Pakistan’s Territorial Integrity: Lessons from American Democracy

#102, you didn`t speak ``facts``. You are not at the liberty to claim rhetoric as ``facts``. Even the crude measure that you were alluding to, the US life expectancy was off by several years. Very clumsy analysis.

#101, you asked me to speak the facts. Now, i did and you can`t take that. tsk, tk,tsk.

#99, you again speak out of ignornace. To prove your point you need to prove that the condition of the elderly compared to the young are significantly worse off as compared to the young/elderly dichotomy in the US. Then controlling for differences in wealth and class you have to prove that those differences still exist. You have done neither and just presented a stereotypical rant which by itself is also erroneous.

faisaluno #94

`` you are so clueless that you don’t even understand your own posts. either that or you are being deliberately deceitful which is very uncool and definitely not funny. ``

To be be fair you were the one who compared Pakistan to dictatorships in Korea, Taiwan, China, Singapore etc. You forgot to mention dictatorships in Indonesia, Philippines, North Korea, Burma etc.

`` iii. uncle sam had more troops in philippines than in korea. in fact philippines for a pretty long time was a colony of the u.s. if defensive support of u.s. is necessary for development, can you please explain why korea developed while philippines is a third world backwater like pakistan? ``

US had a much bigger military footprint in Korea compared to Philippines. It is not just the number of troops. Philippines is not exactly a success story. Ever since the toppling of Marcos in 1985 it has never been a basketcase begging for debt forgiveness.

`` iv. uncle sam bailed out mexico in mid 90’s and uncle sam has preferential trade arrangement with mexico something it does not have with korea. can you please explain why mexican economy has continued to under perform relative to korea? ``

Mexicans are less educated compared to South Koreans.

`` there is actually more but i will wait until i get point by point rebuttal. btw, i also mentioned other countries which developed under military dictatorship including chile, spain portugal and thailand. care to shed some light on that? ``

Spain has not been a dictatorship since Franco`s death in 1975. Ditto for Portugal since the 1974. Greece, Spain and Portugal benefit from tens of millions of North European tourists who want to sunbathe in sunny beaches. They get billions of dollars in foreign aid from wealthy North European states. Being part of the EU and NATO helps in terms of overall stability.

Thailand has never been a classic dictatorship. It is a monarchy similar to Nepal. Chile has benefited from market policies and military dictatorship - one of the few successes in Latin America.

#98 masadi
OK, here are the facts.
Pakistan has emerged as the poorest, most illiterate, malnourished and least elder sensitive region, in the world, where majority elders are being abused physically and mentally. Where very less people can reach the age of 60-65 years, b/c of lack of health and lack of social support system for elders.

Where, majority of youth is jobless and frustrated and if, they are unable to take care of themselves, how can they build a healthy social and care system for their elders, very few of them reach really elder age of 70 and above. So, technically, there are very less elderly in Pakistan,b/c of mal treatment and mal nourishment, they die at an earlier age.

#86, Zeena, I`ll be ignorning your rant since it is weak on substance and strong on rhetoric. When I talk about a ``more traditional society``, I am talking about a gameinschaft versus a gesellschaft, I am not talking about specific ``traditions`` of which there are many in Pakistan even though you deny it. In 1967 the elderly poverty rate in America was twice that of the country as a whole, and even today, if Social Security is not counted as a factor- and your capitlist friends ``the American dream`` advertisers have never ceased to fight against this ``socialist`` program, over half of the elderly would fall into poverty. Elderly poverty affects mostly women that are 58% of the elderly population but 74% of the elderly poor.

So, instead of arguing from ignorance and, argue based upon facts.

Respectfully submitted,

re: faisaluno`s various posts
It is indeed stupidity to believe that South Korea could have developed without extensive military and financial aid from USA even as it is utter stupidity to believe that Pak can even exist for long without a constitution.
The following Link provides some insight. Author makes comparison with Phillipines but it is still relevant to the current discussion.
Excerpt:
(The most important period in South Korea`s development began after the fall of the regime of Syngman Rhee in 1960. General Park Chung Hee, who took over in a military coup in 1961, instituted a process of economic reform. He devalued the currency, reformed interest rates, imposed tighter fiscal policies, lowered trade barriers, and, especially, put in place a number of incentives to encourage exports. In many ways, South Korea`s exports were the central driver of its successful development. The government has maintained a relatively open, market-based economy ever since. In addition, the government has been stable and a competent administrator, with only relatively modest amounts of corruption.

