What's new

VIEW: Pakistan and her friends —Ahmad Faruqui

Neo

RETIRED

New Recruit

Joined
Nov 1, 2005
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
Sunday, December 03, 2006

VIEW: Pakistan and her friends
By Ahmad Faruqui

Pakistan is likely to continue to depend on the largesse of its patron states, even though its special status with these states has been eroded by India. The remarkable thing is that New Delhi has done so without coming under anyone’s tutelage

Conventional wisdom has it that three As sum up Pakistan’s policy matrix: Allah, Army and America. But this is a half-truth. To complete the picture, one has to add a fourth A (Saudi Arabia) and a C (China) to the list. While Pakistan has long standing ties with both patron states, these have become more nuanced since America emerged as a global hyper-power and India emerged as a regional power.

China’s influence on Pakistan stems from its geographical proximity to Kashmir and Pakistan’s northern areas. For decades, it supported Pakistan on its forward Kashmir policy and Pakistan supported it on the One China policy. During the Cold War era, China competed with the Soviet Union for leadership of the communist bloc. Its border skirmish with India in 1962 made it a natural ally for Pakistan. Eventually, Pakistan supported China’s membership in the UN and served as China’s gateway to the Muslim world, earning the epithet of ‘China’s Israel’ from at least one analyst.

However, much has changed. Beijing is a global powerhouse. It has independently established ties with all Muslim capitals. Moscow has become its biggest arms supplier and trade with New Delhi, at $20 billion a year, dwarfs its trade with Pakistan by a factor of four. So where does that leave Sino-Pakistani ties? Some important clues can be assessed by reviewing the agreements that President Hu signed during his recent visit to Pakistan and even more by the ones he did not sign. Hu waxed eloquent, in good Mandarin tradition, saying that “Our relations are higher than the Himalayas, deeper than the Indian Ocean and sweeter than honey.”

Hu’s visit provided a much-needed boost to the embattled regime of General Pervez Musharraf. It was the first in a decade by a Chinese president. There was a lot of razzle-dazzle, parades and garlands. But support on Kashmir was lacking, indeed has been lacking since President Jiang Zemin addressed the Pakistani Senate in 1996 and asked Pakistan to make peace with India, signalling China’s desire to have peace along its southern borders.

Even though Pakistan and China signed 18 economic, social and defence deals during Hu’s visit, topped by a free trade agreement (FTA) and a five-year pact to boost “trade relations, joint ventures and investment opportunities in Pakistan,” the much-awaited agreement to build six additional nuclear power plants was not signed, a salute perhaps to Washington’s hyper-power status. Nor was there any visit to Gwadar, a silent tribute to Akbar Bugti.

It remains to be seen whether the FTA will bring forward a tripling of trade. Governmental agreements make for good rhetoric but cannot force the pace of the marketplace beyond its natural limits. If trade grows, the likely losers will be Pakistani manufacturers, who cannot compete with their Chinese counterparts. The main beneficiaries will be Pakistani consumers and raw material suppliers so this will largely involve a redistribution of income.

The visit confirmed that Beijing is likely to remain Islamabad’s largest arms supplier. Joint production of AWACS is now on the table. The Pakistan army’s arsenal is heavily of Chinese origin, as is PAF’s inventory of combat aircraft. The two countries are on track for co-production of the JF-17 Thunder fighter aircraft and may co-produce the F-22P naval frigate. Chinese hardware, while hardly the best in class, performed poorly in the Iran-Iraq and Gulf wars. But its low cost and plentiful availability make it an attractive choice to the generals in Islamabad who are apparently following Vladimir Lenin when he noted, “Quantity has a quality of its own.”

Pakistan’s relationship with Saudi Arabia continues to grow. After his coup in October 1999, Riyadh was the first foreign capital on the itinerary of General Pervez Musharraf as he ventured abroad in search of legitimacy.

Subsequently, Saudi Arabia accepted the deposed prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, into exile. This eliminated a major embarrassment for the man who, while wearing the same uniform as General Zia, did not wish to be seen as yet another vindictive dictator.

As a follow-up to his 2002 peace plan for the Israelis and Palestinians, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia gave Pakistan the green light to publicly enter into a diplomatic conversation with the Israelis. Talks were held in Istanbul between the foreign ministers of the two countries but went nowhere, since there was no support in Pakistan for recognition of Israel prior to the creation of a Palestinian state.

When Azad Kashmir and the northern areas of Pakistan were devastated by an earthquake, Saudi Arabia topped the list of donor countries.

