What Pakistan’s Bomb Could Not Buy

Hood Bhai


A good article as usual by Hood Bhai. In fact, this was all due to Bhutto. He rose on the slogan of `Roti, Kapra and Makan` and ended by giving two bombs to the Paki nation, one of `Fatwae Kufr` and the other `A.Q. Khan`. Neither could save themselves. How can they save others.

BTW, no body has done so far the accounting of the atom bomb manufacturing and the recurring expenditure being incurred on its maintenance and upkeep. Will those who are responsible for doing this come up and let the nation know the exact position in this regard? I am afraid many skeletons like AQ will be found in this cupboard also.

WOW! Did any of you watch the Geography Bee? Indian Kids were everywhere. Even the chinese looking kid was `Sunil`!

I do agree with Professor Hoodbhoy. But at the end of the day, there is little to suggest that disarmament is anything but an ethical stand. And in the realm of foreign policy, ethical stands end up as disasters.

Here`s an article by one of Pakistan`s leading opinion-makers on nuclear policy. He is, according to himself, `a detterent optimist`.


Idealism Vs. Realism:
Pugwash`s Catch-22

April 27-May 3, 2001
The Friday Times (Lahore)
Vol. XIII, No. 9

By Ejaz Haider

Ejaz Haider looks at the complexities involved in the issue of nuclear disarmament - brought to the fore, yet again, not only the problems of nuclear disarmament but also the dilemma faced by Pugwash itself.

A quick run-through would perhaps help set the premise. The NNPT (Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty) was never pegged to (complete) nuclear disarmament. This, despite the pious intentions of article VI, since amended further to purge it of any ambiguity. The treaty was, and remains, the corner stone of nonproliferation efforts, legitimising the possession of nuclear weapons by five powers while denying the capability altogether to every other state (at least until such hypothetical moment in history when the five nuclear weapon states decide to go non-nuclear). The Five-Vs-the-Rest formula is therefore at the core of nonproliferation. The other plank relates to the nuclear arms control measures.

Arms control moved bilaterally between the United States and the Soviet Union from arms limitation to arms reduction during the cold war and has continued between the US and the Russian Federation. There have also been unilateral measures taken by the five nuclear weapons states to cut down on the numbers of weapons and reduce the operational salience of such weapons or, retain the capability at lower levels. However, at no point has any of the NWSs shown any inclination to move towards the abolition of nuclear weapons. The situation is complex. Indeed, far from achieving the ideal of complete disarmament, as the 2000 NPT Review Conference envisages, even the (discriminatory) nonproliferation regime is today under threat of unraveling. South Asia is overtly nuclear; missile proliferation is a reality and the US is very likely to push ahead with some form of missile defence. While it may achieve this by cutting down on offensive nuclear weapons and bolstering its defensive capability (passing that off as an arms reduction measure itself), it will definitely result in China - and Russia - putting more premium on nuclear weapons and modernising its offensive nuclear weapons. Not only would such a development put paid to arms reduction but it would also unravel the nonproliferation agenda. Together, these developments would take the world further away from conditions congenial for complete disarmament, if such conditions could ever exist, a questionable proposition in itself.

A further problem is presented by the regional nuclear weapons states, their ambitions, their security dilemmas etc. In most cases, their threat perceptions relate to ongoing regional conflicts. India may harp on the ideal of disarmament before it would agree to abolition of its own capability, but the operational reality of its capability relates to Pakistan, a perceived threat from China and the perceived nexus between China and Pakistan. Pakistan, for its part, sees India as its biggest security threat. Israel looks at its nuclear capability in view of its fear of obliteration. None of these countries, and they are by no means the only ones in the game, are likely in the foreseeable future to roll back their respective nuclear capabilities. In fact, if anything, the regional scenario would probably require, as one moves further into the new century, a different paradigm, one with greater emphasis on managing nuclear weapons sans overt deployments, rather than abolishing them. In fact, the non-deployment scenario itself presupposes that the goalposts will remain the same and the US missile defence will not result in changing the nature and hue of the game.