Foreign aid after 1960 contributed to South Korea`s successful development. It provided an extra pool of capital that the economy used for saving and investment. The Agency for International Development (AID) provided extensive technical support to the officials and agencies responsible for South Korea`s export drive. U.S. military aid helped Korea with its defense needs and thus possibly freed up some resources that could be used for development rather than for the military. Foreign assistance also helped improve South Korea`s health, education, and agriculture sectors. )
Sridhar

manto, your post #92 reeks on religious emotionalism which is rather strange cause you claim to be a champion of rational analysis. and for your claim that my post #92 is ``amazingly ignorant``, that claim will be easier for me to accept once you provide a point by point rebuttal to my post #90. and sure mush did not overturn the second amendment. but neither did bb or ns. mush however did over turn the separate electorate law. so in this he is one-up on democrats.

Mantolives #92 Dear Faisaluno...
Some points by way of rebuttal...
``Junta`` is not the same as Indian ``Janata``... Junta is pronounced ``Hunta``. ``}

Yasser,
Now you tell me. All this time I thought that BJP stood for Bharitya Junta (that`s with an ``H`` sound as in GhoonDa) Party. I thought that the Junta consisted of Messrs. Vajpayee, Advani, and Bharati (after whom the gang is named).

I think that the founder of this Junta party was Juanita Bharati from either Jaipur or Jodhpur where it gets very hot in June and July. Let`s see if faisal can talk Mexican. :)

rozaiba:

you are so clueless that you don’t even understand your own posts. either that or you are being deliberately deceitful which is very uncool and definitely not funny.

i. you wrote in your post #78 that uncle sam gave “korean products unlimited market access”. i asked you to provide evidence of a treaty outlining such an arrangement. no where in any of your sources is a mention of such a treaty. and no, korean car exports to u.s. relative to u.s. car exports to korea is not an indication of preferential market access and you are a bigger fool than i thought if you are implying this. korea essentially exported no cars to the u.s. until the mid 80s and korean car exports to the u.s began in earnest in early 90’s by which time korea was a middle income country. also fyi, u.s. car exports to japan are negligible as well.

ii. you implied in your post#78 that korea had below normal defense expenditure. yet you write in your post#88 that korea spent 15% of its budget on defense. are you implying that 15% is below normal. i can also give you the names of plenty of under developed countries that spent less than that on defense. can you please explain why these countries are under developed despite their governments spending less on defense than korea.

iii. uncle sam had more troops in philippines than in korea. in fact philippines for a pretty long time was a colony of the u.s. if defensive support of u.s. is necessary for development, can you please explain why korea developed while philippines is a third world backwater like pakistan?

iv. uncle sam bailed out mexico in mid 90’s and uncle sam has preferential trade arrangement with mexico something it does not have with korea. can you please explain why mexican economy has continued to under perform relative to korea?

v. if uncle sam’s role was so essential for korean economic development, can you please explain three mainstream sources i have given don’t highlight this fact?

there is actually more but i will wait until i get point by point rebuttal. btw, i also mentioned other countries which developed under military dictatorship including chile, spain portugal and thailand. care to shed some light on that?

rozaiba:

you are so clueless that you don’t even understand your own posts. either that or you are being deliberately deceitful which is very uncool and definitely not funny.

i. you wrote in your post #78 that uncle sam gave “korean products unlimited market access”. i asked you to provide evidence of a treaty outlining such an arrangement. no where in any of your sources is a mention of such a treaty. and no, korean car exports to u.s. relative to u.s. car exports to korea is not an indication of preferential market access and you are a bigger fool than i thought if you are implying this. korea essentially exported no cars to the u.s. until the mid 80s and korean car exports to the u.s began in earnest in early 90’s by which time korea was a middle income country. also fyi, u.s. car exports to japan are negligible as well.

ii. you implied in your post#78 that korea had below normal defense expenditure. yet you write in your post#88 that korea spent 15% of its budget on defense. are you implying that 15% is below normal. i can also give you the names of plenty of under developed countries that spent less than that on defense. can you please explain why these countries are under developed despite their governments spending less on defense than korea.

iii. uncle sam had more troops in philippines than in korea. in fact philippines for a pretty long time was a colony of the u.s. if defensive support of u.s. is necessary for development, can you please explain why korea developed while philippines is a third world backwater like pakistan?

iv. uncle sam bailed out mexico in mid 90’s and uncle sam has preferential trade arrangement than korea. can you please explain why mexican economy has continued to under perform relative to korea?

v. if uncle sam’s role was so essential for korean economic development, can you please explain three mainstream sources i have given don’t highlight this fact?

there is actually more but i will wait until i get point by point rebuttal. btw, i also mentioned other countries which developed under military dictatorship including chile, spain portugal and thailand. care to shed some light on that?

Dear Faisaluno...

Some points by way of rebuttal...


``Junta`` is not the same as Indian ``Janata``... Junta is pronounced ``Hunta``.

The Supreme Court of Pakistan is a creature of the constitution. Outside it there is no authority for the SCP. If the SCP doesn`t believe that constitution is necessary- then we know why Pakistan`s judiciary is in such shambles... but I know for a fact that no SC Justice would ever agree with this point of view...

