Pakistan’s Territorial Integrity: Lessons from American Democracy

Zeena Ben: `Research is totally based on objectivity of subjective experimentations with lil evidence based interpretational rational with guidance of retrospective comparison leading the study design towards prospective data to be implemented for the progress. And thats what we have been tryin to tell you. Thanks`

That is the most profound statement ever on Chowk! Can you please explain it without the medical terminology for simple pituitary retarded folks like me?.. LOL ...

Really man, Uncle Sam is not the sole ingredient for success. He helps out a lot. But you have to have the internal fabric strengthened. Uncle Sam won’t help you if he don’t need you that much.


<< Faisal Wrote: also fyi, u.s. car exports to japan are negligible as well. >>

-- Faisal once again shows off his blatant ignorance with glee. Japan was another major Asian country to benefit from American re-building, excessive loans efforts. However, in the case of Japan, the human resources were extensively developed along with it’s society having self-incorporated the basics of capitalism i.e competition (read Wealth and Poverty of Nations). The trade protection – in cars, consumer goods etc. was ACCEPTABLE to America as the policy was to contain communism. Now I hope you don’t need sources to see if America ever had a policy to contain communism? Do you? Well, go read a 8th grade book on world history. That should enlighten you plenty. : D


<< Faisal Wrote : 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. >>


- - I think I already explained this to you in the last couple of posts that DETAILED that AMERICA WOULD BAIL OUT KOREA FINANCIALLY NO MATTER WHAT!!!! Read that again please. And America DID bail out Korea as the example of 1979/80 shows. The reliability of financial bail-outs is usually a green signal for giving out bad loans. And Korea as well as the ASEAN countries gave out plenty of bad loans. But I believe all this is too complex for you so I wont’ go into it anymore.


<< Faisal Wrote : 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? >>

- One can argue that Philippines is like Pakistan. At best of times, America doesn’t provide it with much support other than to let them stay afloat. Secondly, Philippines doesn’t have the developed Human resource strength that Korea and Japan had. Yes, Faisal, human resources do matter. Under Musharaf despite the much touted doubling of education budget, the education sector continues to go down the drain. Pakistan has no credible human resources!


Again, you need to stop playing stupid. America doesn’t supply the same incentives for everyone.


Anyhow, again, it’s not about one dictator or two dictators. Or even about America. It’s about how a nation builds its foundations. 8% growth rates mean nothing at all – ABSOLUTELY nothing without foundations. The current government has ripped apart ALL foundations and built NOTHING in place. No credible education sector and no institutions!

But of course fauji-lovers like you will prefer being blind to the necessities of the basics!

Take an Econ 101 class please.

#116 masadi
Well, clearly people like you, who are unable to come to a clear understanding of the subject, start caling other`s material gibberish. This shows your frustration. Take it easy, relax, chill out. This ain`t question of life and death. Take care

#115, Zeena, you state <<< ``Research is totally based on objectivity of subjective experimentations with lil evidence based interpretational rational with guidance of retrospective comparison leading the study design towards prospective data to be implemented for the progress. And thats what we have been tryin to tell you. Thanks `` >>>

If there ever was one sentence that anyone would use to explain the word ``gibberish`` to someone, you above sentence would qualify as one of the best. And yes, I understand that is what you have been trying to tell me in response to my posts: gibberish.

#114
Research is totally based on objectivity of subjective experimentations with lil evidence based interpretational rational with guidance of retrospective comparison leading the study design towards prospective data to be implemented for the progress. And thats what we have been tryin to tell you. Thanks

#112, your Ad Hominem aside, personal experience can only guide us towards the truth if and only if it is filtered through the method of science. It is great as a guide in evoking interest but not as a sole source of getting to the truth. Your ``personal experience`` itself is socially circumscribed. If you define a situation as real, your experience will fit that definition becomming a self-fulfilling prophecy. The famous ``Thomas Theorem`` states the same. Prejudice and stereotypes fluorish on just such ``personal experience``.

