There has been a great deal of criticism of Pakistani military's role in the industry and the economy of Pakistan since the release of Dr. Ayesha Siddiqa Agha's book "The Military Inc: Inside Pakistan's Military Economy" last year. The book describes in some detail the size and the activities of what Dr. Agha calls "MILBUS", the military business in Pakistan. MILBUS, according to the author, includes banks, insurance, cereals, fertilizer, cement, hospitals and clinics, radio and TV, schools, universities and institutes, etc.
In her strongest criticism of Pakistan's military, the author argues that Pakistani military is a giant which has strong political control, economic control, and a very dominant social presence; a military that has over 7% share of the GDP, which controls one-third of heavy manufacturing in the country, which controls 6-7% private sector assets. It has a huge economic presence. It is a constant story of uneven development, between different organizations and institutions.
While some commentators have challenged Dr. Agha's data and her allegations about the dominance of Pakistan's military in the country's business and economy, this post is designed to question why is it bad for Pakistan's military to play an important role in the nation's business.
To explore the possibility of the Pakistani military playing a much bigger positive role in rapid industrialization and globalization of Pakistani economy, let us take a look the role the Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) has played in China's phenomenal economic progress and its emergence as a new superpower in the last few decades.
China's PLA began its manufacturing role for the defense sector that picked up steam after the Sino-Soviet tensions during Mao's time. Manufacturing purely military products, such as arms, ammunition, as well as electronics, plastics and metals for military applications, these so-called "third-line" factories were built in remote mountain regions, far away from transportation routes and power sources. The factories bought supplies at subsidized costs from other factories, manufactured the weaponry and related products -- generally low-tech and low-quality -- and then sold them to the military at subsidized prices.
With the change of leadership after Mao's death in 1976, the new government encouraged the military plants to begin exploring civilian uses for their products and to engage in the broader liberalization of the economy. The most nimble managers were free to exploit new markets for their goods. During the early 1980s, the PLA's share of the national budget declined, spurring it to look to other sources for cash, especially hard currency. The higher organizational levels of the PLA created trading companies like China Xinxing, China Poly and China Songhai to take advantage of the opening of China's economy to the international market, according to British analyst Gary Busch.
They formed banks, holding companies and international trading companies like Everbright to market these goods worldwide. Now the PLA runs farms, factories, mines, hotels, paging and telephone companies and airlines, as well as major trading companies.
Busch says the number of military-run businesses exploded during the boom of the late 1980s. The "third line" factories opened branches in the coastal areas, earning increasingly higher profits from the manufacture and export of civilian goods. Even the lowest levels of the PLA set up production units. In fact the PLA had a largely captive audience of Chinese who had never really had the chance to acquire personal goods produced in China before. In addition to their international arms sales, their production of consumer goods for the domestic market soared.
Since the 1980s, many of the PLA companies have now become part of the global economy. According research done by David Welker for Multinational Monitor, in pursuit of hard currency, many of the companies have listed themselves on capital markets in Hong Kong and elsewhere, opened representative offices in overseas markets, solicited foreign companies for joint ventures and partnerships in China and emphasized exports. The so-called red chips, companies listed on the Hong Kong exchange but which are in fact mainland Chinese firms, are the hottest stocks on the market. Hong Kong is the PLA's favored stock exchange because of its loose disclosure guidelines. China Poly Group has two listed companies: Continental Mariner Company Ltd. and Poly Investments Holdings Ltd. Both Continental Mariner and Poly Investments have a large number of subsidiary companies in mainland China, Hong Kong and tax havens like Liberia, the British Virgin Islands and Panama. China Carrie's listed company in Hong Kong is Hongkong Macau Holdings Ltd. China Carrie also owns HMH China Investments Ltd. on the Toronto Stock Exchange and HMH Gold Mining on the Australian Stock Exchange. 999 Enterprise Group, another company controlled by the PLA General Logistics Department, operates Sanjiu Pharmaceuticals Group, the largest pharmaceuticals manufacturer in China. 999 recently listed on the Hong Kong exchange.
Smaller military enterprises, like the Songliao Automobile Company owned by the PLA Shenyang Military Region, have also listed in the domestic Chinese markets.
China Poly Group is a commercial arm of the Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) General Staff Department. The PLA General Logistics Department operates China Xinxing. The PLA General Political Department owns and operates China Carrie. The Northern Army Group runs NORINCO and the PLA Navy runs China Songhai.
Some of these international Chinese companies with PLA connections are very rich and powerful. Some have entered into very controversial projects. A good example is the Hutchison-Whampoa, Hutchison Port Holding (HPH), according to Busch. HPH is a huge, multibillion-dollar company which has set up operations in ports all around the world. From Panama to the Philippines, an arm of Hutchison-Whampoa, Hutchison Port Holding (HPH), has become the world's largest seaport operator, embedding itself in strategic seaports all across the globe. In fact now Hutchison holds the exclusive contract to operate the Panama Canal.
Hutchison-Whampoa has spread everywhere. It has a base in Tanzania where it runs Tanzania International Terminal Services Ltd. In the Western Hemisphere it has seaport services in Buenos Aires, Argentina; Freeport, the Bahamas; Veracruz, Mexico; and at both ends of the Panama Canal. HPH's latest acquisition involved taking over eight Philippine ports. New ports in Mexico, Argentina, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Tanzania and Thailand make Hutchision-Whampoa the world's largest private port operator with 23 cargo berths, bringing its worldwide total of ports to a staggering 136.
Other ports include Jakarta, Indonesia; Karachi, Pakistan; India (where the company runs the cellular phone services); Burma; China; and Malaysia. There are port operations in Britain at Harwich, Felixstowe (Britain's largest port), and Thames port, and in the Netherlands at Rotterdam. The company is bidding to set up in South Korea's largest port, Pusan, and is already in Kwangyang, another South Korean port.
Retired PLA officers also continue to support China's transformation to a powerful first world economy by founding such companies as Huawei, the Chinese router giant challenging Cisco's dominance.
Since the early 1990s, there has been an ongoing effort to spin off the PLA's commercial enterprises into private companies managed by former PLA officers, and to reform military procurement from a system in which the PLA directly controls its sources of supply to a contracting system more akin to those of Western countries. The separation of the PLA from its commercial interests is now believed to be largely complete. But the stamp of the PLA influence continues on most large enterprises in the form of retired PLA personnel managing these businesses.
The Chinese have pursued liberalizing their economy without political liberalization, in the same way other East Asians did. Such a strategy has allowed them to pursue rapid economic growth while forcefully controlling chaos on the streets, as the PLA did at Tienanmen square in 1989. At the same time, the Chinese PLA businesses have sparked a great industrial revolution that has transformed the nation's economy, accelerated its human development, greatly enriched China and lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. Just as it has in other East Asian nations, it can be expected that political liberalization and democracy will follow the rapid wave of industrialization and human development in China.
Even in the richest democracy like the United States, the military has played a significant role in funding research, development and manufacturing industries to support America's military-industrial complex and its space program. In spite of some of the well-deserved criticisms of the the world's biggest military-industrial and space complex in America, no one can deny that a lot of innovation and job creation and economic expansion has flowed from it for the American society at large.
India, another member of the emerging powers now called "BRIC", has failed to use a period of high economic growth to lift tens of millions of people out of poverty, falling far short of China’s record in protecting its population from the ravages of chronic hunger, United Nations officials said recently. Last year, British Development Minister Alexander contrasted the rapid growth in China with India's economic success - highlighting government figures that showed the number of poor people had dropped in the one-party communist state by 70% since 1990 but had risen in the world's biggest democracy by 5%.