Your number notwithstanding... your response was amazingly ignorant ... and while I respect your right to disagree... I must say that one only needs to read your posts to understand why we are where we are- so far away from Jinnah`s Pakistan.

I tell you- as the son of an Ahmadi- that while it was absolutely unfortunate - the second amendment and religiously wrong- I would rather live in a constitutional Pakistan than unconstitutional one... Why hasn`t Musharraf reversed the second amendment since he doesn`t give a damn about the constitution.


I`ll see your answer in a few days... but thanks for your time.

Eid Mubarik.

On constitutional changes.

Fauji-lovers love to hoot n holler at the highly dictatorial tendencies of leaders like Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif and how they were altering the constitution.

They forget that the constitution is not an absolute holy document. The constitution has defined the process on how changes can be made. Supporting a constitution means that there will be laws enacted that are absolutely unacceptable to individuals.

However the constitution contains mechanisms for us horrified individuals to reject those laws by the same means they were enacted.

By denying us the mechanisms so that we can reject bad laws is a far bigger crime than the enactment of bad laws. This is the central point which is alien to fauji-lovers.

manto,

i. its your opinion that 1973 constitution is necessary for pak`s progress. i dont agree with it. and neither does the supreme court of pakistan and nor do some of the most powerful pakistani politicians such as sheikh rashid who was jailed by bb for two years and chaudry shujat. furthermore mma and mqm along with 2/3rds of the parliment gave assent to the 17th amendment which legitimized mush`s presidency.

ii i disgaree with your claim that pakistani junta is clamoring for a return to 1973 constitution. if pakistanis want the 1973 constitution, they can do the following:

1. overthrow the govt like eastern europeans did in the early 90s

2. provide overwhelming support to a party which call for the removal of all amendment. template here is bengali support to mujib`s part in pak`s first election

neither (1) nor (2) are likely to occur in the near future. if you have evidence which suggests otherwise, i would like to see it.


iii. one of the main jobs of constitution is to protect minority rights. 1973 constitution was a clear failure in this respect because second amendment came about under bhutto. i therefore shed no tear for its passing.

iv. situation in baluchistan and nwfp were much worse under zab. therefore using the current military operation as a justification for 73 constitution holds now water.

v. the following countries had authoritarian/military rule for an extended period. all of them were significantly better off. these countries include:

spain, portugal, korea, thailand, taiwan

Faisal,

You conveniently misread the reason for my stating the Iranian example. I apologize.

The pre-revolution Iran example was meant to show how DESPITE such high growth rates, the people of Iran did not see it a justification for dictatorial rule.

And I had underestimated the growth rates of Iran in the 70’s. Iran’s growth rate in the 70’s were phenomenal:

“Looking back to the past ,we may note that during the Fourth Plan (1968-73) Iran`s GNP rose in real terms at an average annual rate of 12 per cent, and gross domestic investment averaged an increase of over 15 per cent. In 1973 and 1974 GNP increased even more spectacularly, by 34 per cent and 42 per cent, but these were exceptional rises resulting from very large upward adjustments in oil prices that were unlikely ever to be repeated on such a scale. In 1975 GNP grew by 23.8 per cent.

Throughout the 1960`s this growth was accompanied by what now seems exceptional price stability. For most of this period inflation was extremely low, but towards the end of the decade it rose to 3.5 per cent a year. Then in 1972 the rate went up to 6.3 per cent.The following year to over 11 per cent. By 1975 price rises, partly due to ``imported`` inflation and partly to excessive liquidity, had become so intolerable that urgent action was required and strict price control measures succeeded in lowering somehow the prices of most consumer goods to acceptable levels.

Planning became well-entrenched principle of Iran`s development. The First National Development Plan was launched as early as 1948. The Fifth Plan, covering the period March, 1973, to March, 1978, had a strong emphasis on social welfare programmes, particularly in the field of education and health. The Government`s very large revenues meant that no sector needed I suffer from a shortage of funds. While rapid, balanced and sustained economic growth was a major objective, it was not to be achieved at the cost of high inflation, inequitable distribution of wealth or damage to the environment or the nation`s cultural heritage. In other words, growth for growth`s sake was not the objective.
During 1974 the need to revise the original Fifth Plan, because of substantially increased oil revenues, became apparent. The revised Fifth Plan projected total Government revenues during the Plan period at about $122 billion, with the oil sector providing about 80 per cent of this. During 1975 lower world demand and the failure of the international oil consortium that purchases the bulk of Iran`s oil exports to honour its commitments resulted in a shortfall of about $3 billion in actual oil revenues. Although Iran`s balance of payments and reserves were still healthy and substantial the effect of this was for Iran to postpone certain development projects until the Sixth Plan, to cut back partially on its generous foreign aid programme, and to return to the international capital markets for a small part of its requirements for development funds. But these moves were nothing more but a temporary change of pace in the overall tempo of the country`s development. In 1979 Iran had more than $16 billion in foreign reserve currency. Part of these assets are now frozen.”

