President Zardari has left the country on a four-day, four-nation tour. The most important leg of the tour is the President's third stop: the United States of America. He is expected to deliver a speech during the sixty-fourth session of the United Nations General Assembly (15 to 30 September), as well as co-chair the Friends of Democratic Pakistan (FODP) meeting scheduled for September 24.
The two separate international fora that will be provided to President Zardari, while in the United States, would allow him what is by now considered an annual opportunity, to present Pakistan's case with respect to not only, our considerable efforts to meet our international obligations, consisting of proactive actions taken in recent months by the armed forces to combat terrorism and militancy in the northern areas contiguous to Afghanistan - a change in Pakistan policy attributed to the intense pressure by the US on the Pakistan army, the implementer of this policy; but what is by now regarded as its corollary by the Pakistani leadership, namely the government's financial requirements that need to be urgently filled to enable her to continue to meet her international obligations.
There is a consensus that the substance of the President's message of last year at the two fora is unlikely to undergo any major revision as the issues facing the country today have not appreciably changed since last year. While addressing a select gathering at a think tank in London, where Pakistani ministers were also present, President Zardari gave the figure of 100 billion dollars as Pakistan's requirements.
This amount is in excess of Pakistan's total indebtedness accumulated since independence, which amounts to 47 billion dollars domestic debt and 50 billion dollars foreign debt. Such an exorbitant demand is unlikely to be taken seriously. In the unlikely event that Pakistan does receive this amount, it would dramatically increase our indebtedness further with obvious repercussions on the economy.
That borrowing from abroad is the President's preferred policy is reflected by the fact that when the PPP took over the government Pakistan's total indebtedness was 46.3 billion dollars or 27.6 percent of the GDP. One year down the line, it is 50.1 billion dollars or 30.7 percent of GDP. In short, loans to GDP ratio has worsened because not only have the total loans increased by 4 billion dollars (out of which the IMF accounts for the lion's share, thereby indicating that the FODP forum has yet to pay any dividends) but also because GDP growth declined during the year past - figures, which would send alarm bells ringing with respect to the government's capacity to turn the economy around. Attributing blame on the global recession may beguile the common man in the donor countries, however it is unlikely to impact on the decision-makers, who must be aware of the fact that Pakistan's economy is largely insulated from external factors.
During the FoDP meeting, which President Zardari will co-chair with President Obama and Prime Minister Gordon Brown, he is likely to focus on two issues. First and foremost the fact that pledges made during the meeting have not translated yet into disbursements. There is little doubt, at present, that the reason for this is what is being labelled as the 'trust deficit' that bilaterals have in the Zardari Presidency.
Some US legislators have referred to President Zardari as Mr Ten percent, as he was known when he was the first spouse; others have been more circumspect and have argued in favour of the need for greater transparency and accountability in their disbursements by maintaining that, as democracies, they need to account for each penny of their tax payers money spent in foreign assistance; and still others have stated that channelling money through the non-government organisations (NGOs) and other non-federal government channels is part and parcel of their policy, as was recently revealed in a written statement issued by the US embassy on behalf of Ambassador Patterson.
Second, President Zardari may attempt to defuse the perception among foreign governments that he is not critical to delivering what they want. If successful, it would raise his own international standing and prove extremely useful in better meeting the challenges he faces domestically. Recent statements by senior US and UK officials are quite telling in this regard, where they emphasised that, unlike in the past where the focus was on relations with one man - the dictator - they would now focus on the people of the country.
And this new policy is much in evidence as foreign missions are now routinely visiting, not only those who live on Constitution Avenue in Islamabad, but also those resident in Raiwind. Additionally, leadership of smaller parties, including the MQM and the ANP are being invited to visit the United States, where discussions on financial support for provinces are reportedly taking place.
Zardari's critics however continue to express the hope that this year around he does not waste the opportunity of addressing the UN General Assembly by focusing on what they consider were 'domestic enemies' of the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) - a list headed by Musharraf last year, who was rightly accused of throttling democracy in the country for eight years. Or, indeed, to dwell on his decision to request the United Nations probe the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, at Pakistan's expense, a question that he responded in his characteristic bungling style during his visit to the London think tank leaving no one convinced. Such a focus detracts from the real issues that face this hapless nation.
Two major issues that plague Pakistan today is that of insurgency from the Afghan Taliban who vacated Pakistan in large numbers after the launch of operation Raah-e-Raast but who are being driven back by Nato forces with their arsenals - if the Israelis can build a perimeter wall then why can't Pakistan be allowed to build a wall along our Afghan border; and India as the upper riparian country flouting international law, as well as a World Bank brokered agreement with Pakistan, by building dams that are seriously impacting on Pakistan's water supply with consequent negative impact on availability of drinking water, as well as irrigation water compromising our very survival.
President, Zardari's priority must be to put Pakistan first. However his critics allege, fairly or otherwise, that he has put his own needs as party chairman first, followed by his party's needs in his capacity as the co-chairman of the party during this year past. Pakistan, they allege, perhaps unfairly, comes a distant third. Be that as it may, it is unlikely that President Zardari would either focus on Pakistan's geo-strategic issues or convince the bilaterals to release money directly to the federal government. Thus, he is likely to fail with respect to his personal agenda.
The President's four-day, four-nation tour is likely to cost the exchequer in excess of four to five million dollars - money that the Treasury can ill-afford. To argue that the money is from the President's annual budgetary allocation does not detract from the fact that it is the taxpayers, who filled the coffers of the treasury and therefore each expenditure item has to be justified.
Would President Zardari's tour be successful? The tour will be hailed as a great success by the President's band of supporters as is routine in this country. But the people struggling with over 20 percent food inflation would want to know the outcome of this expensive tour. It is relevant to point out three facts in this connection. First the other co-chairs of the FODP are heads of the government, unlike President Zardari who is the head of state.
To have the power to dismiss the government, a Musharraf legacy, does not make him the head of government whatever the factual position on the ground. Second and equally importantly, Gilani does not have the same stigma attached to him, be it legitimate or not in President Zardari's case, therefore Gilani may succeed where the President is sure to fail as the 'trust deficit' is not narrowing with time. The President must understand that if Gilani is successful, the political fallout would be felt by the entire party including its chairman. And lastly, whether the Aiwan-i-Sadr accepts it or not, the President is seen as a divisive figure, not only with respect to the PML (N) but also with Benazir loyalists.
To only allow the Prime Minister to go for largely ceremonial events abroad, for example attending a non-event in Libya and the visit to Sharm el-Sheikh, the President is clearly taking over the functions of the Prime Minister, a decision that is not benefiting his party or his popularity ratings. It is clear that the Prime Minister should have gone this year - it would have been cheaper for the tax payer as he would not have visited Dubai, UK or indeed Italy.
Comments
Comments are closed.