Pakistan's record in alleviating poverty and increasing human development is not much better than India's. But Pakistani military has shown that it is capable of building and operating a wide variety of businesses profitably, ranging from heavy weapons manufacturing to industrial and consumer goods, construction and finance. The country now boasts a powerful industrial, technological and research base developing and manufacturing for its armed forces and exporting a wide variety of small and large weapons ranging from modern fighter jets, battle tanks, armored vehicles, frigates and submarines to unmanned aerial vehicles and high tech firearms and personal grenade launchers for urban combat. Comparing with the Chinese PLA, it is also clear that Pakistan's military currently has a very small footprint in industrial and economic development and globalization of the nation's economy. It is now recognized that without PLA's crucial role, it would have been very difficult for the Chinese to build the modern industrial base and attract massive foreign direct investments to become the factory of the world. It is also clear that, as a powerful and stable institution, Pakistani military can and should take inspiration from the PLA to play a much bigger role in Pakistan's economic development and rapid industrialization to help increase the nation's prosperity and lift millions out of poverty, as China's PLA has done.
Pakistan's military should take a leaf from the Chinese PLA playbook. It should do what is necessary to strengthen the nation's industry, economy and national security, regardless of any critics, including Ayesha Siddiqa Agha and her myriad fans. This is the best way forward to a well-educated, industrialized, prosperous and democratic Pakistan in the future.
Here's a video report about Pakistan's weapons development:
Related Links:
Foreign Origin of India's Agni Missiles
Chinese Military-Industrial Complex Goes Global
Video: Who Says Pakistan Is a Failed State?
Chinese Military-Commercial Complex
Pakistan Industrialization Strategy 2007
Pakistan's Defense Production Goes High Tech
Dr. Ayesha Siddiqa Agha on Pakistan Military Inc.
Military Inc: A Deflective and Derogatory Book
Chuck Yeager on Pakistan Air Force
Threre are more reasons to migrate to Canada
1 year ago
43 comments:
Riazbhai why you show the writings of this lady-writer. She is RAW agent from long time. Pakistan army is worlds best and defend us forever against evil designs inshallah.
Dear Riaz:
Kudos. Very nice. Pl send this to Dawn for publication.
It would be very difficult for India to do the same thing as PLA because it is a 100% Democratic country. Same thing for USA. However, US MIL contracts everything out to Corporations who make a ton of money from its MIL orders. In turn the Corporations do the dirty work for the Government and MIL outside the Country. Not much different from PLA. So I think, in developed countries, PLA becomes replaced by Corporations.
Indian Corporations are still in infancy when it comes to International scene. A few have just recently ( Arcelor Mital) been bold to step into the International waters in a big way. Yes, India has been late in taking the path of the PLA but I think they have been observing China for a long time and will be forced to take the same path( thru its Corporations, just like USA) sooner or later. If they don't, they will miss this golden opportunity for ever. And the void created by India's absence will be filled in by Pakistan.
My humble 2 cents.
Moin,
US industrialized in the 19th century, well before the emergence of military-industrial complex.
India is trying to industrialize by fits and starts now.
China has had a massive industrial revolution after Mao's death, mainly because Deng allowed the PLA to get into civilian industrial development in a big way to produce the funds it needed.
Pakistani military is already in civilian businesses and it's easier for it to emulate PLA, if it's given a free rein.
You mean the US industrialized in the 20th Century, don't you.
In the 19th Century ( 1800-1899) US was not an Industrial Power. The invention of the Automobile ( First Model T Ford did not roll out until 1909) and the WW ll ( Started in 1939) really pushed US to Industrialization. In the 19th Century US was not an Industrial Power at all. Gernmany and GB were generally considered as Industrialized nations in the 19th century. The advent of the automobile era gave boost to US in the Aircraft, Automobile and Farming Equipment ( also due to IC Engine) which eventually lead to huge scale prosperity and development of all kinds of other industries.
Moin,
US industrialization began its rapid progress in mid-nineteenth century with Carnegie, Rockefeller and JP Morgan as the captains of industry. There would have been no Ford and no automobile without the infrastructure put in place in the 19th century.
You should read John Steele Gordon's "Business in America" to get into the history of US industrial development.
Really? You think that that the military hijacking everything that is of any worth in the whole economy is a good thing?
Asharfs,
Driven by your pre-conceived bias, I don't think you even read my post. Take a look at how the Chinese army transformed China to an industrial power house. Then comment on it.
Thinking that turning my country over to the military-industrial complex is a bias? Then consider me guilty. I am as bigotted as Dwight D. Eisenhower was at the end of his term as POTUS.
ashrafs,
When Eisenhower spoke of military-industrial complex, the US was not a feudal society. It was already highly industrialized. So it makes no sense to apply it to where Pakistan is today.
In fact, you have turned your country to the corrupt feudal elite already in the name of democracy. The ruling feudals have no interest in human development because they see it as a threat to their absolute power over the rural poor in Pakistan. These feudals are in fact slave-holders from whom the slaves need to be emancipated, more like the 1860s in America.
On the other hand, industrialist , like America's abolitionist north, be it military or civilian, do have an interest in human development to get the skilled labor they need to make their own profits.
Moin, Arcelor Mittal is not an Indian company, it is simply owned by an Indian 'citizen' who has lived abroad for most of his life. Enough for our hyper-nationalistic 'national' media go all ga-ga over him.
I think it will be difficult for India to be a globally significant manufacturing base anytime soon. The main bottleneck I think is the lack of a skilled workforce. Infrastructure is of course also a big problem, although the government seems keen to rectify that.
I really dont see how a more economically active military will rectify the labor skills problem. Also, there are many more important reasons why the military should not involve itself in such activities.
I think neither india nor pakistan can have army based ventures.
That could happen in china because of the power equation.
in India and now in Pakistan it is a civilian government. So it will be politician turn business man or business man turned politician which will be a success.
Military should be doing what it does best-preparing for war or fighting one. I dont see how giving "corporate power" to an organization that has a fighting force,best armed in the country,with signal and human intelligence capability(industrial espionage?anyone?) can function in "fair" free competitive market(Bombing of French Engineers for not paying bribe in Agosta-B sub deal..Ok I know RAW/Mossad did it right?..but for argument sake ;-)).China is huge and ethnically homogeneous(and non-argumentative &obedient people among others) to a large extent..so it will remain stable what ever political setup(dictatorship, democracy, kleptocracy..) as long as they "continuously" give material prosperity to the country.But, that military setup didnt work for North Korea(coz its small and its leaders are relatively stupid,hallucinating etc) and for Pakistan(with a similar military setup like PLA).There is huge corruption in Indian Army circles as well..in case..(Tehelka scam,Arjun Tank sabotage,etc)..So we must adopt systems suitable for our culture,temperament and mental make-up..I think India is doing reasonably well with its fcuked up system except in military bureaucracy(which returns $10 billion to finance ministry coz of red tape annually).
The important point is giving so much power to a single entity is absolutely dangerous(eg:Pak army/ISI ;-)). Even a highly righteous idealist like Indira Gandhi was felled by greed for power.You need strong character and impeccable integrity to withstand with dispassion from raw "power". That's what Royalty did in the past.Raise children and train them with character to be a just King/Queen who works untiringly and justly for its people. But, like all things, that system decayed as well..Now what..Democracy?..hopefully this system gets better..or it will die like Royalty..
my cousin (engineer/management) in NDC just told me today that they produce Honey and grafted Olive trees.