Source: http://www.sedona.net/pahlavi/eco2.html

So you see, your naïve rants JUSTIFYING Musharaf’s rule are not only stupid, they have no basis.

If America gave Pakistan full market access, provided it loan guarantees, defense guarantees, only then would I see any reason to consider not rejecting this government. In the absence of genuine American blessings (current blessings are a comparative farce) the Constitution and internal solidity of Pakistan becomes of primary significance. However, even if Hazrat America blessed us with anything we asked, a democratic government would STILL be the only preferable option as democratic governments can negotiate far better deals as they do not look to Hazrat America for legitimacy. Pakistan deserves to extract maximum out of its relationships. Anything less is incompetence. Enough of these peanuts!

Faisal,

Though I do not particularly enjoy arguing with art majors who consider themselves to be experts on economics, I feel you still have hope.

Since you need lessons in Econ 101, let me begin by saying: private investment is the key to real economic growth.

“Under the 1954 U.S.-R.O.K. Mutual Defense Treaty, the United States agreed to help the Republic of Korea defend itself against external aggression. Since that time in support of this commitment, the United States has maintained military personnel in Korea, including the Army’s Second Infantry Division and several Air Force tactical squadrons. To coordinate operations between these units and the 676,000-strong Korean armed forces, a Combined Forces Command (CFC) was established in 1978. The head of the CFC also serves as Commander of the United Nations Command (UNC) and U.S. Forces Korea (USFK).”

Source: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2800.htm

Couple this with the fact that there are 37,000 US troops present, who in their sane mind would attack South Korea? That throughout the 20 year period of Park’s rule, SK only had to spend about 15% of it’s budget on acquiring defense equipment further goes to show that there was available capital for economic development. Park’s other significant achievement was the strong emphasis on domestic savings – a program he really pushed for. This proved to be a buffer as SK amassed a huge debt.

Finally for what you were looking for – South Korea being blessed by America:

“The saving grace was that South Korea was blessed with an economic guarantor of last resort, the United States, with which it had a special relationship based on military security. One of the great cushions of the Korean economy was the Cold War, since any serious economic crisis would also raise security concerns, or even transform economic crises into crises of security. The United States always stood ready to help out in the event of trouble, even as it slapped the Korean wrist now and then for maintaining market barriers and not liberalizing enough. So, at any time before 1989, Seoul could expect Washington and Tokyo to step in and help it out bilaterally, with the best example being the crisis of 1979-1980, which was probably the worst financial crisis in recent South Korean history.

During the economic debacle of 1979-1980, the United States acted swiftly to stabilize Korea, sending signals to the international financial community that—notwithstanding the assassination of Park Chung Hee and the Kwangju rebellion—Korea was a sound investment for more loans. The United States also exerted pressure on Japan to “share burdens” in bailing out Korea, and the ensuing Reagan-Suzuki agreement stipulated in effect that the maintenance of peace on the Korean peninsula was important for the security of Japan, which meant that Japan would have to ante up. After much negotiating over the final bill, Japan extended to South Korea about $4 billion in government and EXIM bank loans, amounting to nearly 13 percent of Korea’s net external debt, more than five percent of its GNP, and almost a fifth of 1983’s total investments. (A comparable figure today—i.e., five percent of GNP—would be approximately $25 billion.)”

Source: http://www.jpri.org/publications/workingpapers/wp93.html

Even as recent as 2003, while there are 637,000 SK cars sold in US, SK is able to get away by making sure only 4400 US cars are sold in Korea again reflecting how even after US sponsorship of the Korean economic miracle ended twenty years ago, the Koreans made good use of easy US market access.

http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RL30566.pdf

So next time you krap on compare SK with Pakistan, be sure to give thought to the fundamentals. Has the US provided Pakistan with security guarantees? Has the US provided an unlimited loan supply? Does Pakistan have a high domestic savings rate?

The answer to all the fundamental economic questions are no.

Pakistan certainly has performed well on several economic indicators the past three-four years as Shaukat Aziz is a good accountant and has done a fairly decent job. However, no sane person would compare what Park was able to do with what Musharaf is doing. It is unfair for Musharaf to be compared to Park as Park had everything going for him. Musharaf’s Pakistan gets peanuts.

Again, full market access, insurance against any number of bad loans, and defense guarantees are what helped South Korea be the miracle that it was. All these facts made LOTS of capital available for Korea – and allowed Korea to take risks and collaborate with the Chaebols and develop heavy industrial units.

However, I do not expect fauji-lovers to learn any lessons. They want the Korean miracle without the Korean vision, leadership, capital nor American defense guarantees.

Faisal, let me know if you are still stupid.