Not surprisingly, Pugwash faces the fallout of these developments. At the very top of the movement there is tension between the idealist and the realist approaches. It came through clearly in the two background papers by Sir Joseph Rotblat (idealist) and Prof George Rathjens (realist). Rathjens, the secretary general of the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs, put across four propositions: Why do states go nuclear and stay nuclear? Can states be de-motivated in regard to possessing nuclear weapons? If so, would that require extending security guarantees, and by whom? Rathjen`s proposition here seems to imply the existence of some nuclear weapons possessed by a certain state which could conceivably extend security guarantees to other state(s) to dissuade them from going nuclear or rolling back their programmes. This implication comes through in his second proposition. If the US gives up its nuclear weapons, would that not reduce its credibility as a guarantor of the security of, say Japan or South Korea, forcing these countries to develop their own nuclear capabilities? Even if it were accepted that a nuclear weapons free world is possible, how would we, in the short term, deal with any holdout states? Would we need to use multi-national forces to attack and destroy the capabilities of such states? If so, by whose authorisation and under whose command? The proposition again presumes the existence - at least until such time that the holdout states are purged - of nuclear forces even if within a multi-national framework. But could the holdouts not argue that they are holding out precisely because some states, individually or as conglomerates, still possess operational nuclear forces? After all, the perceived or real strategic compulsions of one state cannot be considered holier than those of another. Also, what is the guarantee that after the holdout state(s) has been purged of its capability that the hypothetical multi-national force - or some elements within that conglomeration - will voluntarily give up its nuclear weapons?While Pugwash plays down the difference between the idealist and the realist viewpoints as one relating more to approach than substance, it should be clear from the propositions listed above and the possibilities and questions implicit in them, that the two approaches may in fact be mutually exclusive.

Rotblat debunks the theory of deterrence. He looks at the ethical dimension of the issue, talks of a comprehensive no-first-use treaty, a verification mechanism for nuclear disarmament and strengthening and extending nuclear weapons free zones. He also rejects the bomb-in-the-basement and the breakout arguments even as he concedes that no verification mechanism can be fail-safe. His approach is essentially informed by ethics. Unfortunately, states` possession of nuclear weapons is pegged to factors other than ethics. agenda. The movement`s strength lay in the past in doing the doable; or getting things done. That is why it, and Sir Joseph Rotblat himself, earned the Nobel Peace prize in 1995. But it is precisely at this point that Pugwash`s dilemma begins. It could do what it brilliantly did until the agenda was pegged to nonproliferation and arms control; until the US and other nuclear powers wanted it to provide them a forum where they could not only reach out to each other but also take steps to get other states to agree to nonproliferation. Now it has to contend with the nuclear weapon states. How does it go about convincing them to completely disarm? Suddenly, there are no buyers for the idealist approach.But neither does the problem end here. The realist approach itself is likely to end up providing an underpinning to the nuclear weapon states` security agenda by emphasising management rather than abolition of nuclear weapons, precisely the outcome that Pugwash wants to avoid. It faces a catch-22.

© 2001 - The Friday Times

#115 KEDARNATHJI


To all Indians like Nasah, Sanjay, et al who are criticizing India going nuclear. Could you please tell me how in the long run India should be ready to deal with nuclear armed US, Russia and China. Since the end of WW2:

Kedarnathji, I may be limited in my knowledge but what I want to say,in short, is :-

Nulcear Proliferation is a sensitive issue in international diplomacy. India has exploded the Bomb and you say it is essential to counter the hegemony of USA, Russia, China etc. Being Nuclear is not a big deal today. Atleast a dozen countries namely Israel, Japan, Australia, South Africa, Germany, Canada, Holland, Brazil, Sweden and (probably even) Saudi Arabia can explode Nuclear Bombs today, if they so wish. But they dont do because they are tied to agreements/ treaties with the powerful nations like USA/UK/France etc. and they have put their economic priorities on a higher ground than their military priorities. India (as well as Pakistan) need to learn from these dozen countries and not with P-5. Thats one point.

