. I had not expected Brexit would make its appearance, not here, so close to the great shrine of Ali, the Prophet’s successor – and to the poor house in which Khomeini himself stayed in his Iraqi exile until 1979. “In Shiasm,” the great man reminds me, “the more knowledge a scholar has, the more humble he must be – otherwise he will become a dictator.” Shiasm understands the Western world more than we think, perhaps, and it is certainly independent. Of Iran for example, whose Farsi language the Sayed speaks only a little. When I ask if perhaps Iran can eventually dominate Shia Iraq – where Shias comprise 65 per cent of the population – I am treated to a lecture on the principles of regional theology.

“We follow the school of Najaf [in Iraq], which is different from other schools,” he says. “Scientifically, all the Shia schools are the same. But we don’t interfere with politics. We Shia are like our Grand Ayatollahs – they are free in their thoughts as to how they understand the Prophet and the 12 Imams. Different views are respected.”

Here the little lecture narrows its focus. “We had different views from the ‘marjaiya’ [superior scholars] of Qom [in Iran]. We don’t think there should be a supreme leader – this is different from what Khomeini taught. Here we should not be involved in politics.” The message is obvious. Khomeini’s concept of a supreme clerical leader – at present, it is the ageing Iranian Ayatollah Khamenei – has no meaning in Najaf. Indeed, though Sayed Hakeem does not say this, the idea of a supreme leader had no historical precedence in Iran itself.

And we turn swiftly to recent Middle Eastern history. The Shah of Iran was called “the policeman” of the Gulf. “He had strong ties with the west. When the regime changed in Iran, the country came out of that axis. The new revolution in Iran had problems with the west, especially after the siege of the US embassy. Iran is a strong country and other nations feared the new government. Look at history – three strong nations, Turkey, Iraq and Palestine [Israel] surrounded Iran with powerful armies. The Gulf played a good role in that. Every war needs men and money. The west was generous in providing guns.”

There is a brief historical intermission here, the arrival in our talk of the post-Renaissance. “In the west, 300 years ago, there was conflict between the church and scientists. Scientists prevailed because they were raised on scientific facts. The people backed up the scientists. Our faith does not conflict with this science.”

Was this, I wondered, a subtle alignment with western thought, maybe a touch of Martin Luther amid Muslim theology? Sayed Hakeem has more to say on another, more recent phenomenon with darker roots: Isis. He speaks with more vigour now, of an organisation “that tried to feed hatred into people – so they raised people to believe in black and white, whom they used against us. Isis, when they go into society, they isolate some people from the outside world.”

This is a different interpretation of the Isis death cult which our western “experts” define. “They are trying to use people who are hopeless – to give them a false hope. They approach ‘hopeless’ people, they try to give them a window of hope that ‘this is the only chance you have’. They are trying to make an internal conflict inside these people to pull them towards their false ideology. Bin Laden once said that they should focus on the ages between 18 and 25… During their teens, human beings are in self-conflict, with high hopes but few resources – and Isis use this conflict to capture their minds, those who did not enjoy the end of their childhood. So Isis gave them big responsibility and said ‘you are not a child any more’.”

This violent ideology must be changed, the Sayed says. “Isis was not born in Iraq – in Mosul, Tikrit or Ramadi. It is a result of outside ideology, planning and funding ... There is a political hand which is feeding the ideology of the [Sunni] Wahabis. We have to convince them that violence will bring more violence. They have to coexist. There are factors that can reduce this ‘internal hatred’: knowledge and culture, productive work, coexistence and humanitarian values.” These are interesting words from a man whose people fought a long and bitter war against Isis. For Wahabis, I suspect, read Saudis. 

Saddam’s horrors – not unconnected in the Sayed’s mind from Isis, I suspect – proved the resilience of Shias. And Hakeem repeats that Shia Muslims are “balanced between life and the other life, so at the peak of a crisis we take [to help us] hope and great patience – this is our step to the future”. Was this how they endured the torture chambers and death pits of Saddam, the decades of imprisonment, the mass murders of Shias by Isis? Humanism wins. Is that what this means? Theology is a dangerous subject for journalists to explain.