(Missiles are developed under the technical department)
when i asked him, is that morally right?
his reply was, "we have billions and have nothing to do all year long, so why not do some business!!!"
if military do business with billions and create a monopolistic and uncompetitive situation how can a public sector can work? pak-military should sell all businesses to public sector and focus on their trainings.
model town blog:
I hope your cousin's attitude is an aberration rather than the norm. Of all the institutions in Pakistan, the military is the most stable, capable and powerful institution whose civilian businesses have been run profitably and they pay substantial taxes to Pakistani treasury, while the feudals have run their farms badly and pay njo taxes on their income.
The military has also created a industrial base essential for nation's rapid industrialization.
In the absence of any real, organized effort to industrialize Pakistan, military should fill the gap just as the Chinese PLA Army did in China. And they should become globally competitive in mass producing civilian goods cheaply for exports, as the Chinese PLA did. In addition to creating millions of civilian jobs, this will also help them generate funds for themselves and lessen their dependence on taxpayers.
If Pakistan's military can learn from the Chinese PLA and turn Pak rapidly into an industrialized nation over the next decade, it will be great contribution that can increase human development, jobs and economic growth, thus paving the way for a real democracy, not the feudal one we have now.
Riaz
The difference is that the chinese army is not run with the american money where as the pakistan army is run with american money and they have to loyal to their masters. See how loyal that they have created 3.5 million refugess for 4.5 billin usd of aid.
Great Income generation business for pakistan from pak military.
Anon:
Pakistan Army is run by Pakistani taxpayers money. The size of American aid dwarfs when compared with the size of Pakistan's economy...$1.l5b is less than 1% of Pak GDP.
The PLA's budget was cut by Deng who then allowed the PLA to pursue profitable ventures and export opportunities to fund itself. Later, when PLA achieved signicant industrial growth targets generating lots of foreign exchange and tax revenues, Deng forced spin-off to private sector.
So the PLA contributed far more than it sucked in from taxpayers.
Like PLA, Pak Army also operates a range of civilian businesses professionally and profitably that results in significant taxes to the treasury.
The next step for Pak Army is to use their cooperation and friendship with PAL's retired officer corp who brought in the capital to run PLA-connected private businesses to contribute more to the nation than they take from the people, as PLA did.
This is not as big a leap as you imagine, if Pak govt cuts their military funding and lets them loose to bring in capital and do civilian business with the world.
Its really a sorry state of affair if the Pak military-business complex has to bail out Pakistan's economy.
The army should only be in the business of fighting internal and external armed aggression.
Pakistan army can consider selling off its various businesses to first generation business men/women who are not from feudal backgrounds and thus develop/encourage genuine business ventures among the next generation Pakistani entrepreneurs.
Here's the transcript of an NPR report on feudal power in Pakistan and how it enslaves people on the large feudal estates in Punjab:
LAURA LYNCH: The midday sun throws a harsh spotlight on weathered faces. Women crouch low, searching for, then plucking out barely ripe tomatoes. Every crease and crevice in their feet, their hands, even on their faces is dusted with dirt from the fields they farm. They work from dawn to dusk - and the landowner gets most of the income. Nearly two thirds of Pakistan's rural population are sharecroppers. One of the male workers, Abdul Aziz, says they all owe their livelihood to their boss - so they support the political party he supports. He has always voted for the Pakistan People's Party he says; the party of the late Benazir Bhutto. Bhutto and other wealthy landowners like her had always been able to count on the loyalty of those who toil for them in the fields. At her gracious home in Islamabad, Syma Khar traces her lineage - both familial and political - through the photographs she keeps in the cupboard.
LYNCH: Khar is a member of the provincial assembly of the Punjab - the largest province in Pakistan. She is also a member of one of Pakistan's most powerful families. The pictures are from the Khar family estate just outside the city of Multan. The sprawling property includes fisheries, mango orchards and sugarcane fields. Thousands of people work there - most are loyal to their masters. Syma's husband, his father, brothers, nieces and nephews have all turned that to their political advantage to gain office. The workers are by and large, poor, landless and uneducated. Pervez Iqbal Cheema of Pakistan's National Defence University says that's the way most feudals want to keep it.
PERVEZ IQBAL CHEEMA: A feudal, in order to maintain his influence, will be probably not very happy for extension of education or health facilities because as long as they have a minimum interaction with the outsiders then the chances of new ideas germinating or causing some trouble are relatively less.
................
LYNCH: That star power was evident when Benazir Bhutto staged her return from exile in Karachi in October of 2007. Though it was later marred by a suicide bomb attack, the Bhutto power base in rural Pakistan bussed thousands of loyal followers in to cheer her arrival and dance in the streets. Even after she died, Bhutto's political machine ensured her husband eventually became President. And her son, Bilawal, inherited the party leadership even though he's only 20 with no political experience. In a back alley off a busy road in Rawalpindi, boys are just starting a late afternoon game of cricket. Aasim Sajjad Akhtar, rights activist and professor of colonial history at Lahore University of Management Sciences, keeps an office a few floors up. Akhtar sees the staying power of the feudals - and gives credit to the military. It is Pakistan's other power centre - staging four coups in the country's 62 year history. Akhtar says the military, interested in holding onto its own sphere of influence, finds a willing partner in the feudal class.
.........
KHAR: If they don't' keep that attitude then people will be doing daytime robberies because they are illiterate people. They will, you know, kidnap the daughters they will take away the children they will take away the properties, they will kill each other. So a boss has to be a boss. He has to have that sort of attitude.
.............
LYNCH: As a farm worker empties her bucket of tomatoes into a crate there is no smile of satisfaction - the day's work is still far from over. There's little chance her life will change soon. Several land reform programs have failed to change rural life in Pakistan. And failed to loosen the grip of Pakistan's large landowners on the country's politics.
I am very concerned with the thought of the military entering the fabric of industrial and commercial sector of Pakistan and indeed getting into a dominant position. As a student of Economics and Finance, I see a lot of inefficiencies and lack of foresight in the military run businesses based on my academic research into the field and experience with military run businesses. They are categorized by a management structure that serves to emulate the rigors of PMA, quell innovation, are marred by a lack of strategic planning and show remarkable rigidity. More so, many of the earlier ones were acquired as a result of government takeovers of Hindu owned manufacturing businesses during the Ayub era, much less "developed" into what they are today by the military. Fauji Fertilizer is touted as a mega venture in full force of competition with the private sector but a little peek at the fundamentals of the company and its management history reveals a shaky business with deteriorating fortunes ahead, being overtaken by Engro and Fatima Group among others. In majority of the other businesses, the military business has systematically attempted to create a monopoly and deter market forces leading to what I would call "lop-sided" development or none at all. Yes I want Pakistan to develop and yes I was the fortunes of this country to improve, but if it has to involve the military attaining a dominant role in commerce and industry, I fear we are treading the wrong path, one wrought with significant problems, not only in terms of inefficient and autocratic businesses but imbalanced power structure. I honestly would bear with the feudals a bit longer in hope for change otherwise, rather than see the military take over. I respect it to the utmost, it stands on the borders of my country and makes sure I and everyone I know here sleeps peacefully without fear, in a free country. But I want it to stay on those borders and let economics dictate commercial activity, not the monopolistic culture the military always fosters.
Jibran,
Ideally, the private civilian sector should lead the effort to turn Pakistan into an industrialized nation. But it hasn't happened to any significant degree in the last 60+ years for various reasons, but mainly due to incompetence, inefficiency and corruption of Pak's civilian governments.
The China model presents the other alternative...the one led by the Chinese Army that has produced the most rapid industrialization of a nation in the history of the world. And still, even after the spin-off from military, most major industrial infrastructure is still state managed in the world's fastest growing economy.
