First secretaries’ meeting chaired by army chief

[ghazi52]

First secretaries’ meeting chaired by army chief


It was the first-ever meeting of federal secretaries presided over by a military chief in a civilian set-up.


ISLAMABAD: Chief of the Army Staff General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani presided over on Tuesday a meeting of key federal secretaries at the General Headquarters (GHQ) to finalise agenda for the upcoming strategic dialogue with the US administration.

According to sources, federal secretaries for finance, foreign affairs, commerce and agriculture, along with the secretary in charge of information technology and petroleum, attended the meeting.

The meeting was part of a consultative process of civil and military bureaucracy to forge a consensus on key security and economic issues confronting the nation amid ongoing efforts against militancy and for strategic relations with key world powers.

The sources said the meeting had exchanged views on what should be the country’s priorities in the light of public demands, Pakistan’s anxieties and long-term national interests.

A secretary said the meeting was originally scheduled to be held at the ministry of foreign affairs, but was subsequently moved to the GHQ. He said it was the first-ever meeting of federal secretaries presided over by a military chief in a civilian set-up.

Wednesday, 17 Mar, 2010
DAWN

 

[DeathGod]

ISLAMABAD: Chief of the Army Staff General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani presided over on Tuesday a meeting of key federal secretaries at the General Headquarters (GHQ) to finalise agenda for the upcoming strategic dialogue with the US administration.

I dont for a moment like the fact that the current COAS of Pakistan is a former ISI head (operative). I wonder if in any other country(developed & powerful) has an intelligence head being appointed the COAS.

 

[ghazi52]

I dont for a moment like the fact that the current COAS of Pakistan is a former ISI head (operative). I wonder if in any other country(developed & powerful) has an intelligence head being appointed the COAS.

Any reason for that ??

 

[Spring Onion]

I dont for a moment like the fact that the current COAS of Pakistan is a former ISI head (operative). I wonder if in any other country(developed & powerful) has an intelligence head being appointed the COAS.

who cares if you like it or not or who cares if any other country appoint any carrot or potato as their COAS.


We are happy to appoint former ISI head COAS and thats done according to rules and regulations.

 

[Spring Onion]

It is very good devlopment to take all these civilian sec onboard for strategic dialogue with

Kinyani is a smart guy good going.

Pakistan Zindabad

Pakistan Army Paindabad
People of Pakistan Zindabad

 

[gubbi]

It is very good devlopment to take all these civilian sec onboard for strategic dialogue with

I find this particular quote really amusing and depressing at the same time.

If I am not wrong, it should be the responsibility of the civilian government servants to oversee such matters pertaining to governance and setting up policies and important points for strategic dialogue. But the head of the Army/Armed forces seems to have the upper hand in matters of governance. And this is really disturbing.

People of a country should exercise their right to elect capable leaders from amongst their own and delegate responsibility to these representatives to talk and formulate policies for their interests. It should be the forte of a civilian government to hold the reigns of such important decisions.

Now in the present scenario where an army head is holding the reigns of such important decisions reflects poorly on the politicians/civilian leaders and by extension on the population. And that IMHO is really bad. Just like our useless politicians form the communist party in Bengal or that corrupt narcissistic lady from UP.

An army man on the other hand is chosen depending upon his/her capabilities to lead a group of soldiers trained to fight and kill. How does that help take care of a larger population's interests is beyond me. An army is an extension of the government and should never be a power center.

And that is my beef.

 

[ajpirzada]

its gonna take some time before civilians - who have remained out of the picture in last decade - get to know the ground facts and start leading. at this stage this is the best way to proceed. and this also shows the level of trust which civilian and military leadership has build bw themselves. this is gud sign specially for a country lik Pakistan.

 

[ghazi52]

its gonna take some time before civilians - who have remained out of the picture in last decade - get to know the ground facts and start leading. at this stage this is the best way to proceed. and this also shows the level of trust which civilian and military leadership has build bw themselves. this is gud sign specially for a country lik Pakistan.

Add to your comments, this is war and military leadership is in a lot better position to lay out the agenda of the meeting and proceedings.

Great to see trust of civilian and military leadership.

 

[gubbi]

its gonna take some time before civilians - who have remained out of the picture in last decade - get to know the ground facts and start leading.

IIRC, the civilians had already taken decisive steps protesting against military dictatorship. Recollect the lawyer's agitation when Mush went against the judiciary by sacking Justice Chowdhary? That is a good sign. Likewise, what you need are good leaders who can step up and fill those shoes, not the military men.

at this stage this is the best way to proceed. and this also shows the level of trust which civilian and military leadership has build bw themselves. this is good sign specially for a country lik Pakistan.

This is a dangerous precedent. History is replete with examples where military slowly filled the shoes of civilian leadership leading to disastrous consequences for the population. Why, even Pakistan's history is a good example. Military has its own agenda or purpose and they will act according to that. Civilian requirements are many times at loggerheads with those of the military and relinquishing responsibility to the military does not bode well to a population's interests.
Its up to you people to stand up and take control of your country and let your Army know who is the boss. Armed forces as an institution is or should be the servant of the population, with the sole purpose of protection, not the other way around.