As far as the Nuclear Programs of India and Pakistan are concerned, the Indian Program has the backing of 3 P-5s countries namely UK, France and Russia. China is opposed to it. US was once opposed to it, then it became mum, now it is supporting provided Indian Program is controlled and under international supervision. Indians believe that with little more pursuasion, US will ultimately agree for it. Pakistan has no backers at all and its program is scoffed at by the world. Through AQ Khan, it is considered as a Nuclear Cheat and Charlatan(please dont mind the words). With negotiations on Nuclear Deal on, we Indians have to keep in mind and be ready for it, that in case we want to see ourselves in the select group of countries who shape the world, somewhere we have to compromise on our Nuclear program i.e. either sign the NPT or negotiate with the world to amend the NPT in such a way that we can sign it. Otherwise we should be ready for international isolation and be happy with our hypernation with Pakistan. There is no way out. The reason being that the D-12 countries which form an important part of the western alliance will always be asking why preferential treatment is being given to India as far as Nuclear issue is concerned.

So the choice is ours and we have to decide it in the very near future what do we want. Remain in emotional jingoism of being a self-proclaimed nuclear power or join the western alliance to boost trade and economy and be a partner in shaping the world`s future.

We are not going to get both the birds thats for sure. So in my mind, the government(of India) has to conduct a public debate on our nuclear future and see whether we can sign the NPT ,in its original or modified form, or not.

I have been criticising India Nuclear Program because I fell we did not get anything out it. Neither we have been declared as a Nuclear Power for enjoying its status as such nor we have been benefitted in trade and economics particularly by the western world by not becoming one. In short , Hum hain waheen, hum they jehan.

#106 VIEWER


Are you sure that America will remain a superpower for the next 100 years or so. To tell the truth, I donot see America assuming that role for more than 15 years.

Seriously speaking, the trends as avialable today show than no other country will be able to match USA atleast in this century--the hype and hoopla in favour of China notwithstanding.

China has too many chinks in its armour and due to its overzealousness for growth, has put on shelf many basic principles of development, trade and business. China is heading for a future worse than USSR. Just keep on watching.

I have long maintained, and it has never been truer today,
that Pervaiz is irrelevant to any discussion outside his field
of physics.

#133 That is wonderful. 8.4%. As Finance Minister of India, you must be really proud of this achievement on your part. My congratulations to you and to the Indian Prime Minister.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawnnnnnnnnnn!

And in November after US congress approves the deal ...............



what should we hear from Hate Pot?



``MEOW``..........



the same thing that him and his el-presidente say when a few cruise missiles land in Pukiland......:-)))

And now from the Indian papers...
It is not going to happen....Ha ha...all that bluster down the drain....

http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1690362,001301790001.htm

The landmark Indo-US civilian nuclear deal is unlikely to be approved by the US Congress before its mid-term election in November.

This view was expressed by members of the Congressional Caucus on India during their meeting with visiting Indian Members of Parliament.
The caucus members felt that the agreement was not discussed but thrust on the legislature, according to sources in the delegation.

The members said lawmakers were not consulted before pushing the deal on the table. ``It is like a bride in the room without the consent of the groom,`` they said.


India=Worst than sub saharan africa and now no deal....

What is doubly worst than the sub saharan africa?

India, of course...

See the report here.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-ft-india29may29,1,2822578.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

aww..paki cab driver got pissed cos I rained in on his self-delusion parade....

As ususal .........Hate Pot is a tremendous source of amusement and

great evidence why resuscitation of Pakistan will remain a pipe dream.............


India is High-tech and hungry.............

Puki is low tech, terrory, beggary and super-hungry:-))))))



When is the next ``donor conference``??????? it is time to circulate the begging bowl...has it been a few weeks yet?

With malnutrition rate nearly double that of sub-Saharan Africa, the country(India) struggles to show a progressive face to the world.


Double that of sub Saharan africa... that is what counts...

#118 by HP on May 31, 2006 9:08am PT


The whole purpose from the US side is to somehow curtail Indian nuke weapon making capabilities and not to provide it with the ability to create more weapons.