Instead of being ideological about, let's be practical. Let's give those a chance who can produce rapid results for us to help make us the envy of the world. In my humble opinion, Pak military can do that if given a chance.
Eventually, after the basic mass manufacturing capabilities and capacity are in place in Pak, I think the private investors would be far more interested in buying and running it than they are now. That's what's happening in China. It;s benefiting the Chinese people and the PLA with the massive FDI coming in to the country.
Mr. Riaz,
That is my point of contention as well. The Governments (both military and civilian) have done a poor job of creating an industrial and business friendly environment and that is the area that needs to be addressed rather than allow one institution in the country drive forward the country's economy, which I have to say, would be in the same environment of the same corrupt governments you refer to. So if that corruption is the problem, what kind of a solution can military led business offer when the core issue is still there? Wont they perform the same under the government policies as the civilian sector?
Yes, China has seen the most massive growth in the history of the planet, but that is all I agree to in your argument. Their growth has been through a myriad of factors including ideological cohesiveness, a revolutionary thought, policy making, sheer size and breadth of resources and many many other factors that may be unique to China. I just can not ascribe that nation's growth simply to its military. That's too simplistic and tunnel visioned an argument for me, I have to say respectfully.
We are not taking into account the motives behind the military taking up business ventures. They result in monopolies, rigidity, lack of innovation and change and survive through their own model of restrictive growth which is not at all good for industry and commerce in today's fast growing environment. If the military model takes hold, we will not have growth but a form of passive stagnation that borders on the inefficient and indeed I'm even concerned about the thought of the military ever wanting to hand things over to the civilian sector at any later stage. History has too many precedents for me to believe that sir.
Yes, Pakistan's industrial sector needs development. Yes, we have not managed it to the extent we need to. Yes China's military may have had an impact on its development. But I simply can not ascribe it simply to that. While most industries there are nationalized, it is the privatization that has led to development. Before that, China possessed industry and manufacturing as well but once Mao visited the Japanese, he marveled at their technology which was decades ahead of them and that is why Deng Xiaopeng opened up the economy, allowing economically liberalist policies to take partial hold. That is what we need. A hit at better policy making and environment, not military led business. Its too dangerous in too many forms and too potentially stagnating to be the cure for Pakistan's ills.
Again I say all that with complete respect for my military and the irreplaceable function it serves.
Jibran
Here's an excerpt from William Dalrymple's book "Nine Lives" about Bhuttos:
Benazir was a notably inept administrator. During her first 20-month-long premiership, she failed to pass a single piece of major legislation, and during her two periods in power she did almost nothing to help the liberal causes she espoused so enthusiastically to the Western media.
Instead, it was under her watch that Pakistan’s secret service, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), helped install the Taliban in Pakistan, and she did nothing to rein in the agency’s disastrous policy of training up Islamist jihadis from the country’s madrasas to do the ISI’s dirty work in Kashmir and Afghanistan. As a young correspondent covering the conflict in Kashmir in the late 1980s and early 1990s, I saw how during her premiership, Pakistan sidelined the Kashmiris’ own secular resistance movement, the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front, and instead gave aid and training to the brutal Islamist outfits it created and controlled, such as Lashkar-e-Toiba and Harkat ul-Mujahedin. Benazir’s administration, in other words, helped train the very assassins who are most likely to have shot her.
Benazir was, above all, a feudal landowner, whose family owned great tracts of Sindh, and with the sense of entitlement this produced. Democracy has never thrived in Pakistan in part because landowning remains the base from which politicians emerge. In this sense, Pakistani democracy in Pakistan is really a form of “elective feudalism”: the Bhuttos’ feudal friends and allies were nominated for seats by Benazir, and these landowners made sure their peasants voted them in.
Behind Pakistan’s swings between military government and democracy lies a surprising continuity of elitist interests: to some extent, Pakistan’s industrial, military and landowning classes are all interrelated, and they look after each other. They do not, however, do much to look after the poor. The government education system barely functions in Pakistan, and for the poor, justice is almost impossible to come by. According to the political scientist Ayesha Siddiqa, “Both the military and the political parties have all failed to create an environment where the poor can get what they need from the state. So the poor have begun to look for alternatives. In the long term, these flaws in the system will create more room for the fundamentalists.”
Many right-wing commentators on the Islamic world tend to see political Islam as an anti-liberal and irrational form of “Islamo-fascism”. Yet much of the success of the Islamists in countries such as Pakistan comes from the Islamists’ ability to portray themselves as champions of social justice, fighting people like Benazir Bhutto from the corrupt Westernised elite that rules most of the Muslim world from Karachi to Riyadh, Ramallah and Algiers.
Benazir’s reputation for massive corruption was gold dust to these Islamic revolutionaries, just as the excesses of the Shah were to their counterparts in Iran 30 years earlier: during her government, Pakistan was declared one of the three most corrupt countries in the world, and Bhutto and her husband, Asif Zardari — widely known as “Mr 10%” — faced allegations of plundering the country; charges were filed in Pakistan, Spain, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States to investigate their various bank accounts, and they stood accused of jointly looting no less than $1.4 billion from the state.
Military businesses in Pakistan - are the result of honest intentions and visionary policies - to raise independent resources, to self-finance the on-going national technological development, to modernize strategic assets, and most importantly, the determination to rely less on Foreign Aid. While at the same time, build facilities for retired military personnel and their families; and slowly withdrawing from National Defense budget allocation as a percentage of GDP.
MILBUS also exists in well developed countries like the USA, UK, France, China, Israel or even Turkey. The Milbus or the PMEs (Private Military Enterprises) are generally known as the Private Military Industry. Famous US PMEs include Halliburton, Black-water worldwide, Defensecurity, Titan Corporations, Kellogg Brown & Root, Air Scan, DynCorp’s, CACI International, etc. Famous UK PMEs include Black-Op’s and Aegis Defense Services. Most of these are active beneficiaries of the Iraq War. The worldwide PME industry is now worth over $100 billion a year. Thus, this is not just a Pakistan specific industry.
Here is a list Pak military businesses in Pakistan:
Fauji Foundation
The National Logistics Cell (NLC) – the largest transportation company in Pakistan and in Asia with a fleet of 16,89 vehicles (in 2005); 7,279 people worked out of which 2,549 were uniformed.
The net worth of NLC in 2000-2001 was (US$ 68.356 million) it’s estimated to be around US$200+ million in 2009.
Frontieir Works Organization (FWO)
Foundation Gas (fully-owned by Fauji Foundation)
Fauji Corn Complex
Fauji Security Services
Fauji Sugar Mills
Overseas Employment Services
Fauji Foundation Experimental & Seed Multiplication Farm
Mari Gas Company Ltd. (Associated Company)
Fauji Cement Company Ltd.
Fauji Fertilizers Bin Qasim Ltd.
Securities (PVT) Ltd.
Fauji Kabirwala Power Company Ltd.
Fauji Oil Terminal & Distribution Company Ltd.
Foundation University
Pakistan Maroc Phosphere, S.A
Shaheen Foundation (SF)
The Pakistan Air Force opened it’s own welfare foundation in 1977 under the Charitable Endowment Act 1890 with the money of Rs.5 million (US $86,000).