To get to the truth you have to dig deeper, control the irrational elements of your personal experience and use more objective criteria that will result in replicated results regardless of who conducts the research or what the person`s `personal experience`- i.e. biography has been. The key to good social research is 1. history 2. social structure and empirical evidence and 3. biography and how they are interrelated.

Now, these are important tools that have nothing to do with you or I or with India or Pakistan; learn them, use them, instead of basing your posts on baseless rhetoric.

#112
{{Our impressions are shaped by personal experiences.}}
Exactly.
#109
My substance is my personal experience. Take care.

re:#107 by masadi
Masadi dude,
You seem to be blinded by your hatred of America. Did u by any chance get your A$$ whipped in Guantanama Bay? That would explain everything.
You seem to suggest (from your post to Zeena) that you do not take personal views seriously. We are not writing a scientific paper on corruption in Pak (though one needs to be written on the subcontinent including India).
It is my personal experience that bureacracy in India is corrupt. I have narrated that experience in various posts before (in another forum) and i won`t repeat that here. No amount of statistics that says India does not have corrupt bureacrats will convince me. Our impressions are shaped by personal experiences.
Sridhar

Faisaluno

``manto, your post #92 reeks on religious emotionalism which is rather strange cause you claim to be a champion of rational analysis.``

What religious emotionalism? I said that despite my opposition to the second amendment declaring Ahmadis non-Muslims, I accept the constitutional process. How is that religious emotionalism? Another funny claim indeed.

``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.``

The rebuttal flows from a simple point that your post 90 is so ignorant as to assume that the Supreme Court of Pakistan, which exists only by virtue of articles 176-191 of the Constitution of 1973, ``does not care about the constitution of Pakistan``. This shows your ignorance of the way law works. You did not give any real basis for your outrageous claim... which is why I found your claim very ignorant.

``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.``

1- BB and Nawaz didn`t over turn the second amendment because they did not have the popular support for it. What is Mush`s excuse- since he is the all powerful dictator of Pakistan?

2- The separate electorates were brought into the constitution by a Military dictator- General Zia-ul-Haq, through a highly dubious process. BB and NS were hardly in a position to undo this law... but had Democracy been allowed to work, it would ultimately have been changed- BB`s second government was planning on doing it but she was prematurely dismissed.

The question here is not whether second amendment stays or goes or whether voting is separate or together... it is quite possible that Nawaz Sharif would have turned Pakistan into a more blatant kind of theocracy... but that would have been through a process, and I as a secularist would accept it as the will of the people expressed by the constitution of 1973.

-YLH

Athar Ossama,

My final comment- bringing together the various points I have already raised. We must look at the whole issue in entirety.

United States of America, as a commonwealth of settlers, has a constitutional history spanning over 380 years starting with the Plymouth Plantation and the Puritan Commonwealth. I am a bit puzzled by your comparison with 1776 and 1789. If I was asked to compare our republic with any period in American history, it would be the Puritan commonwealth- which was a revolutionary idea at the time- brought about the dissenters against the church of England.... I would also compare Pakistan to Roger Williams` Providence and Rhode Island experiment... We certainly are a ``as a Citty upon a Hill, the eies of all people are uppon us``...

The first and foremost thing that have to accept is that the constitution of 1973 is the point we must proceed from... as pre-1973 beloned to another era... and post 1973 is the rape of Pakistan as a modern nation state.

Yours sincerely

YLH

#108, weak on substance again and heavy on rhetoric.

#107
Oh, boy you seem realy, realy mad.Arright, you won this discussion. After all , It is American way to give charity to Pakis. So, I am donating you with my sympathies by pretending to surrender for your nonsense, ohhh, I apologise, (don`t bomb me by suicide bombing), i mean your very sensible analysis. Please, accept my charity with respect.