Ummm...then why is the Paki government begging- unsuccessfully - for the same deal?

This bum is quoting a pakistani newspaper to support his claim. what a pathetic soul. What happened after the REPORTED threat? the Karzai govt is facing the music.

The real show of spine would be if the US can force AQ Khan out of his home. Idiot...

Anyway, no one reads news like this for Pakistan or even bangledesh.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-ft-india29may29,1,2822578.story?ctrack=1&cset=true


See the comparison with the sub saharan africa....

India, High-Tech but Hungry

With malnutrition rate nearly double that of sub-Saharan Africa, the country struggles to show a progressive face to the world.

They all display telltale signs of malnutrition: wasted and stunted frames and discolored patches of unkempt and wiry hair. Nearly 55% of children under 5 in this north Indian state are chronically underweight. They are in the front line of India`s struggle to lower a malnutrition rate that is nearly double that of sub-Saharan Africa.

Malnutrition afflicts 60 million children in India, imposing social and economic costs that are hard to overstate. In a report released this month, the World Bank urged the government to overhaul its flagging child welfare program, Integrated Child Development Services, the largest in the world.

``Progress in reducing the proportion of undernourished children in India has been modest and slower than what has been achieved in other countries with comparable socioeconomic indicators,`` the World Bank said

``If your large population mass in the north is physically and mentally stunted, how is this going to impact your growth in the long run?`` asked Werner Schultink, a UNICEF child development and nutrition expert in India. ``How will it affect India`s ability to compete in the global market?``


Worse than Sub Saharan africa.....WOW..That is apt....

Re: # 122

HP,

It doesn`t need a report or the US source to know that India is a home for many poor people in the world. India is still a poor country but we are coming out of poverty slowly but surely.

Having said that, poverty is not a sin. That was bequeathed to us by the years of slavery and plunder. Being poor is better than being a source of hatred.

Recently I saw a new kind of map (New Scientist Apr `06 issue, week I forgot) of 1500 AD. It showed the GDP sizes of all countries in the world. Only China and India were the largest/richest countries in the world then. Tables turned in these years and India is now looking smaller. Wait for some time. She`s looking up and the future is bright, despite the odd hickups.

If we go back in history, the people of Europe clamoured to reach India and find her riches. They all formed East India Companies- Dutch had it, France had it, English had it and Portuguease and Spaniards had it. They all competed to find sea routes to India and find her riches and buy diverse kinds of goods and sell them for profit in Europe! Though China was equally famous they had no China Companies. So that makes it clear as to how inportant India was in those days, coz it was rich and famous. Every place around India was named after her.You have Indian Ocean, Indonesia, Indo-China (Vietnam), East Indies (Malaysia and the the chain of islands along Malacca Straits) even the far away Caribbean islands are called as West Indies (thinking that they are closer to India ergo, America).

Unfortunately the heart of India - the land of river Indus - was lost to some religious bigots...

Colombus want to go to India and instead went westwards (via Azores) and reached India of his dreams but that came out to be America. That`s how the natives of Americas are still being called Indians. Another Portuguese mariner Vasco De Gama came here and later followed the rest of Europeans. Starting with the Moghul court of Jalabdim Echebar (Jalaluddin Akber or Akber the Great was referred to by the English King like that) these westerners prostrated before us to gain access to Indian markets and goods.

Even in ancient India, there were world famous ports like Karachi, Cambay, Barooch, Surat and famour Malabar/Calicut. India had a fully developed civilisation since 2500 BC. Mohd Bin Qasim had a tiff with local merchants in Sind and he took revenge and did something historic... It`s a lesson how petty things sometimes create history.

Poverty is man made and in the case of India it`s just a passing cloud.

On the other side, India in a way celebrated poverty. One of the Maurya emperors gave up his throne and starved to death in true Jaina fashion. Even now you`ll find some diamond traders in western India throw away their diamonds and become monks and live like paupers seeking alms. Buddha did it and many Buddhist monks still follow that tradition.