Following are the AWT Projects controlled by the Deputy Chief of Air Staff,
Askari Stud Farms (two farms)
Askari Farms (two farms)
Askari Welfare Rice Mill
Askari Welfare Sugar Mill
Askari Fish Mill
Askari Cement (two plants)
Askari Welfare Pharmaceutical Project
Army Welfare Shoe Project
Army Welfare Woollen Mill
Army Welfare Hosiery Unit
Travel agencies (three different agencies)
AWT Commercial Plazas (three buildings)
Askari Aviation
Askari Housing Schemes (six spots)
Askari Commercial Enterprises
Askari Power Ltd.
Askari Guards Ltd.
Askari Information Services
Askari Associate Ltd
Askari Welfare Saving Scheme
Askari General Insurance Company
Askari Leasing Ltd
Askari Commercial Bank
Askari Welfare Commercial Project
Army Welfare Shops (four)
Bahria Foundation
Started operations in 1982 with Rs.3 million and controlled by armed forces.
Shaheen Air International
Shaheen Air Cargo
Shaheen Airport Services
Shaheen Aerotraders
Shaheen Insurance
Shaheen Travel ( three projects)
Shaheen Complex (two projects)
Shaheen Pay TV
FM-100 (radio channel)
Shaheen Systems (Information Tech.)
Shaheen Knitwear
Falah Trading Agency
Bahria Construction
Bahria Travel & Recurring Agency
Bahria Paints
Bahria Deep Sea Fishing
Bahria Complexes
Bahria Town & Housing Schemes (three projects)
Bahria Dredging
Bahria Bakery
Bahria University
Bahria Shipping
Bahria Coastal Services
Bahria Security & System Services
Bahria Catering & Decoration Services
Bahria Farming
Bahria Holding
Bahria Harbor Services
Bahria Ship Breaking
Bahria Diving & Salvage International
Here's a billion dollar LNG contract scandal uncovered by a complaint of the Fauji Foundation CEO, as reported by The News:
The NA members were told that the petroleum ministry bosses had never recommended to the Economic Coordination Committee (ECC) to give the multi-billion dollar contract to French firm (GDF-SUEZ), whom surprisingly they all were religiously defending now.
It was disclosed that the petroleum ministry had actually recommended the award of the contract to Shell-Qatar, whose bid was higher than the French bid by $1.5 billion. But Shaukat Tarin had thrown this recommendation of the ministry in a dustbin after he learnt that he was being asked to award the contract to a party (Shell), whose bid was higher by $1.5 billion compared to the lowest bidder.
At the end of the hour-long presentation followed by a question-answer session, Chairman MNA Sheikh Waqas Akram, praised the journalist for his comprehensive presentation. Later, MD Fauji Foundation Lt Gen Rab Nawaz was said to have reiterated his old stance that his firm’s bid was the lowest if compared with the GDF-Suez, which was awarded the deal.
The committee met with Chairman Sheikh Waqas in the chair and was attended by MNAs Barjees Tahir, Nawab Yousuf Talpur, Wasan, Khurum Wattoo and others. Petroleum Minister Naveed Qamar, Secretary Kamran Lashari, Special Secretary G A Sabri and MD FF General Rab Nawaz attended the meeting.
Klasra told the committee that his story was based on the minutes of the ECC presided over by then Finance Minister Shaukat Tarin. The minutes had revealed that Tarin had got a telephone call from MD Fauji Foundation that the lowest bid given jointly by FF/Vitol had been rejected and the highest bidder GDF-Suez was given the lucrative contract. Tarin had informed MD FF that he was not aware of any such bidding because the petroleum ministry never shared such information in its official summary tabled before the ECC on Feb 9.
Consequently, Tarin had alarm bells ringing and had ordered a serious probe into the whole issue as to why the bid offered by FF/Vitol was not mentioned in the summary. But the petroleum ministry never replied to the queries of Tarin till he departed from his office at the end of February, much to the satisfaction of the petroleum ministry officials who thought that the issue had been buried but the publication of the scandal by The News shook them.
Petroleum ministry officials had even written a letter to Tarin, informing him that Minister Naveed Qamar had desired that they should not respond to him as he would “personally deal” with this issue. According to Klasra, he had contacted Shaukat Tarin to get his version about these startling developments and the ex-FM had confirmed on record that he was kept in the dark about the joint bid of FF/Vitol, which was claimed to be the lowest.
Tarin confirmed that he got no reply from the Ministry of Petroleum till he left the office. He also claimed that according to his calculation and information, there was a difference of one billion dollars in the bid price of the French company and FF/Vitol, so the country had suffered a loss of a billion dollar.
Minister Naveed Qamar is a close friend and ally of Zardari.
Dear Mr.Riaz,
I respectfully have to challenge your claims with regards to the intentions of the military businesses. Private military enterprises are not established for the betterment of the country, they are established purely for self interest, and more appropriately profit. This is idealistic talk that finds no ground in practical reality when one sees the practices of these military businesses. To quote one of your sentences, military businesses help in "slowly withdrawing from National Defense budget allocation as a percentage of GDP." This will never happen. Whatever money is made is purely for profit generation, to be provided to the shareholders, catering specifically to army personnel interests, as opposed to a civilian business sector which caters to all, regardless of status. I am attaching below the link for the financial statements of the previous years of the most profitable of these military businesses, the so called shining star of a conglomerate. Please help me identify one iota of contribution made to "modernize strategic assets" and more importantly, "to withdraw from National Defense budget allocation as a percentage of GDP." If anything Mr.Riaz, these businesses may TAKE OUT from the military budget that taxpayers provide to establish their own self interested businesses rather than contribute to it.
http://www.ffc.com.pk/contents/annualrep.htm
...That aside, lets come to MILBUS in other countries. Some of the businesses you name are the most loathed names with regards to their connection with the Iraq War. KBR is a contractor that was outsourced services for soldiers such as laundry and food services and it was able to used its military linkages to win the contract by blocking some other bids via shady means and engaged in rampant over pricing and profiteering well above rationality. For example, charging over 5 times the amount it took to wash a bag of clothes other services offered, charging for a can of coke "manufactured in Iraq" with "arab labels" at the rate it would have taken to import it from the US!!! Please take time out to view the documentary Fahrenheit 9/11.
I dont even need to venture into the topic of Blackwater. If you look at the history and the operations of each of the companies you mentioned, you will see they have been the focus of rampant corruption and profiteering, have been inefficient compared to private civilian businesses, have massively distorted market forces to form temporary or permanent monopolies and have engaged in high handed exploitation.
The story is no different in Pakistan. Most of the military businesses here exploit market forces, try to create monopolies, fail to bring in innovation for the most part that makes good use of resources and purely seeks to bring economic rents to specific group which is discriminatory and not the job of the military. Many of the ownerships of Askari and Fauji Foundation are not profit making, the gulf being filled by those that are due to artificially created monopolistic conditions, keeping civilian sector at bay, hardly the harbinger for the country's growth and advancement of strategic assets. Fauji Corn failed to compete with Rafhan, Askari Bank's financials have always bordered on the sketchy and many of the areas you witness their presence in cater to niches and gaps where limited number of entities can operate, thereby providing the military businesses shelter from the full brunt of market forces.
It should stick to what its good at, defending the country's borders. The world over, there are examples of the private businesses leading the change in their countries, including in China. Privatization and unhampered civilian business under Deng Xiaopeng led to China's advancement, not military enterprises. Yes, they may have limited scope when it comes to augmenting some specific military functionalities but that is as far as I am willing to take it. The solution lies in reform and policy making that supports businesses, simultaneously taking a top down developmental approach, not handing the country's resources to ex-military allowing them to run amok with them.
Jibran
Jibran: "Private military enterprises are not established for the betterment of the country, they are established purely for self interest, and more appropriately profit."