PS:- for your kind information, analysis is based perfectly upon personal experiences. Don`t you know that. It is the object`s subjectivity which makes analytical datas. So, if, you`re smart enough you will respect my personal experience more than what you read in some bogus news agencies or web sites.
Remember, research is made on individuals personal experiences, not, on some unknown species.

You`re being , too stereotypical and utopian here. Come out of your utopia and feel the facts. Again, don`t get angry, my dear friend. This is just the cyber space, not you actual home, where you can be angry at your own risk. Just kidding.

#106, thank you for revealing to us the ``sources`` of your ``facts``. You state, <<< ``My experience with Pakis is , they are more hypocrites and they don`t respect basic human values and lives. `` >>>

That is exactly why your response is based more upon stereotypical rather than scientific generalization. How many ``Pakis`` have you met in your life, 1000? 5000? How many of those have you known well? A couple of dozen? four dozen?. Now, did you pick this ``sample`` randomly. Did you adminster a scientific survey to them or done any kind of content analysis? If your answer is NO and it most certainly has to be NO if you`re truthful, then you are in no position to ``generalize`` based upon your personal experience for a nation of 160 million +. Bigotry feeds on stereotypes, give them up, and give up the official mythology of the ``land of the free``- that incarcerates more people per capita, as fact, than any other nation on earth.

I suggest that instead of posting nonsense here you show some respect to the author (even though I disagree with his article`s conclusions) and post things relevant to his original post, and grow up and learn some.

Respectfully submitted (as behram1 sahib states),
masadi.

#105 Yes, you are very stereotypical in your false delusions attached with pak land. On the contrary, I am not. My experience with Pakis is , they are more hypocrites and they don`t respect basic human values and lives. That is the reason, Pakistan is #1 in corruption. Now, say it is not fact. I myself experienced , Pakis asking for bribes , the moment you step on Paki airports. Lies, bribes, dirty habits, double standards aka hypocrisy , flattery, cruelties, barbarism, belittling poors, making poors lives more miserable, oppression of women, miserable elders(if, any left). Snatching the rights from the righteous ones and giving it to the wrong ones is the common habits of Pakis. Show offs, greed, deciets, dishonesties all are Paki traits. That is the reason, the Paki culture sucks.

#104, my case was not based on stereotypical rhetoric like yours, I presented facts which you can go and check up, just follow the posts. The human ``crudeness`` of Pakistanis is much more valuable than the plastic hypocrisy of the American elite- I`d pick the former over the latter any day. They smile at you with plastic smiles while in their hearts the hypocrites consider you less than human.

#103
And, you are at all the liberty to prove your delusional false statements, the fact??
Haaaan, tsk,tsk,tsk
And, you have all the right to call my meaures crude, while forgetting, Pakistani system is the crudest in the world and that is not hidden from anyone. There is absolutely no comparasion between American and Paki system. It is same, if we start comparing slums with palaces to be equal.

#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.

Faisaluno...

First of all Cowasjee has the right to his views... I respect the man as he has integrity and character but there are many things I disagree with...

But let us for the purpose of discussion accept all his allegations against Zulfikar Ali Bhutto...

The amendments that Bhutto brought along followed a legal and constitutional process. He had the majority to do what he did... If he was a dictatorial democrat, he was still bound by the electoral process... there is no equivalence with a military dictator arbitrarily operating as the head of the state.

Pakistani constitution does not allow for :-

1- A president in the uniform- no matter how many times the assembly votes with simple majority- the law allowing the president in uniform is ultra vires to the Constitution.

2- A serviceman as an elected president ...Any citizen of Pakistan has to be out of the service of the republic for 2 years before he is qualified enough to be an elected official- be it the president of the republic or a legislator.

3- A referendum to be used for the purposes of presidential election.


What we have is a Military oligarch with bad advice from a brilliant sophist i.e. Mr Peerzada who has sullied the good name of the man he served as a personal secretary to for a few months.

