Sunday, October 5, 2008

Zardari Stirs India Controversy, Wants $100b in Aid


Mr. Asif Ali Zardari, Pakistan's new president, spoke to Brett Stephens of the Wall Street Journal last week. His interview covered a wide range of subjects including the ongoing insurgency, Afghanistan, FATA, and relations with US and India. He repeatedly brought up the subject of financial help for his government from the US and the world to deal with Pakistan's growing economic crisis. He is clearly pleading for a US-led economic bailout of Pakistan to halt rapid deterioration and to consolidate his power.

Here are some of the key points Mr. Zardari made:

1. India is "not a threat" to Pakistan. "India has never been a threat to Pakistan," he said, adding that "I, for one, and our democratic government is not scared of Indian influence abroad."

2. Those fighting Indian rule in Kashmir are "terrorists". He spoke of the militant Islamic groups operating in Kashmir as "terrorists" -- former President Musharraf would more likely have called them "freedom fighters" -- and allowed that he had no objection to the India-U.S. nuclear cooperation pact, so long as Pakistan is treated "at par." "Why would we begrudge the largest democracy in the world getting friendly with one of the oldest democracies in the world?"

3. Pakistan has given consent to US air strikes inside FATA. Mr. Zardari seemed eager to downplay any differences with the U.S. "I am not going to fall for this position that it's an unpopular thing to be an American friend. I am an American friend." The firing on the U.S. aircraft was, he said, merely an incident, "and while incidents do happen, they are not important." He went off the record to describe sensitive military subjects, but acknowledged that the U.S. is carrying out Predator missile strikes on Pakistani soil with his government's consent. "We have an understanding, in the sense that we're going after an enemy together."

4. With foreign reserves to cover only two months worth of imports and Pakistan's dire economic situation, he wants US and world's help to the tune of $100b to support his democratic government and its war against militants. "I need your help," he said more than once. "If we fall, if we can't do it, you can't do it." "Aid is proven through the researches of the World Bank . . . [to be] bad for a country," he says. "I'm looking for temporary relief for my budgetary support and cash for my treasury which does not need to be spent by me. It is not something I want to spend. But [it] will stop the [outflow] of my capital every time there is a bomb. . . . In this situation, how do I create capital confidence, how do I create businessmen's confidence?"

Brett Stephens characterized the economic crisis Mr. Zardari spoke of as "at least in part, a crisis of confidence in him."

Speaking of the recent Islamabad Marriott bombing, Mr. Zardari again brought the subject around to his economic problem. "If I can't pay my own oil bill, how am I going to increase my police?" he asked. "The oil companies are asking me to pay $135 [per barrel] of oil and at the same time they want me to keep the world peaceful and Pakistan peaceful."

5. He used phrases such as Pakistan's war is "my war," its fighter jets "my F-16s," its Intelligence Bureau "my IB." In recent weeks there have been reports that Pakistan has deployed F-16s against tribal insurgents, in part because the army's own frontier troops have been routinely routed in ground fighting. Their problems aren't simply tactical. "What kind of a joke is this that I cannot pay my security personnel more than the Talibs are paying?" he asked. "Those terrorists are paying their soldiers 10,000 rupees; I'm paying seven or six thousand rupees."

6. On the corruption issue, he said, it "has been used for a long time as a political tool," particularly by "radicals" trying to give democracy a bad name. Foreign investors, he said, have been coming to Pakistan for decades, and "none of them have complained about corruption."

A lot of what President Zardari said to Brett Stephens in this interview will be seen as highly controversial in Pakistan by the military leadership, policy think tanks and analysts, as well as the opposition parties. Much of it will likely be a surprise to Pakistan's foreign policy establishment, career diplomats and the government bureaucracy that has the responsibility of developing policy toward India and the United States. It seems that he was not briefed or, if he was, he simply chose to ignore the briefing he was given.

Does this interview signal a fundamental shift in Pakistan's posture and policies toward India and the US? On the face of it, it does seem so. However, only time will tell if and when such changes are practically implemented, and how they are received by Pakistanis, Indians and Americans. Regardless of Mr. Zardari's real intentions in strongly hinting at a major policy shift, it is unlikely that a US-led bailout of Pakistan would be forthcoming at a time when the US economy is headed into a recession, limiting the options open to any incoming administration in Washington.

8 comments:

libertarian said...

Is this a fundamental change in Pakistan's posture and policies toward India and the US? On the face of it, it does seem so.

The army and the spooks in Pindi are probably steaming about Zardari throwing the script away. The last similar hail mary was thrown by Gorbachev. It's possible Zardari perceives the economic situation to be an existential threat. Of course, if the army does not see it that way, Zardari is chand dino ka mehmaan (guest for the few days). Scary part is Zardari's probably right.

Nitin Pai at the acorn has an interesting take about India unilaterally dropping trade barriers to Pakistan.

Jaydev said...