Defence cooperation continues to be a priority between the two countries. In the past, Pakistan has provided two divisions of troop ostensibly to protect the two holy mosques but in reality to guard the royal family against an indigenous revolt.

Saudi Arabia is one of the world’s largest arms importers and Pakistan is seeking to wean it from its traditional European and US suppliers. Encouraged by the visit of the Saudi Crown Prince and Defence Minister in April, Islamabad is seeking to sell up to 150 Al Khalid tanks to Riyadh, a deal which may be worth US$600 million. In addition, the intelligence agencies of the two countries are engaged in an intense hunt for the leaders of Al Qaeda, including Saudi-born Osama bin Laden.

A complicating factor on the horizon is the warming up of ties between Saudi Arabia and India. The Kingdom is India’s largest supplier of crude oil and host to more than a million workers. Symbolising a new interest in India, King Abdullah witnessed the Republic Day military parade in 2005 from the Red Fort in Delhi.

Whether and how this new relationship will affect the Kingdom’s long-standing relationship with Pakistan remains to be seen. But apparently, the Kingdom, like China, has begun to push Pakistan toward seeking a peaceful resolution of the Kashmir problem. This was noticeable during the Kargil crisis in 1999 and was visible a year ago when the Saudis offered to mediate the dispute. As expected, the Indians demurred, killing the proposal.

Pakistan is likely to continue to depend on the largesse of its patron states, even though its special status with these states has been eroded by India. The remarkable thing is that New Delhi has done so without coming under anyone’s tutelage. While some of this is undeniably due to India’s larger size, much of the credit goes to India’s democratic dispensation that allows for the formulation of an independent foreign policy.

The writer, an economist based in San Francisco, has authored “Rethinking the national security of Pakistan,” Ashgate Publishing, 2003

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006\12\03\story_3-12-2006_pg3_5
 
.
Quite remarkable commentry. Particularly on Sino-Pak relations and Saudi-Pak relations. It is an eye opener for those who can not see beyond Musharraf. Pakistan is loosing its place slowly and steadily. Self respect is slipping out of Pakistan like sand goes out from the closed hand.Secularism, false Democracy flawed freedom and moral bankruptcy is eating now. Musharraf is busy in promoting all of these except (even false) democracy!
Wake up Pakistan ! Wake Up! Otherwise it will be too late.
Kashif
 
.
Pakistan is loosing its place slowly and steadily. Self respect is slipping out of Pakistan like sand goes out from the closed hand.Secularism, false Democracy flawed freedom and moral bankruptcy is eating now. Kashif


Please tell me you have been to pakistan and then come to your conclusion and not reached them by reading a couple of articles.

"A complicating factor on the horizon is the warming up of ties between Saudi Arabia and India. The Kingdom is India’s largest supplier of crude oil and host to more than a million workers. Symbolising a new interest in India, King Abdullah witnessed the Republic Day military parade in 2005 from the Red Fort in Delhi".


The saudis have never supported pakistan in action when it comes to kashmir only in words.The saudis could easily put pressure on india over the kashmir issue by not giving the indians oil or expelling all the indian workforce.

When it comes to the chinese the indians will always see them as the enemy.
 
.
The saudis could easily put pressure on india over the kashmir issue by not giving the indians oil or expelling all the indian workforce.

Who will do the work the indians did,if they expelled all the Indians?
Dont bring out your own wierd conclusions.

If Saudi doesnt sell india the oil,then what will saudi do with the extra oil left?
 
.
Who will do the work the indians did,if they expelled all the Indians?
Dont bring out your own wierd conclusions.

If Saudi doesnt sell india the oil,then what will saudi do with the extra oil left?



There are plenty of pakistanis,sri lankans and bangladeshis that could do the the work of the indians.


If the saudis did not give oil to india it would have hardly any effect on the saudis as the indians are a small time customer at the moment.The list is endless on who the saudi could supply.
I think it is only recently that indians have become importers of oil.The indians need saudi oil to grow but the saudis do not need the indians for anything.
 
.
If Saudi doesnt sell india the oil,then what will saudi do with the extra oil left?