Self-interest of the military is not necessarily a bad thing, if it also helps others in society as well. The money invested by military in industrial sector is much better than the billions our political elite send overseas to secret Western bank accounts that create no jobs, no income and no revenue in Pakistani economy.
If the Pak Army can do for Pakistan what Chinese People's Liberation Army did for China, I say more power to them.
Industrial and economic growth that mil bus brings to Pakistan can benefit a lot more Pakistanis than the money repatriate abroad by the non-military sectors.
I completely agree with your point that self interest is not a bad thing. I mentioned that only to illustrate that milbus is not "the result of honest intentions and visionary policies - to raise independent resources, to self-finance the on-going national technological development, to modernize strategic assets, and most importantly, the determination to rely less on Foreign Aid. While at the same time, build facilities for retired military personnel and their families; and slowly withdrawing from National Defense budget allocation as a percentage of GDP."
Believing that is creating a smoke screen for one's self.
I disagree that the development of China took place due to its army Mr.Riaz. Tonnes of literature exists pointing to economic liberalization mixed with directed policy making leading to China's development. The army rode the wave if anything, it wasn't the harbinger for their success.
Sir giving power to the military has its advantages of course, business is created and all but so is the same effect brought about by the civilian sector...and might I add much more efficiently and with a longer term impact. Not all entrepreneurs send their money abroad and those that do (I am not talking about feudal landlords) follow because of threats to their assets from government and policy impacts that do not favor investment. There are many more who actually invest. If they can earn a greater return with less threat investing in Pakistan, will they not do it? Bank holdings earn less interest than actual ventures. These entrepreneurs are rational when it comes to money if nothing else, their decision to send money abroad is not emotional but rational. That is why the solution is policy making that favors investment and provides protection to threatened assets, not espousing one sector that works to the benefit of one clique, completely decimating and policy making infrastructure and society. In a world that is moving towards representation for people, we will be moving to autocracy!
Jibran: "I disagree that the development of China took place due to its army Mr.Riaz. Tonnes of literature exists pointing to economic liberalization mixed with directed policy making leading to China's development. The army rode the wave if anything, it wasn't the harbinger for their success."
There is no question that economic liberalzation spurred unprecedented growth China. But this was FDI and export led growth that relied on the industrial base that the military put in place well before Deng's liberalization came along.
Here's how I explained it in my post:
"With the change of leadership after Mao's death in 1976, the new government encouraged the military plants to begin exploring civilian uses for their products and to engage in the broader liberalization of the economy. The most nimble managers were free to exploit new markets for their goods. During the early 1980s, the PLA's share of the national budget declined, spurring it to look to other sources for cash, especially hard currency. The higher organizational levels of the PLA created trading companies like China Xinxing, China Poly and China Songhai to take advantage of the opening of China's economy to the international market, according to British analyst Gary Busch.
They formed banks, holding companies and international trading companies like Everbright to market these goods worldwide. Now the PLA runs farms, factories, mines, hotels, paging and telephone companies and airlines, as well as major trading companies.
Busch says the number of military-run businesses exploded during the boom of the late 1980s. The "third line" factories opened branches in the coastal areas, earning increasingly higher profits from the manufacture and export of civilian goods. Even the lowest levels of the PLA set up production units. In fact the PLA had a largely captive audience of Chinese who had never really had the chance to acquire personal goods produced in China before. In addition to their international arms sales, their production of consumer goods for the domestic market soared."
'India, another member of the emerging powers now called "BRIC", has failed to use a period of high economic growth to lift tens of millions of people out of poverty, falling far short of China’s record in protecting its population from the ravages of chronic hunger, United Nations officials said recently. Last year, British Development Minister Alexander contrasted the rapid growth in China with India's economic success - highlighting government figures that showed the number of poor people had dropped in the one-party communist state by 70% since 1990 but had risen in the world's biggest democracy by 5%. '
Riaz: That's a rather dishonest remark. First of all how about posting a link to Danny Alexander's actual quote. I haven't found anything from a google search.
And secondly with regard to - 'failed to use a period of high economic growth to lift tens of millions of people out of poverty' - pray what period of high growth are you referring to? India hit the 8% growth path only in 2003. That's five years of rapid growth(plus one predicted year 09-10). Can one reasonably expect a replication of living standards created by growth in the Chinese economy? China has been growing at 8% since the 80s. And as far as absolute figures are concerned poverty has reduced substantially in the last decade. The 'increase' has been due to a redefinition of poverty standards. Any 'increase' needs to take a similar standard for the 'starting point' as is taken for the 'ending point' of the surveyed period.
Vivek: "That's a rather dishonest remark. First of all how about posting a link to Danny Alexander's actual quote. I haven't found anything from a google search."
You are mixing up Alexander's remarks with UNICEF report.
Here are the links of the two:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/19/britain-aid-to-india-825m
http://www.rediff.com/money/2009/jun/03unicef-attacks-indias-record-on-poverty.htm
Here is a quick comparison of different sectors of the economy in India and Pakistan in terms of employment and GDP contribution:
Country....Agri(emp/GDP)..Textiles..Other Mfg..Service(incl IT)
India........60%/16% ...........10%/4%.....7%/25%...........23%/55%
Pakistan......42%/20%...........12%/8%......8%/18%...........38%/54%
Assuming India's PPP GDP of $3.75 trillion (population 1.2 billion) and Pakistan's $450 billion (population 175 million), here is what I calculated in terms of per capita GDP in different sectors of the economy:
India vs. Pakistan:
Agriculture: ($833 vs. $1,225)
Textiles: ($1,242 vs. $1,714)
Non-Textile Mfg ($11,155 vs $5,785)
Services ($7,246 vs $3,654)
It shows that Indians in manufacturing and services sectors add more value and produce higher value goods and services than their Pakistani counterparts.
The income range in India is much wider from $883 to $11, 155 accounting for the much bigger rich-poor gap relative to Pakistan's range from $1225 to $5,785.
Excerpts from KPMG reports on Pakistan's auto sector:
Total auto sales in Pakistan in 1H-FY2010 increased by 16.37% to 61,021 units from ... The auto industry was operating at 37% of its installed capacity of 273 thousand units per annum in FY2009 and it is expected that 20% YoY growth ... units in FY2009. Market players Honda Atlas, Pak Suzuki, Indus Motors, Mitsubishi, Dewan ...
Here is an excerpt fom an interesting Op Ed by a Korean commentator Ha-Joon Chang published in the Guadian that exposes the hypocisy of "Washington Consensus" pushed by the West and IFIs like the IMF on developing nations:
An obvious place to look for inspiration is the recent history of the host country. In my lifetime Korea has lived through one of the greatest development miracles – half a century ago, its annual per capita income was around £50, less than half that of Ghana at the time. Today, it stands at £12,000, putting it on a par with Portugal and Slovenia. How was this possible?
Korea of course did things that most people agree are important for economic development, such as investment in infrastructure, health and education. But on top of that, it also practised many policies that are now supposed to be bad for economic development: extensive use of selective industrial policy, combining protectionism with export subsidies; tough regulations on foreign direct investment; active, if not particularly extensive, use of state-owned enterprises; lax protection of patents and other intellectual property rights; heavy regulation of both domestic and international finance.
The G7 was always remarkably reluctant to recommend these "heterodox" policies and insisted that the "Washington consensus" package of opening up, deregulation and privatisation was the right recipe for everyone. When confronted with the Korean case, Washington consensus supporters tried to brush it off as an exception. However, the history of take-offs in most of the G7 countries – especially Britain, the US, Germany, France and Japan – is far closer to the Korean model than is commonly thought. The "unorthodox" policies used by Korea and almost all of today's rich countries need to be seriously considered in any discussion on development options.