Maybe that’s why, when for a few moments I meet his elderly father – the next great Ayatollah of Iraq – he holds out his ancient hand to me and says: “There are two kinds of journalists, the ones who tell lies. And the ones who try to tell the truth – I hope you are one of the second.” We shall find out the answer when his son Sayed Mohamed-Hussain el-Hakeem reads these words.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-extremism-europe-sayed-mohamedhussain-elhakeem-iraq-a8877501.html

#Pakistan - #Shiagenocide #Hazara Holocaust

By Hafsa Amin

“Mark my words, if you let an innocent die and it doesn’t bother you, You, my friend are worse than the killer”

Pakistan is famous around the world for its natural beauty and sightseeing. One beautiful sight is located in Hazara, Quetta. “Bahisht e Zainab” is the place that gives goosebumps to the viewers because of the colors, flags and hanging bells. When the wind blows it casts a spell on people. But it’s not the beauty that makes it a distinct place. It’s the story. Bahisht e Zainab is a graveyard. A graveyard is full of Hazara community’s people who lost their lives to suicide bombs and target killings.

The people of Hazara have been there in Quetta for the past two centuries. Their mass migration occurred during the Anglo-Afghan wars. Since then they have set up their beautiful, organised and educated community in the mountains. Hazara people are known for their excellence in various fields of life especially sports like judo, karate, and boxing. They have provided the country with international recognition in these fields. Women in Hazara are equal in their social, political and economic statuses. The community is distinctively well educated and civilised as compared to many others in the country.

But the life of these beautiful and lively people have been turned into a living hell. They are an open target of genocide and murder by their fellow countrymen. It all started during  the regime of Zia ul Haq when bigotry and radicalism reached its peak and there were posters on the walls of Quetta calling the Shia community as infidels or “Kafir”. In 1999 the car of the provincial minister Sardar Nisar Ali Hazara was attacked along with his driver and bodyguard. Though he survived it marked the beginning of the targeted killing of Hazaras.

The worst phase of target killing started in 2003 when they were attacked by a radical Sunni sect. There were massive attacks especially targeted on Imam bargah. The recent attack on Firday 12th April 2019 marked the death of another 20 citizens adding up to the mark of almost 650 people who lost their lives. The mastermind behind these attacks Ahl e Sunnatwal Jamaat (ASWJ) is a banned organisation formerly known as Sipah e Sahaba and is actively and openly working against the Shia community in Pakistan. They had distributed pamphlets to people highlighting their agenda of Shia genocide and asking for contributions.

ASWJ is a religious and active political party as well. They had their Minister Mawiya Azam Tariq in Jhang who was later arrested over charges of a failed attempt of launching terror attacks. However, he was released. Ramzan Mengal who openly accepted the responsibility of Shia genocide in Hazara was also released two days before the recent attack. A fallacy is propagated by ASWJ that killing a Shia would open 7 doors of paradise for the killer.

Despite the efforts of law enforcement authorities, no fruitful advancement could be gained regarding the security of the people. The people of Hazara community are so accustomed to the deaths and burial rituals that the graveyards are no longer the sight of horror for them as these people have found their lives within the dismay. Their graveyards now represent their culture, life, and vigor. Markets are formed near them, children play while elders walk around the graves as if nothing tragic the dead bodies have seen.Bahisht e Zainab is not just a graveyard. It’s a scar that marks the horrific bloodshed of these humans that were seen as a threat to some supernatural religious powers. It’s a symbol of the undeserved misery. This community is reminiscent of an ongoing holocaust. And for generations, they will have tales of how beautiful souls were subjected to brutality and the state and its authority remained a silent spectator.Hazara is bleeding. And it will continue to bleed unless the last soul is diminished or if miraculously the Islamic Republic of Pakistan decides to come to the aid of its citizen. It seems impossible since the perpetrators are under the kind umbrella of the state itself. But it’s inevitable. If not now then when? Should we wait for the verdict to be given against our religious thoughts as well or should we take action? Should we ignore the increasing death tolls or should we voice our protest? Our answer will be our future sooner or later. Let’s choose wisely!

ARGUMENT- #Pakistan - Poor Nation, Rich Army

BY TAHA SIDDIQUI 

This Republic Day, Pakistan should consider why it remains underdeveloped as its military booms.

On March 23, Pakistan will celebrate its Republic Day with the same “zeal and fervor” as it does every year. As usual, the Pakistani military will come out in full force, with joint parades by the Army, the Air Force, and the Navy. The ostentatious marches will include a display of Pakistan’s nuclear-capable missile system, an air show, and gun salutes to local and international dignitaries present for the occasion.

The extravaganza is always broadcast live on local television channels, set to the fanfare of new propaganda songs produced especially for the event by the military’s media wing. It is rare for the public to question these theatrics—but doing so is more urgent than ever.

Pakistan is going through some serious financial turmoil. Over the last few months, Prime Minister Imran Khan has crisscrossed the globe in search of aid to shore up the economy. Before one recent trip, he even acknowledged the country’s desperation for foreign money. Meanwhile, the country’s finance minister, Asad Umar, has been busy negotiating a new bailout package with the International Monetary Fund—Pakistan has been in the care of the IMF for 22 years out of the last 30. Inflation is at a four-year high, reaching over 8 percent, and Islamabad believes that it could tick even higher.