Sell it to Chinese and Americans at even cheaper rate. Where will India get the oil from, when they have already royally pissed off the Iranians? Perhaps from Americans?:rofl:
 
.
AHMAD FARUQI JUST GO TO HASEEB.BLOG.COM AND READ MY ARTICLE AND WAIT FOR MORE YOUR EYES WILL BE OPENED.YOU HAVE WRITTEN TRUE BUT WRONG.PAKISTAN IS GOING TOWARDS SELF DEBENDANCY.GIVEN ITS SIZE IT WILL GO FAR BEYONG INDIA.MUSHARRAF IS NOT AN IDIOT.HE HAS CLEARLY SAID THEIR IS NO FRIENDS IN THIS WORLD.NO FREE LUCHES.THE SAME IS IN THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COUNTRIES.IF PAKISTAN WANTED WANTED THE NUCLEAR POWER DEAL IT COULD HAVE SIGNED IT.THE FOREIGN POLICY IS WAITING FOR THE RIGHT TIME.AS FAR AS GAWADAR IS CONCERNED IT IS ALSO DEVELOPING BUT LACKS CAPITAL.THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS BUGTI.I DO NOT KNOW WHERE YOU HAVE GRADUATED FROM?O TO PAKISTAN AND ANALYSE IN AMSTERDAM.
 
.
PAKISTAN HAS LIVED IN MORE WEALTH AND HEALTH THAN INDIA.LET THEM MAKE FRIENDS AND FRIENDS.PAKISTAN HAS RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE WORLD ON ITS OWN MERIT.DESPITE NEGATIVE IMAGE IT IS DOING WELL AND WILL DO.JUST GO TO INDIA AND SEE WHATS THE REALITY.HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE SUICIDING?HOW MANY YOUNG GIRLS?WHATS THE INEQUALITY RATE?NO COUNTRY HAS OPENLY SUPPORTED PAKISTAN'S STAND ON KASHMIR EXCEPT FOR THE PAKISTAN ITSELF.KASHMIRIES WILL GET THEIR INDEPENDENCE THEMSELVES.INDIA GROWING ECONOMICALLY AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH OTHER COUNTRIES WILL NOT,CANNOT HARM PAKISTAN IN ANYWAY.SUCH AS NORTHERN ALLIANCE AND AMERICA.$20 BILLION DOLLAR TRADE WITH INDIA ?LOOK AT THEIR NEEDS OURS.OUR NEEDS ARE DIFFERENT THAN INDIA.WE NEED MUCH LESS AND CAN FLOW MORE QUICKLY AND BETTER THAN INDIA.ALLAH HELPS IN TIMES LIKE BADR.AND WILL WILL KEEP ON HELPING PAKISTAN NOT ONLY TO SURVIVE BUT BE THE POWERHOUSE OF THE WORLD TILL THE TIME OF IMAM MEHDI.PAKISTAN WILL BE THE THIRD RICHEST AND THIRD MOST POPPULATED COUNTRY OF THE WORLD.JUST WAIT AND SEE YOURSELF.
 
.
Easy on the caffeine dude! ;)

Welcome to PFF, quite an entry you just made fella!

PFF is a forum, you may agree or disagree with a post, like or dislike a member, but isn't that what a forum is about?

We're here to promote soft image of Pakistan but our members and viewers have the right to know all about Pakistan including articles that are critical.
We allow it to engage a healthy debate.

Feel free to interact but don't ever get personal!

At this time, this is a friendly advice. ;)

Now enjoy your stay. :pff:
 
. . .
Hi,

Even though pakistan is in a very difficult position, there is no simple way out of it.
Please remember that national problems are just like body fat at age 50. If it took you 10 years to put that fat on, it will take a substatial time to take it off as well.
Pakistan's problems have not been the creation of Musharraf-----they are the creation of the predeccessors who didnot do what was nneded to be done.
Take for example poverty. This poverty in pakistan just didnot happen to come in, in one day----but the problem with poverty is that once it sets in, it has a multiplier effect. It is sets in deep and falls upon you like a plague and whatever you do, it does not go away. The roots of poverty are deep, its stranglehold on the masses is very strong. You take one step forward but you slip three steps back in the muck and that is what poverty does to you. You sell your heart, you sell your soul, you sell your children, your sons and daughters and after you have given every thing that has been dear to you, you find out that you still have not been able to get out from where you were at.
The biggest problem that pakistan has, is its internal problem----ie the opposition. The mandate of the opposition in the pakistani mindset is that do not let the government launch successful programs. Negate every government initiative. The mindset is such that the success of a project is not the success of the nation. The nation does not come first but rather the agenda of the opposition.
So, threat that was mentioned in the original article is a true threat. There is no running away from it.
The only thing that is going in pakistan's favour is that pakistan has a millitary ruler. America learnt its lesson good in Turkey when the Turkish parliament over-ruled passage of american troops.
 