Zardari is a clever guy, so it might be Sun Tzu type tactic to temporarily halt hostilities in midst of economic and security mess.Anyhow what he said is true in the sense that "freedom fighters" like Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed are now fighting alongside Taliban.So when Pak army is forced to show some fight with Taliban, they are bound to contact "freedom fighters" in combat in the Agencies. So in absolute terms, LeT & JeM have "officially" turned rogue. Well, it doesn't matter anyway, as now Zardari will be a dead man walking. I appreciate that he got balls to say stuff (even Musharraf wont speak about) whether he said in good faith or not. Just my thoughts.

libertarian said...

Zardari is a clever guy, so it might be Sun Tzu type tactic to temporarily halt hostilities in midst of economic and security mess.

Jaydev he's certainly no saint. But the economic signs are so dire, it doesn't matter even if he's posturing right now. SBP (Pakistan's central bank) has reserves of $4.8B - of which $1.5B is committed in guaranteed payments - and dwindling and $300M per week. That's enough for about 45 days of imports. In normal times, this was a small enough crisis that folks with skin in the game - i.e. the US - would jump in. But with carnage in the world markets, this crisis gets bumped to lower priority.

India should jump on Zardari's apparent invitation and be part of a bailout. The only constraint should be: not 1 paisa for the army.

Nuzrah Jamal said...

The Army will one day kick him on his butt and throw him and Multani joker out of power.

libertarian said...

The Army will one day kick him on his butt and throw him and Multani joker out of power.

And then the Army will own the problem of keeping Pakistan from falling apart. Their track record on that front has been less than stellar.

Riaz Haq said...

Since the tragic assassination of his wife Ms. Benazir Bhutto, Mr. Zardari has played his cards well to achieve his meteoric rise in Pakistan and he has demonstrated his adeptness at how the political games are played in Pakistan. However, he continues to suffer from a huge trust deficit with the military leaders and a substantial percentage of Pakistani citizens and bureaucrats. With the controversial policy shifts he has indicated, it is extremely important to build trust and national consensus to have any real chance of success.

jaydev said...

libertarian:
Totally agree..
Since there is no heat of India-Pak tensions (except low-intensity blasts and occasional firing), this is the chance to jump on Pakistan and improve ties.If Pak somehow change its infiltration of nutjobs, then we could shift a whole chunk of military deployments to border with China. Chinese official mouth pieces have already talking of "teaching India a lesson" AGAIN for being disobedient.
If BJP were ruling ties with Pak might have improved further by leaps and bounds(opposites attracts..:-)). This Manmoron Singh is too obsessed with America to do anything else than n-deal.

Riaz Haq said...

Here's an interesting analysis of how Pakistan has changed in this decade by a Ahsan, a blogger on Five Rupees:

In the last decade, this picture has changed dramatically due to three central factors.

The first and most important factor is the explosion of private electronic media. In the 1990s, it was difficult for most Pakistanis -- the vast majority of which cannot or do not read newspapers -- to get information that was not government-sponsored or, less mildly, propagandistic. ....

This picture has changed drastically, as anyone with even a cursory interest in Pakistan will be able to tell you. There are now dozens of news channels in Pakistan, each with their own ideological and partisan bent. Some are national-level, others more regionally and ethnically focused. The trend began in the early part of this decade and has plateaued only recently, as the market gets sated. And while few of these channels will win awards for calm understatement or presciently sedate analysis, the fact remains that the media -- if it can be spoken of as a collective -- has given voice to a mass of the population previously unheard from. It has become a player of truly monumental importance for its ability to shape, mold, and excite the public. It is, at once, sensationalistic, blood-thirsty, xenophobic, conspiratorial, humorous, investigative, and anti-government. And yet its arrival on the scene is more than welcome, first for providing the venue for disenfranchised interests to make themselves known and second because the alternative is much worse.

The second significant factor, related to but distinct from the first, is the rise of communication technologies in Pakistan, particularly cellular phones. In 2002, there were 1.2 million cell-phone subscriptions in the country. By 2008, this number had risen to 88 million -- an increase of more than seven thousand percent. In addition, more than one in ten Pakistanis had access to the internet by the end of the decade; low by advanced countries' standards but an astronomical rise by Pakistan's. These developments in communications meant that political narratives became congealed and disseminated at speeds never heard of before, and that information and the wider "war" for public opinion became incredibly hard to win if a battle was lost at any stage.

The third major factor is the economic growth that took place in Pakistan in the first half of the 2000s. Pakistan's GDP doubled between 1999 and 2007, and more than kept pace with population growth, as GDP per capita increased by almost sixty percent between 2000 and 2008. More to the point, this growth was overwhelmingly powered by expansion of the service sector, which is concentrated, quite naturally, in the urban centers of the country. For the first time since independence, the term "Pakistani urban middle class" was not a contradiction in terms.

This development had two effects. First, and more trivially, the urban middle class did what urban middle classes do: they bought televisions and computers. In turn, that allowed them to plug into the private media explosion in ways simply unimaginable previously. Second, it shattered the elite-only edifice of Pakistani politics, and made challenges to government based on Main Street issues -- the price of flour, the lack of electricity, the selective application of the rule of law -- a viable process. Fifty years ago, Seymour Lipset wrote one of the canonical articles in Political Science on the process of democratization, its relationship to urbanized middle classes, and how the demands and values of the latter lead almost inexorably to support for the former. Here was living proof of Lipset's analysis.