Will things change with the launch of the G20 development agenda? An examination of the Korean government's proposals suggests we can only muster cautious optimism. Korea today wants the G20 to focus on a lengthy shopping list of development issues: infrastructure; private investment and job creation; education; greater access to rich country markets by poor countries; more inclusive finance; building resilience to financial or weather shocks; food security; governance. That is a pretty good start. The Koreans reject the "one size fits all" approach of previous decades in favour of what they call a "dynamic iPhone model" – a set of development apps for every occasion, drawn from successful approaches in different countries.
Here's an AFP report about Indian military owning land and running golf courses:
NEW DELHI — The Indian army has developed a sideline in running golf courses using government land but returning no revenue to the state, the nation's auditor claims in a damning new report.
The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) found that at least 32 square kilometres (12 square miles) of rent-free land had been handed to a privately-run company, Army Zone Golf, which operates 97 luxury golf courses.
The defence ministry is the largest state landowner, holding 80 percent of the 7,000 square kilometres of government land, much of it now prime real estate, according to the CAG report released Friday.
Golf memberships are being sold to present and past service personnel as well as civilians and foreign nationals, the report said, with revenue credited to a private regimental fund which could not be accessed by the auditors.
Army authorities "earn large amounts of revenue by allowing persons other than service personnel to use these facilities," the report said.
"Heavy amounts of revenues were being earned without paying any lease rent and allied charges for use of government assets," it added.
The CAG's account of the misuse of public land will add to growing worries about the military's slide into corruption following a string of recent scandals.
In January, the government ordered a 31-storey apartment block in Mumbai to be demolished after it emerged army officers and local politicians had usurped apartments originally meant for war widows.
Army Zone Golf claims to promote the sport in the armed services and runs "some of the most spectacular golf courses of India," according to its website. No one at the company responded to calls for comment from AFP.
The company's organising council includes several retired army officers, and was once headed by Joginder Jaswant Singh, former army chief of staff and now the governor of the northeastern state of Arunachal Pradesh.
The CAG has been instrumental in exposing mismanagement and possible fraud in the sale of telecom licences in 2008 which it said had led to a loss to the state of up to 39 billion dollars.
The telecom minister at the time, A. Raja, has since been arrested and awaits trial.
As Pakistani Army comes under unprecedented sharp criticism by the politicians, the public and the media, here's an excerpts from an interesting piece by Vir Sanghvi on how the Indians treat Indian Army:
Equally, we will never blame the Army for anything. In 1962, we were thrashed by the Chinese but the consensus was that politicians had lost the war while our brave soldiers had done their best. The 1965 war was at best a stalemate (the Pakistanis also claimed they had won) but we treated it as a glorious victory for the Indian Army. Operation Blue Star was a fiasco. But even today, it is Blue Star we remember favourably rather than Black Thunder (conducted by the paramilitary forces to clean up the mess left behind by Blue Star), a bona fide success.
By and large, the social contract has worked. The Army has nearly always got us out of jams when we need its services. Whether it was Delhi in 1984, Bombay in 1993, or Gujarat in 2002, we needed the Army to restore order. And during the Kargil War, young officers led from the front, sacrificed their lives and displayed astonishing bravery in the service of their country.
Consequently, the army sometimes appears to live in a state within a state. Visit a cantonment and you will be struck by the contrast with the civilian part of the town or city where it is located. The roads will be broad and well-maintained, the buildings will be freshly painted, the surroundings will be clean, and an air of good manners and civility will prevail. Visit an army town (Wellington, for instance) and the contrast will be even more striking. The order and cleanliness of the cantonments serves as a contrast to the chaos and filth of modern India.
There is, however, one important aspect of the social contract that now seems to be failing. As corruption has spread in modern India, we have reluctantly accepted that most parts of our society are tainted – civil servants, the schools and even the lower judiciary. But somehow, we have always believed that the army is different.
Oh yes, we hear the stories. We hear about Generals who take kickbacks on arms deals and about officers involved in canteen purchase scandals. But because this corruption appears to be restricted to the Army itself and because we believe that it is not widespread, we are happy to look the other way.
The problem with the Adarsh scandal and the controversies over other land deals that have erupted recently is that they encroach into the civilian space. Senior army officers are seen to be conniving with politicians, bureaucrats and contractors to make millions.
Worse still, at least in the case of the Adarsh scandal, there is a cynical abuse of the social contract. When we say that we will respect and pamper the army, we do not expect senior officers to grab flats for themselves in the name of Kargil martyrs.
Earlier this week, the Army chief spoke about his resolve to cleanse his force. I am not sure he fully grasps how serious the situation is. The problem is not just that there are ‘a few bad apples’ in the army. It is that Army corruption has now spilled out into the civilian space and that Generals are making big bucks by exploiting the regard we have for the heroism of the Army and the sacrifices made by its soldiers.
If more such instances come to light, then the press will begin looking critically at the Army. The politicians will have an excuse to delve deep into the workings of the officer corps. This will give them the opportunity they need to play favourites. And the public, regretfully recognising that the Army has breached the social contract itself, will reluctantly acquiesce in the muck-raking by the press and the interference by politicians.
Once this happens, the social contract will not survive. The image of the Army will not recover. And the perfect balance we have built between the Army and the Indian people will topple over..
Here's a VOA report on Bahraini govt recruiting Pakistan Army and Police veterans to put down the Shia rebellion:
Former CIA officer Bruce Riedel, who has extensive experience in South Asia, says Bahrain has been recruiting Pakistani veterans for decades. But he says the eruption of the pro-democracy demonstrations in the Gulf state in March has sparked a sharp increase in the recruiting.
"This winter, when the very serious demonstrations began and it looked like the regime might even be toppled at a certain point, their hiring of mercenaries went up substantially," said Riedel. "And they began sending out basically want ads in major Pakistani newspapers advertising well-paying jobs in the Bahraini police and the Bahraini National Guard for any experienced soldier or policeman in Pakistan."
The ads placed in Pakistani newspapers call for ex-riot police and riot control instructors, military police, non-commissioned officers, and other military and security specialists - as well as cooks and mess hall waiters - for the Bahrain National Guard. The ads were placed by the Fauji Foundation, an organization set up to help veterans and their families. Calls to the foundation seeking comment were not returned.
A senior Pakistani source says President Zardari and King Hamad discussed the issue of recruitment during the Pakistani leader’s visit to Bahrain Wednesday. But asked to comment on the matter, a Pakistani embassy spokesman said the recruitment of veterans is done through private channels and has nothing to do with the Pakistani government.
Riedel says hundreds, if not thousands, of unemployed Pakistani military and police veterans were hired. Most have come from the province of Baluchistan in southwest Pakistan.
-----
Bruce Riedel, now a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution’s Saban Center for Middle East Policy, says the Bahraini policy has aggravated the Shia-Sunni sectarian divide.
"The fact that the [ruling] Khalifa family is importing Sunni Pakistani mercenaries to repress the Shia majority only underscores the perception of the Shia majority that the regime is not interested in genuine reforms, not interested in building a constitutional monarchy, but interested in repressing the majority simply because they are Shias," he said.
Repeated calls and e-mails to the Bahrain Embassy in Washington seeking comment got no response.
Riedel adds that for Bahrain's rulers, there is a side agenda to the recruitment.
"Many of these Sunni Pakistani troops, if they’ve served well and served long enough, will also be offered Bahraini citizenship at the end of their career - an offer that is intended to try to increase the demographic size of the Sunni minority on the island. And that only intensifies Shia frustration with the way things are governed in Bahrain," he said.