.
Hi,

Even though pakistan is in a very difficult position, there is no simple way out of it.
Please remember that national problems are just like body fat at age 50. If it took you 10 years to put that fat on, it will take a substatial time to take it off as well.
Pakistan's problems have not been the creation of Musharraf-----they are the creation of the predeccessors who didnot do what was nneded to be done.

by Musharraf predecessors you mean the army


Take for example poverty. This poverty in pakistan just didnot happen to come in, in one day----but the problem with poverty is that once it sets in, it has a multiplier effect. It is sets in deep and falls upon you like a plague and whatever you do, it does not go away. The roots of poverty are deep, its stranglehold on the masses is very strong. You take one step forward but you slip three steps back in the muck and that is what poverty does to you. You sell your heart, you sell your soul, you sell your children, your sons and daughters and after you have given every thing that has been dear to you, you find out that you still have not been able to get out from where you were at.

The problem of poverty has been caused by military expenditure.The last i checked there where ten soilders to every teacher
The biggest problem that pakistan has, is its internal problem----ie the opposition. The mandate of the opposition in the pakistani mindset is that do not let the government launch successful programs. Negate every government initiative. The mindset is such that the success of a project is not the success of the nation. The nation does not come first but rather the agenda of the opposition.

If the army lets civilian rule carry out over a period of 25/35 years the political parties will mature just like the electoral and the problems of pakistan will can be cured


So, threat that was mentioned in the original article is a true threat. There is no running away from it.
The only thing that is going in pakistan's favour is that pakistan has a millitary ruler. America learnt its lesson good in Turkey when the Turkish parliament over-ruled passage of american troops.

A civilian government would have never given bases to the americans in pakistan in exchange for some military toys like Musharraf .Brother i love the pakistani army but there job is to defend the land not rule it.Where does the army get all the money from to open all these business enterprises.Everything is branded as fauji when was the last time the teachers or doctors of pakistan opened up a business enterprisescalled "doctor cement" or "ustaad bread".
 
.
Hi,

This is a news item in the local pakistani paper www.pakistanlink.com the issue is that of dec 25th 2006. If you people haven't seen this news item---enjoy the new found knowledge and stop blaming the millitary for all you ills. When you go to this website, scroll all the way down, there is a small calender at the bottom---click on the 25th day. The news it at the bottom of the page.



News


Monday, December 25, 2006


Half of Pakistanis not keen on democracy

* Six out of 10 people favour army rule
* More support for democracy in South Asia than in East Asia and Latin America

ISLAMABAD: People in South Asia overwhelmingly support democracy, except in Pakistan, where about half the respondents in a survey said that democratic or non-democratic forms of government made no difference to them.

Sri Lanka emerged as the country where democracy was most popular, while India was third after Bangladesh in terms of the percentage of people expressing support for the democratic system in the study, ‘State of Democracy in South Asia’.

“The people not only approve of democratic arrangements, they find it suitable for their own contexts. Seven out of eight responses in the region, higher than in East Asia, held that democracy was ‘suitable’ or ‘very suitable’ for their own country,” the report said.

The study found that the citizens of South Asia do not simply like democracy; they prefer it over authoritarian rule. “With the exception of Pakistan, about two-thirds of those who responded preferred democracy over any other form of government,” the report said.

For every one response that endorses dictatorship, there are six that prefer democracy, which compares favourably with the ratio obtained in East Asia, Latin America and post-Soviet era countries of Europe.

However, about a quarter in other countries and half the respondents in Pakistan said democratic or non-democratic forms of government made no difference to them.

Also, there is majority support for army rule in Pakistan and Bangladesh, the two countries in the region with a record of army rule. “The idea that the country should be governed by the army was endorsed by six out of every 10 responses in Pakistan and Bangladesh,” said the report prepared by the CSDS in collaboration with the International Institute of Democracy and Electoral Assistance, Stockholm and Department of Sociology, Oxford University.

The least support for army rule is in India, the report said, adding the higher the education, the lower the support for the army.

The survey was conducted in five South Asian countries – Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.

“The world since 9/11 has seen the rise of another hypothesis of ‘disconnect’ between Islam and democracy. South Asia is home to over a quarter of the global Muslim population. Muslims are either the majority or a significant minority in all the five countries of this region,” the report said. “Thus, if the citizens in this region support democracy, this would have implications beyond South Asia,” it added. sana
Courtesy DailyTimes.com.pk





Back to Top
 
. .
Back
Top Bottom