Eisuke Suzuki
ARTICLE (April 15 2009): Japan and the World Bank will co-host a Pakistan Donors Conference on April 17, 2009, in Tokyo. It is expected that Pakistan will present its strategy for the challenges it faces today along with its assistance needs. During the Donors Conference it is also expected that countries and international organisations will pledge additional resources to support Pakistan's efforts.
On the same day in Tokyo, the Government of Pakistan will hold the Friends of Democratic Pakistan (FDP) Group's Ministerial Meeting to discuss a mid-term strategy for Pakistan, and each country is expected to announce political support for the country.
For President Asif Ali Zardari, April 17 will be a very busy day as he not only heads the Pakistani delegation to the Pakistan Donors Conference, but he will also chair the FDP's meeting itself. For Pakistan in need of massive infusion of foreign aid at the dire state of national and global financial situations, expectations are understandably very high.
The "Friends of Democratic Pakistan" was organised in September last year at the initiative of President Asif Zardari to garner international support for bolstering Pakistan's security and economic situation.
At present, there are 15 countries and international bodies in the group: Australia, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, UAE, UK, USA, EU, EC and the UN. In addition, Sweden, Norway, Spain, The Netherlands and others are likely to join the forum in the near future. But the overall situation surrounding Pakistan has undergone a drastic change, both economically and militarily.
The war in Afghanistan is already in the front yard of Pakistan's leadership. According to Samina Ahmed, the International Crisis Group's long-time Pakistan analyst, the Taliban and other extremists have placed half the country beyond the control of security forces. The government had recently ceded control over the Swat Valley, 100 miles from the nation's capital, to the extremists who installed Sharia law.
The United States' renewed determination to eradicate al Qaeda elements and Taliban extremists in the tribal areas by the persistent bombing by US forces, whether by manned-aircraft or remote controlled unmanned aerial vehicles like Predators, which invariably result in the killing and maiming of civilians, is no doubt creating a rift between the Pakistani authorities and the United States. And, more importantly, it has been only reinforcing hostility to the United States among ordinary Pakistanis.
President Asif Ali Zardari himself warned the United States against violating Pakistan's territorial integrity: "We will not tolerate the violation of our sovereignty and territorial integrity by any power in the name of combating terrorism," he said in his first address to a joint session of parliament on September 20, 2008. But the reality is that attacks by drone aircraft continue today.
The extremism, for the Obama administration, has made Pakistan quite possibly the most important, and dangerous, country in the world. For the American people, President Obama announced on March 27, 2009, this border region has become the most dangerous place in the world. The New York Times Sunday Magazine published James Traub's long article, Can Pakistan Be Governed? on April 5, 2009.
Not surprisingly, it was followed by The Financial Times which ran, on April 7, 2009, an article, For America, the problem is Pakistan, written by Anatol Lieven, a professor in the War Studies Department of King's College, London. Commentaries from outside Pakistan have not been particularly encouraging.
Even Pakistan's foreign minister acknowledged that the bottom line is the question of trust between the two countries, particularly over the issue of American missile attacks in Pakistan's tribal areas.
Minister Shah Mehmood Quresh, with two high ranking American officials, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, and the special envoy to the region, Richard C. Holbrooke, at his side, openly stated: We did talk about drones, and let me be very frank: there is a gap between us.
The foreign minister's public criticism of the US was followed by the head of Pakistan's intelligence service, Lieutenant General Ahmed Shuja Pasha's refusal to meet separately with Holbrooke and Admiral Mullen. The deep wounds between the two countries are now breaking up in open. This gap of appreciating the other party's situation between the two countries is quite big.
The war in Afghanistan is casting a wide shadow over the country as the war is being waged both sides of the border with Afghanistan. Without co-operation from not only Pakistan's authorities, but also from Pashtun population, the United States alone cannot carry out the war successfully.
That much is well understood; however, the more the United States asks Pakistan to join its military strategy, the more it creates schisms in a large majority of Pakistani citizens, who are not happy about their government helping the United States attacking the Taliban.
As I mentioned previously in this column (The War in Afghanistan II, October 29, 2008), a new strategy calls for a political settlement. Principal commanders on the ground are more or less in agreement: the solution to the war in Afghanistan is not in the military power, but in more basic improvements in the conditions of life: rehabilitation and construction of infrastructure, provision of better basic services of government, and the establishment of good governance in all public sector administration in addition to more training of Afghan troops and police force. The same applies to Pakistan's strategy against extremism.
To change the attitude and perspectives of ordinary Pakistani citizens in general and those in the tribal areas in particular will require sustained and consistent efforts over a long period of time. To do that will cost an enormous amount of investment. Just consider Marshall McLuhan's notion of social changes as the effect of new technologies (self-amputations of our own being). That would be the effect of such transformation of tribal villages in Pakistan.
The forthcoming April 17 conference will be critical for Pakistan. Pakistan is seeking between $4 to 6 billion in economic aid at the donors conference to fill a financing gap over the next two years. All donor countries, the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank, will closely examine the proposal of the Government of Pakistan for the purpose, amount and use of each item of expenditure.
The Japanese government is reported to have been contemplating economic aid of up to $1 billion over the next two years. The assistance would consist of yen loans and grant aid, and is aimed at helping poverty-stricken areas that could become breeding grounds for extremists, as well as financing infrastructure, education and job training.
They all recognise the potential linkage between poverty and the supply source of Taliban/al Qaeda extremists. In a larger context of the global decision process, these donor conferences provide an opportunity for review and appraisal by the international community of Pakistan's policy and its performance.
Apart from the obvious economic and financial questions, there are two related questions: (a) whether the Charter of Democracy of May 2006 will be implemented; and (b) whether the government is doing credible efforts in strengthening civil society by promoting transparency and accountability.
As discussed previously in this column (The emperor's new clothes and the Charter of Democracy,May 27, 2008), the history of Pakistan's political processes is punctuated by military coups, each of which was rationalised by the Supreme Court: the Dosso case of 1958, the Jilani case of 1970, and the Bhutto case of 1977. Musharraf's coups of 1999 and 2007 are no exception.
The army became the singular underwriter of the civilian government. The civilian leadership sought and cultivated the army's support to enable itself to govern. Ayesha Siddiqa ably analyses the immense economic, financial and corporate interest of Pakistan's army in her book, Military Inc.
Whether Pakistan's civilian leadership will be able to marshal its own resources and determination to govern the nation without the assistance of the army is the fundamental question to the restoration of democracy. The development of civil society is an indispensable component to that end. The only way to counter the rising force of extremism in Pakistan today is through the strengthening of civil society, I was told. Zardari is doing just the opposite.