#44 by masadi on January 8, 2006 10:06pm PT

{{{Really, then how come the suicide rates for white males peak at old ages in USA? When worth in a society is based on value in the work place, ageism, is a much bigger issue than a more traditional society like Pakistan. So #40 what you state is nonsense.}}

masadi
First of all , you have absolutely NO right to call my post NONSENSE. Look at your Paki mentality, started abusing my ideology nonsense and your`s with NO reality full of all the sense. Who taught you such manners, to attack people in such a derogaorty manner. If, you`re unable to take the pressure or stress of healthy discussions, you should not take part in any discussions, or, at least frist learn, how to handle any discussion with logic. Thanks

Second, Pakistan has never been any traditional society. Where are the traditions? I wish , I could see all the best traditions, which we imagine in our minds, called delusions. If, Pakistan would have been a traditional society, believe me, it would have been much better, than what it is today. It is just a chaotic and confused full of anarchy state with NO traditions left. That is the reason, it is # 1 CORRUPT country in the world.

Age has been any problem in America. Why? b/c Govt. and their traditions don`t make age an issue, they take the best care of their old age people. That is the reason, average age is higher in USA than in Pakistan. Majority of older people live up to their nineties. This is the best example of their good care system. If, they wouldn`t have cared for them, they would have let them die in miseries. Just like Paki chaotic society. In America, theri whole care system revolves around old age people. I have seen majority of them are happier, independent and less scared of death and less depressed than their older counterparts in Pakistan. Elder mental and physical abuse is much much hioger in Pakistan, which goes unreported, b/c Paki society hides every dirt under the carpet.

American society is open to accept any dirt and then to improve it for future. That is the reason America is three centuries ahead of Pakistan. So, there is absolutely NO question of comparing Pakistan with America. It is just like comparing Sun`s light with moon`s light.

#82 by Mantolives on January 10, 2006 3:18am PT

Stop dreaming of a time when you had the old constitution, when you were treated by the paki state as a muslim and when a women didn`t require 4 adult muslim males to prove rape...

That`s sooo last century...

manto,

cowasjee will disgaree with your assertion that 1973 constitution was being enforced from 1973-1977. also i have seen a couple of surveys by mainstream media organisation in which the awam ranks their main items of concern. lack of enforcement 1973 constitution is not listed on that. i will post the links to links to that survey later. also can you please post results of survey which shows that constitution is the main item of concern for the awam. btw given lieteracy levels in pak, i doubt most people would understand the constitution in the first place. can you please explain how most pakistanis who are not even matric pass understand a document as complex as the 1973 constitution. thanks

http://www.dawn.com/weekly/cowas/20020407.htm

And it must never be forgotten that on August 14, 1973, the date on which Democrat Zulfikar Ali Bhutto proudly promulgated the Constitution that is still with us, that within four hours of its promulgation, the people of Pakistan were deprived of all their constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights through a gazette notification issued by the promulgator himself, the same Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. Fundamental rights having been rendered non-justiciable, he had all his political opponents arrested. They were held in various jails until released by Zia four years later.

...These rules were suspended by Bhutto for the passage of the Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Amendment Bills. The First Amendment Bill was introduced in the House on April 15, 1974. The standing committee presented its report the next day and within a week it was passed leaving no time for debate. The Third Amendment Bill was introduced on February 11, 1975, the required report was presented and the Bill passed the next day.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution passed on September 21, 1974 deliberately infringed upon the rights of an entire community - the Ahmadis - rights that are recognized by the world at large and by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The community was shorn of its majority rights and declared a minority, after having existed as a part of the majority for 27 years since the birth of Pakistan in 1947. By the stroke of a pen, it was declared that an Ahmadi ``is not a Muslim for the purposes of the Constitution and law.``

rozaiba,

while in your mind you might think of yourself as the second coming of aflatoon, i am afraid that world has yet to accord you that status. therefore, you will have to provide us with sources, facts and figures to back up your assertions about iran and korea. otherwise, your statments will be treated as false which is perhaps why you dont provide sources in the first place. its also possible given your intelect which is that of an employee for a najam sethi owned newspaper, the need to provide sources never crossed your mind. and given your lies about pakistan which i have debunked in my earler posts, its also possible that the concept of using reputable sources to form an opinion is an alien concept for you.