One-third of Pakistan’s population lives under the poverty line, and the country is ranked at 150 out of 189 countries in the latest United Nations Human Development Index.

 Although Pakistan’s recent economic woes are troubling, the country has faced similar pressures for years. One-third of its population lives under the poverty line, and the country is ranked at 150 out of 189 countries in the latest United Nations Human Development Index. The national debt stands at around $100 billion, while its foreign exchange reserves are a meager $15 billion. The value of the Pakistani rupee, one of the worst-performing currencies in Asia, has dropped 31 percent since 2017.

Yet anyone watching the parade on March 23 may believe that all is well. And they certainly won’t get the impression that the military is, in fact, behind many of the country’s economic problems. But after debt servicing, the military is Pakistan’s biggest economic burden. Already, over 20 percent of the annual budget officially goes to the military, but the armed forces have been pushing for more every year. Just in the last budget cycle, it won a 20 percent hike in its yearly allocation. The actual expense of the military is even higher, but it is hidden by moving some of the expenses to other budget lines. The parliament neither seriously debates the military budget nor subjects its spending to audit. By contrast, the country spends less than 5 percent of GDP on social services like education and health care, well below the regional average.

The military mainly protects itself by keeping the threat of India alive. The two nuclear-armed neighbors have been in conflict since the partition of South Asia in 1947. The militaries have fought four wars, with three of them over Kashmir valley. Even though Pakistan initiated these conflicts, it has told the public that it was only countering Indian aggression. In recent years, Pakistan has avoided a direct war, perhaps because it lost all previous ones. But it relies on militant groups based in Pakistan to keep tensions alive. This February offered a glimpse of such dynamics at play. In turn, the Pakistani Army gets the perfect excuse for its oversized burden on the country’s economy. Like a mafia protection racket, the military creates its own demand.

But it is not just the military’s budget that is eating away at the resources of a country that it has directly ruled for half of Pakistan’s 72 years of existence. Today, the armed forces’ empire has expanded well beyond its traditional role in security. It runs about 50 commercial entities. The military’s main business arm, the Fauji Foundation, has seen enormous growth. According to Bloomberg, its assets grew 78 percent between 2011 and 2015, and it has annual income over $1.5 billion. The military-backed organization has stakes in real estate, food, and the communications industry.

It appears that the business wing of the military is expanding even more under the Khan government. Khan’s critics allege that the military backed his candidacy and now, in return, enjoys relative freedom to do what it wants. There is plenty of evidence to back those claims.

Reuters recently reported that the Pakistani Army is moving into another lucrative industry: mining and oil exploration. Khan’s government is reportedly facilitating the arrangements by giving the military preferential treatment during negotiations.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/03/21/poor-nation-rich-army/

Pakistan’s economy to weigh on region’s growth: IMF official

Pakistan’s economy is projected to slow down significantly and weigh on the region’s aggregate growth rate, says Jihad Azour, director of the Middle East and Central Asia department at the International Monetary Fund.

At a recent talk on the economic outlook for the Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan, and Pakistan (MENAP) region, Azour argued that global economic headwinds were making policy efforts more urgent and challenging for MENAP.

For oil importers in this region, growth is expected to ease to 3.6 per cent this, from 4.2pc in 2018, in part due to weaker global economic environment.

Azour noted that in many oil-importing countries, rising debt levels were becoming a more urgent challenge for macroeconomic stability and high debt was also limiting fiscal space for critical investments in health, education, infrastructure, and social programmes.

These budget pressures underscored the urgency of lifting medium-term growth with structural reforms such as measures to improve business environment and governance, enhance labour market flexibility, and strengthen market competition, the IMF argued.

In MENAP, “slowing global growth and trade, as well as geopolitical tensions and other potential external shocks, will pose economic challenges,” the director said, adding “These trends heighten the urgency of implementing reforms that bolster economic resilience and secure inclusive growth.”

In a related report, the IMF also sounded alarm on global debt. Noting that global debt had now reached $164 trillion or 225pc of global GDP, the Fund warned that the world’s public and private sectors were more in debt now than at the 2008 financial crisis, when global debt/GDP peaked at 213pc.

While advanced economies were responsible for most global debt, in the last 10 years emerging markets have been responsible for most of the increase with China alone having contributed 43pc to the rise in total global debt since 2007.

The report stressed the need to reduce the burden of debt in both private and public sectors to improve the resilience of global economy and urged countries with high debt to increase revenues or curb excessive spending.