 

[Siddiqui A]

IIRC, the civilians had already taken decisive steps protesting against military dictatorship. Recollect the lawyer's agitation when Mush went against the judiciary by sacking Justice Chowdhary? That is a good sign. Likewise, what you need are good leaders who can step up and fill those shoes, not the military men.

This is a dangerous precedent. History is replete with examples where military slowly filled the shoes of civilian leadership leading to disastrous consequences for the population. Why, even Pakistan's history is a good example. Military has its own agenda or purpose and they will act according to that. Civilian requirements are many times at loggerheads with those of the military and relinquishing responsibility to the military does not bode well to a population's interests.
Its up to you people to stand up and take control of your country and let your Army know who is the boss. Armed forces as an institution is or should be the servant of the population, with the sole purpose of protection, not the other way around.

not every country works the same way....and im sure a lot of us pakistanis would rather want the military to be at the helm of affairs....personally i prefer the chinese model as best for pakistan....NOT at all democracy....

 

[gubbi]

not every country works the same way....and im sure a lot of us pakistanis would rather want the military to be at the helm of affairs....personally i prefer the chinese model as best for pakistan....NOT at all democracy....

Maybe, not every country works the same way, but then a very important question arises in such a scenario. Aren't there any capable leaders among the population? Isnt there anyone who can step up and take charge?

I cannot comment about the Chinese model, for the reason that I am not well aware about its nitty gritties. However I do find it appalling that one has to resort to dictate terms to a population instead of independent thought driving the progress of a nation.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The fault for this lies with the PPP government, and in general with most Pakistani civilian governments.

So long as key ministerial positions go to political lackeys with no expertise in the relevant ministry, and the GoP of the time has no strategic long term, medium term and short term vision about the direction it wants to take the nation in those key areas, policy making in those areas will be taken on by institutions that are prepared to outline that vision.

Currently that institution is the Army.

The alternative to this is to send rudderless and unfocused teams to participate in the strategic dialog with the US, and that will essentially be a huge waste of time for both sides.

So while the current situation in which the military has a key role in policy formulation in foreign policy and defence related fields is not ideal, it is still preferable to the rudderless alternative we have.

On the finance side it is unfortunate that Shaukat Tareen resigned when he did, and that the PPP did not have a candidate ready to step in, because that was one ministry at least whose leader did have the necessary expertise, experience and long term vision on what needed to be done.

 

[sparklingway]

The fault for this lies with the PPP government, and in general with most Pakistani civilian governments.

So long as key ministerial positions go to political lackeys with no expertise in the relevant ministry, and the GoP of the time has no strategic long term, medium term and short term vision about the direction it wants to take the nation in those key areas, policy making in those areas will be taken on by institutions that are prepared to outline that vision.

Currently that institution is the Army.

The alternative to this is to send rudderless and unfocused teams to participate in the strategic dialog with the US, and that will essentially be a huge waste of time for both sides.

So while the current situation in which the military has a key role in policy formulation in foreign policy and defence related fields is not ideal, it is still preferable to the rudderless alternative we have.

On the finance side it is unfortunate that Shaukat Tareen resigned when he did, and that the PPP did not have a candidate ready to step in, because that was one ministry at least whose leader did have the necessary expertise, experience and long term vision on what needed to be done.

A minister is not there for formulation of policies and/or projects. The minister's sole job is to oversee the working of the ministry and evaluate the social and political repercussions of the policies. The Westminster system where ministers oversee the activities of a government ministry, have traditionally never had "experts" in those fields. Of course there are exceptions, but the majority of such positions worldwide aren't filled with people having doctorates. Presidential systems allow the appointment of "expert" lackeys on the other hand.

The task of policy formulation lies with the bureaucracy and even with political manipulation (since they no longer have constitutional protection), we have always had quite a large number of professional, dedicated and learned bureaucrats. They have been politically manipulated and their jobs deemed worthless whenever the military tookover.

It's not as if politicians aren't responsible but most of them get on the job training if they like (which most don't and remain apathetic). Even if Shaukat Tarin was doing a good job, which he was, we have to realize that bankers aren't fit for the job of the finance minister. Most people do not understand the difference between an ordinary banker and an economist. Our past three finance ministers have been bankers and chartered accountants, who are unfit for the job. It's like appointing an electrical engineer as the head of a construction company. Hafeez Pasha and Ishrat Hussain are renown economists and deserve nomination for the senate to fulfill the ministerial job.

 

[DeathGod]

who cares if you like it or not or who cares if any other country appoint any carrot or potato as their COAS.


We are happy to appoint former ISI head COAS and thats done according to rules and regulations.

MOD EDIT: Personal Attack

Do you know something called the 'SIGNALING EFFECT'?

COAS is a very important person and his/her appointment gives out a signaling effect to nations around the world. Frankly speaking the signal I get from such an appointment was that ISI is all powerful in Pakistan. Here much debate has centered on how Pakistan army controls Pakistan's economy and this is just another addition to it. I dont even know the name of RAW cheif and here in a former ISI chief the COAS of PA.

And to add to that his term was EXTENDED. Is Pakistan so devoid of good leaders that the chief of ISI had to be a COAS or the best leaders of Pakistan go on to become the chief of ISI ( whose basic aim is to remain hidden)?

There are too many questions to be answered...

 

[Creder]

kayani is da man to lead pakistan right now, im actually way more confident about this meeting between US and pak delegations now that kayani has given them heads up on what needs to happen