The issue also has diplomatic repercussions. Iran, a Shi’ite nation, has voiced concern about the Bahraini government’s response to the demonstrations. In March, a 1,600-man Gulf Cooperation Council force, led by another Sunni monarchy, Saudi Arabia, went into Bahrain. In April, Iran summoned the Pakistani ambassador to hear official concern about Bahrain's recruitment of Pakistani mercenaries to help put down the protests. According to Iranian press reports, Iranian officials warned of “serious ramifications” for Pakistani-Iranian relations if the recruitment continued.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/08/18/the_road_to_tahrir
The Road to Tahrir
The roots of Egyptians' rage can be traced back to bad economic advice from the IMF -- and the crony capitalism it left behind.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/poverty-matters/2010/nov/24/washington-consensus
We've yet to kill off the Washington consensus
The Washington consensus is alive and well and will continue to be so unless we lobby our governments to stop pushing the failed policies of the World Bank and the IMF, argues Rick Rowden
Chemical, pharma products export up 43%, reports Daily Times:
KARACHI: The export of chemicals and pharmaceutical products increased by 43 percent in first quarter of 2011-2012 July, September as compared to same period last year, Federal Bureau of Statistics FBS data said.
Pakistan exported chemicals, pharmaceutical products worth $257 million during July-September 2011 as against $179 million in July- September 2010. Chemicals products export rose by 39.76 percent, increasing from $82.40 million to $115.17 million. Pharmaceutical products export stood at $29.10 million as against $33.90 million in same period of last fiscal.
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2011\11\15\story_15-11-2011_pg5_6
Excerpts from The News on Pakistan auto makers' contribution to economy:
The local auto industry manufacturers and vendors had paid total revenue of Rs64 billion last year while the industry saved foreign exchange of $500 million during the same period, said a presentation of the Indus Motor Company (IMC) to visiting journalists on Saturday.
With total investments of Rs92 billion and 0.4 million job opportunities, the local auto manufacturing industry has contributed substantially in the growth of national economy.
Despite some challenges and regulatory issues, the local auto industry has been flourishing and it is one of the important contributors in the country’s gross domestic product (GDP) growth, it added.
However, the local auto industry is a victim of government’s anti-industry policies like the import of used cars which are not only hurting the industry but also depriving the government of huge revenues in terms of duties.
Besides, the local auto manufacturers are fighting with the misperception that they charge exorbitant prices for vehicles while the quality is also not good. Yet, most of the facts once known would easily make the public to change perception about the industry.
The prices of cars have been increased by only 14 percent in last 2 years whereas the price of steel has increased by 16.5 percent, aluminum by 50.5 percent and polypropylene by 127 percent, minimum wage has increased by 75 percent, electricity and gas increased by 51 percent and 43.6 percent respectively during the same period.
Besides this, the depreciation of Pakistani rupee also played its role in increasing pressure on the industry, like the US dollar increased by 20 percent, Japanese Yen by 66 percent and Thai Bhatt by 22 percent.
Moreover, the duties on completely knocked down units (CKD) in Pakistan are much higher than other regional countries which contribute to high car prices. CKD duty in the country ranges between 32 to 50 percent, while in Thailand it is 30 percent and in India it ranges between 10 to 30 percent.
One of the major players of local auto manufacturing industry, IMC, while nullifying the stereotype image of the industry, has contribution of 1.5 percent/year to the national economy growth and maintained its image of quality production with plausible prices.
In addition, it has increased its production capacity from 20 units per day in 1993 to 210 units per day in 2011.
The company also created huge job opportunities as its number of direct employees increased from 496 in 1993 to 2,180 in 2011.
While commenting on IMC’s performance, CEO IMC, Parvez Ghias said that the buyer’s trust on the quality of the company’s products can be gauged by the fact that the company’s unit sales increased from 11,000 in 1993 to 51,000 in 2011.
Similarly, its units’ production increased from 2,930 in 1993 to 50,759 in 2011.
He said that IMC has been contributing heavily to the localization.
It is pertinent to note here that a total of 582 Corolla parts and assemblies are produced locally, while the company’s vendor-base has increased from 21 in 1993 to 60 in 2011 and these vendors are employing over 0.2 million people.
He said that on the part of dealership, the company’s 3S dealership increased from 21 in 1993 to 24 in 2002 and 34 in 2011 and of the total 34 3S dealership, 8 are in north region, 16 in central region and 10 in south region.
The company’s 3S dealership will increase to 66 till 2016.
http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=88793&Cat=3
Here's an Express Tribune story about Pakistan's first tablet computer offered by Pakistan Aeronautical Complex (PAC):
The newest entrant in the market for tablets and eBook readers – dominated by the likes of Apple, Amazon and Samsung – is none other than the Pakistani military.
The Pakistan Aeronautical Complex (PAC) Kamra, whose self-described mission is “to produce and support weapon systems for a high state of operational readiness of the Pakistan Air Force (PAF)”, has started up a new commercial venture with a Chinese company, which an official told The Express Tribune was to “strengthen the national economy”.
The first three products produced by PAC are a computing tablet, a notebook and an eBook reader.
A press release issued at the launch of the project on December 29 notes that “for the joint production of JF-17, PAF had established sufficient facilities which are appropriate for the production of both defence and commercial products.”
The PAC official, who asked not to be named, told The Express Tribune that the joint venture with the Chinese company Innavtek had taken off with the initial offering of three products. “We plan to expand this in the future.”
The venture website, cpmc.pk, states that “Innavtek jointly developed two products with Avionics Production Factory which are successfully flying on fleet of our JF-17 aircraft and three more products are under co development phase.”
The official said that while PAC would manufacture the products, marketing was Innavtek’s responsibility.
He said the products were initially being marketed in Rawalpindi, but modalities needed to be finalised so it could expand to other cities including Lahore and Karachi. “We will get in touch with courier companies to see if we can reach a deal to transport them,” he said.
The competitively priced products, he said, have several benefits because they are being manufactured in Kamra. “It comes with a joint one-year warranty of PAC and Innavtek. Because PAC is producing it, it will ensure quality. We will also provide backup support,” the official said. In the first stage of this venture, PAC will manufacture the products locally but there are plans for an exchange of personnel to be trained in China and Pakistan respectively.
PAC’s plan to “strengthen the national economy” via its new commercial venture means it has to capitalise on “current trends”.
Jehan Ara, the president of the Pakistan Software Houses Association (PASHA), said she was unaware of the venture. She was skeptical that customers would buy PAC’s products just because they were manufactured by the Pakistani military. “People with a fixed budget will test products, read reviews and get recommendations from friends and then buy something. They don’t buy just because of a name. They will test it out of curiosity and put up reviews etc.” She also said governments around the world and in Pakistan buy computers from vendors based on pricing and reliability, and should not be forced to buy from a specific vendor.
http://tribune.com.pk/story/331525/from-kamra-to-karachi-via-the-chinese-military-debuts-in-the-handheld-market/
http://www.cpmc.pk/
The prices for Pakistan's PAC (Pakistan Aeronautical Complex) computers range from Rs. 8,000 for PAC eBook reader tablet, to Rs. 15,000 for PAC PAD 1 tablet and Rs. 23,500 for PAC nBook.
Check out PakAccounts.com for specs more details.
http://pakaccountants.com/pakistan-introduced-ebook-reader-notebook-tablet-pc/
Here's a link to a video about Pakistan Aeronautical Complex products.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oMbzyTun7Q&feature=related
Post a Comment