“This is especially relevant where current economic growth exceeds long-run potential growth,” it added, while also stressing the need for governments to maintain investments in education, health, and infrastructure, either by “re-prioritising spending or broadening the tax base.”

Acknowledging that to achieve sustainable growth, these countries will require additional public spending, the report urged them to “pursue smarter and more agile policies to facilitate change.”

Ex-Dictator's Aide Named Pakistan Finance Chief Amid IMF Talks

By 

Faseeh Mangi

 and 

Kamran Haider

Pakistan named Abdul Hafeez Shaikh as finance adviser hours after the resignation of Asad Umar as the country continues to negotiate an International Monetary Fund bailout.Prime Minister Imran Khan appointed Shaikh in a cabinet reshuffle, according to a government statement on Thursday. Shaikh takes on the role of finance chief for a second time following an appointment in 2010 and was the minister in charge of privatizations in the early 2000s during the tenure of military dictator Pervez Musharraf. Umar’s resignation had followed an attempt to move him to the energy portfolio.

Shaikh will now take on the role of lead negotiator for what would be Pakistan’s 13th IMF support program since the late 1980s. His predecessor, the former chief executive officer of Pakistani conglomerate Engro Corp., had been subjected to a campaign of negative media coverage from unnamed government sources that fueled speculation he would be moved as the economy continued to falter.

The new finance adviser has been thrown “in the middle of a storm as IMF talks are on,” Asad Sayeed, director at the Karachi-based Collective for Social Science Research consultancy, said by phone. “The economy is in a kind of crunch and important structural reforms wouldn’t be easy to implement.”

At least two Pakistani local newspaper columnists recently said Umar had displeased the powerful military, which is alleged to have backed Khan during the elections and continues to hold an over-sized influence over the economy and foreign policy. Pakistan’s credit score was downgraded by S&P Global Ratings last month, citing deterioration in the economic outlook and delay in securing an IMF program.

“In the eight months, there were some decisions that gave good results and some that didn’t,” Umar said in a press conference just after announcing his resignation on Twitter. “I request that whoever becomes the new finance minister and makes difficult decisions, support them and don’t think everything will be fixed within three months.”

Discussions with the IMF have twice stalled over various disagreements, such as exchange rate policy. Yet an agreement seemed closer recently and Umar was in Washington for talks with the lender last week, ahead of an IMF delegation visit to Islamabad at the end of April. A deal is now likely to be delayed again.

IMF Delay

“It will most likely get prolonged as the new finance minister will take time to understand, grasp things,” Vaqar Ahmed, the executive director at the Sustainable Development Policy Institute in Islamabad, said before Shaikh’s appointment was announced. Since coming to power in August, Khan’s government has faced a balance-of-payments crisis and a depleted treasury that has thwarted the former cricket legend’s plans to expand social welfare support across the South Asian nation.

However, Islamabad secured a temporary reprieve thanks to loans and funding from friendly countries, such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-18/pakistan-finance-minister-steps-down-from-cabinet-amid-imf-talks

#Pakistan #PPP - Ms. Christine Chung called on Chairman PPP

Representative of United Nation’s High Commissioner for Human Rights for South Asia, Ms. Christine Chung called on Chairman Pakistan Peoples Party, Bilawal Bhutto Zardari at Zardari House Islamabad and congratulated him for being elected as the Chairman Human Rights Committee of National Assembly.

Senator Farhatullah Babar, Senator Mustafa Nawaz Khokhar, and Ms. Malaika Raza were also present at the meeting. During this meeting Chairman Bilawal Bhutto Zardari said PPP has always raised its voice for human rights. He said that he has always supported human rights and will continue to do so.

https://mediacellppp.wordpress.com/

After 18 Years, It Is Past Time To Face The Truth About Afghanistan

By Charles Ray

If we hope to finally reach the day American troops can pack up their belongings and come back to their families, Washington must start viewing the war with clear eyes.

Last week, three U.S. service members were killed in an improvised explosive device attack near Bagram Air Base, an operation subsequently claimed by the Taliban. The deaths of Christopher Slutman of Newark, Delaware, Robert A. Hendriks of Locust Valley, New York, and Benjamin S. Hines of York, Pennsylvania take the number of U.S. troop fatalities in Afghanistan this year to seven.

It’s the latest grim reminder of a war that has proceeded on an almost autopilot for more than a decade and a half. Hitting its 17th anniversary last October, the conflict has gone on for such a long time that new recruits are being reminded by their drill sergeants about why the United States is involved.