just to make make things clear, i am looking for you to back the following claims:

i. korea had a preferntial trade agreement with the u.s and that level of korean military expenditure was much lower than normal.

kindly provide some information on the aforementioned trade agreement. the follwing two links have no mention of such a trade arrangement or abnormally low levels of korean military expenditure. second source in fact says just the opposite:

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

``...In the early 1960s, the government of Park Chung Hee instituted sweeping economic policy changes emphasizing exports and labor-intensive light industries, leading to rapid debt-financed industrial expansion. The government carried out a currency reform, strengthened financial institutions, and introduced flexible economic planning. In the 1970s Korea began directing fiscal and financial policies toward promoting heavy and chemical industries, as well as consumer electronics and automobiles. Manufacturing continued to grow rapidly in the 1980s and early 1990s....``

http://www.eh.net/encyclopedia/article/cha.korea

...Park Chung Hee`s reaction was to reduce the level of reliance on the U.S. armed support by expanding capability to produce munitions, which required returning to ISI to build heavy and chemical industries (HCI). The government intervened heavily in the financial markets, directing banks to provide low interest loans to chaebols -- conglomerates of businesses owned by a single family -- selected for the task of developing different sectors of HCI. Successfully expanding the capital-intensive industries more rapidly than the rest of the economy, the HCI drive generated multiple symptoms of distortion, including rapidly slowing growth, worsening inflation and accumulation of non-performing loans.

ii. on iran, i would like to see sources which indicate that iranian revolution occured because of economic inequality rather than forced secularisation by the shah - something which wont happen in pak because mush has insured that mma has a share of power. also fyi, following is from a bbc report:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/november/5/newsid_2538000/2538427.stm

``...The appointment of Mr Sharif-Emami, a Shia Muslim, by the Shah just over two months ago was designed to put an end to the religious violence currently sweeping across the country.

...The unrest is partly a response to the programme of secularisation being implemented under the Shah who took over from his father as Iran`s ruler in 1941...``

there are actually more lies in your your post. i will only debunk them after i get response to my querries in this post. good luck with your search and you might find the follwing link useful:

www.google.com

let me know if you want tips on how to use it.

Faisaluno...

All real Pakistanis care about the constitution- especially those from lower middle and middle class backgrounds... you are right that most upper class Pakistanis don`t give a damn...

Heck- on TV I heard this dialogue between Talat Hussain and a talib(student) from Jamia Haqqania ... and Talat Hussain asked him ``What do you want`` And he said- look we want the constitution of 1973- yeh hamari mushtarak qadar hai.

I hate Mullahs but I respect what he said...

The great thing about the 1973`s constitution is its immense structural flexibility- depending on how you use it- you can be a decentralised state or you can be heavily centralised- you can be a modern democratic relatively secular state or you can become theocratically Islamic, you can even move from Westminster style parliamentary democracy to a French style republic...

So it is a level playing field- but there is ONE choice it doesn`t give. Arbitrary military dictators to take over the country and play havoc with its people.

Bolta Aina,

Interior Sindh votes overwhelmingly PPP and PML (both national parties)- Karachi votes MQM and at times Jamaat-e-Islami...

Where are the Sindhi nationalists? Most real Sindhi nationalists want the constitution of 1973 implemented in full measure.


Dullah Bhatti,

Legally speaking ...constitution of 1973 was in force for all years since 1973 except 1977-1985 and 1999-2002 ....

1985 it was heavily amended and in 2003 it was considerably amended (as in the elected legislatures ratified the amendments by the Martial Law regimes.

Pakistan`s territorial integrity....a reality or a mirage.

Check it out here

Manto, Your favourites Ms. Ayesha Jalal and Aitzaz ``Indus`` Ahsan also find a place there.