The American people are justifiably exhausted by the Afghanistan conflict, which continues every year with little light at the end of the tunnel. U.S. policy has been defined throughout by muddled thinking, hubris about what the United States can achieve, and an endless stream of troop deployments in support of a strategy that holds little if any chance at success.

The amount of resources and attention Washington has allocated in pursuit of the unattainable—a fully democratic Afghanistan free of corruption and patrimony, governed by the rule of law rather than the rule of the gun—would be the stuff of comedies if it weren’t for the price tag attached to the effort: 2,242 U.S. troop fatalities, tens of thousands of additional injuries (many life-altering), and nearly $1 trillion in American treasure.

U.S. officials owe the soldiers and diplomats in the field and the American people at home a realistic appraisal of what Washington can accomplish in a country that has been in the throes of armed conflict for four decades. If we hope to finally reach the day American troops can pack up their belongings and come back to their families, Washington must start viewing the war with clear eyes. Several hard truths about Afghanistan are in order.

First and foremost, what the United States has been doing in Afghanistan for so many years hasn’t been working. The fact this statement even needs to be made is disturbing given the enormous cost in lives and treasure involved.

Given the state Afghanistan is in today after so many years of American military involvement, it should have been abundantly obvious a long time ago that U.S. policy in Afghanistan is like a leaky ship treading rough oceans. Despite the almost unlimited spending Washington has poured into the country, Afghanistan remains stuck in a precarious existence.The security situation is as bad as it has ever been, and it appears there is very little the U.S. military can do about it. The Pentagon has tried several strategies over successive administrations, running the gambit from nightly joint U.S.-Afghan special forces operations in remote corners of the country to a significantly resourced counterinsurgency campaign in the Taliban heartland. None have produced positive effects beyond a few insurgent leaders taken off the battlefield and a few months of quiet. Indeed, many of the same forward operating bases U.S. troops built during the 2010-2011 surge are now deserted by Afghan forces, left to rot, or occupied by the Taliban.

Secondly, for Afghanistan to have any sense of hope, security, and economic prosperity in the future, military solutions need to be tossed aside and replaced with politics. Neither the U.S. military nor the Afghan security forces have the power to kill every last Taliban fighter or pummel the insurgency into a surrender. The Taliban, also, don’t have the ability to outgun the Afghan government. We are in a stalemate precisely because of these dynamics.

Unless the mindset changes, the stalemate and the violence will merely continue for another four decades. Washington could theoretically deploy 500,000 U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan, and it would only have a short-term effect.

An inclusive, Afghan-led and Afghan-owned political dialogue is the only forum through which the fuel of the war can be drained from the tank. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad’s months-long talks with the Taliban hold tremendous promise. After a 16-day negotiating stretch, Khalilzad intimated that the Taliban were willing to formally break their two-decade long relationship with al-Qaeda in exchange for a U.S. troop withdrawal.

The Trump administration’s decision to buck conventional orthodoxy and meet face-to-face with the insurgency in peace negotiations was a daring move, but one that can open doors to a more comprehensive discussion between the Afghans themselves. The peace talks, however, must be anchored around a basic reality: the United States cannot, and should not, insist on a perfect Afghanistan. American troops aren’t responsible for defending Afghanistan in perpetuity or serving as the beat cops of Afghan democracy.

While the United States should deliver a stern message to the Taliban that any peace deal should include guarantees of protection for Afghan minorities, women’s rights, and the rule of law, all of these issues will ultimately depend on the degree to which Afghanistan’s politicians, tribal leaders, fighting factions, militia leaders, and civil society activists can find a compromise everyone can live with.

The United States should do everything in its power to ensure that intra-Afghan talks have the best possible chance of success, including pushing the Afghan government to formalize an inclusive negotiating team to bring Kabul into the talks as quickly as possible. Washington encouraging the U.N. Security Council to temporarily remove travel sanctions on senior Taliban negotiators is the kind of low-cost but necessary accelerant to the peace process.

Last but not least, policymakers in Washington must remember that the United States will continue to be a major player in Afghanistan even without U.S. troops on Afghan soil. American troops sitting in bases may help buy the United States some influence in the country, but it also contributes to the false premise that withdrawing those troops will automatically result in withdrawing American influence.

This thinking is not only dangerous, but shortchanges the non-military tools in America’s arsenal that are just as critical to maintaining U.S. staying power. The talent and experience of America’s diplomats and the relationships U.S. officials have cemented with their Afghan colleagues will all ensure that America retains significant leverage in Afghanistan.

The sooner Washington accepts all of these hard truths, the sooner our men and women in uniform can come home from Afghanistan after so many years at war. Continuing the status quo is not an option.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/04/17/18-years-past-time-face-truth-afghanistan/