May be we need 20-30 years to say with pride that poverty is a matter of past....

Tip for Pakis...If you`re calling your relatives in Pakiland, don`t make a whole bunch of domestic calls once you`re done..

Pre-9/11 records help flag suspicious calling

By John Diamond and Leslie Cauley, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — Armed with details of billions of telephone calls, the National Security Agency used phone records linked to the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks to create a template of how phone activity among terrorists looks, say current and former intelligence officials who were briefed about the program.

The template, the officials say, was created from a secret database of phone call records collected by the spy agency. It has been used since 9/11 to identify calling patterns that indicate possible terrorist activity. Among the patterns examined: flurries of calls to U.S. numbers placed immediately after the domestic caller received a call from Pakistan or Afghanistan, the sources say.

#119 by HP on May 31, 2006 9:57am PT


especially in the current Iranian crises, Pakistan is showing more spine than was expected.


Saying you are against the bombing if Iran is a show of spine? How about saying no to the bombing and killing of your own civilians on your own soil ,something that`s happened 2 times in the last 4 months or so.

A real show of spine would be letting A.Q. Khan out of house arrest or at the very least let his family meet with him...



it was time for the Pak army to show that to the US that Pakistan is still capable of some punches in Afghanistan.


Reality...meet deluded paki..

How the North-West can be won?

By Behroz Khan

The news is quite disturbing for the people and the governmnet of the NWFP; it has been reported that the United States has warned that it will bomb any part of the province in pursuit of `terrorists`.

The warning, it is said, was conveyed to the NWFP governor, Khalilur Rehman and of course to the chief minister, Akram Khan Durrani, by none other than President General Pervez Musharraf himself at a meeting in Islamabad. The tone of the message, an insider tells TNS, is tantamount to bullying.

``The president told the governor and chief minister that Americans have warned that those who are hiding in the Frontier and elsewhere will be bombed out,`` a source privy to the meeting revealed, requesing anonymity. The warning left the president angry as well as concerned, the source added, saying this could be an epilogue to increased target hitting by umanned Drones on Pakistani territory.

The clergy-led government in the Frontier, already on the defensive over its silence on military operations in tribal areas and US air strikes, is taking the new warning as a declaration of open war. Confirming that President Pervez Musharraf has informed him of the new dangers ahead, Akram Khan Durrani has said that the US has warned to go after the so-called `terrorists` even in the settled areas of NWFP, if the attacks against the Americans and their allies continued in the neighbouring Afghanistan.

“Second, Pakistan’s acquisition of nuclear weapons has made it effectively a less independent state, rather than the other way around. While Pakistan became popular in Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries after testing, its inability to stand up for real Muslim interests remains as chronically weak as ever.”

It seems to me that the doctor is invoking some oft repeated but completely subjective arguments to defend his thesis. Actually, he is still trying to justify his stand on nuclear issue. His basic thrust here is to say that nukes have not worked they way that NOBODY has projected them to work. He is creating/doctoring situations that have no relevance to the nuke capabilities and stretching a few more to fit his pov.

It is not nukes that had put pressure on Pakistan in the international affairs but the 9/11 that made Pakistan adjust to the new realities that in Dr. PH’s words means “less independent state”. This I am afraid, is utter non sense. Countries don’t become less or more independent, they adjust to the new realities. In reality, in the last two years or so and especially in the current Iranian crises, Pakistan is showing more spine than was expected. Pakistan’s attitude has forced the US to bring enormous pressure on Pakistan via a major disinformation campaign and Pakistan has responded by pushing the right buttons in Afghanistan.

The US dilemma in Afghanistan cannot be solved without Pakistan’s help and it was time for the Pak army to show that to the US that Pakistan is still capable of some punches in Afghanistan.

The US seems to be rolling back in Iran. This might be a temporary phase and they may come back to it after the midterm elections but one thing is for sure that the US can’t count on Pakistan’s support against Iran which was a given just two years ago.

I think the learned doctor needs to read more about what is going on around in the world instead of remaining stuck in 1998. The clichés like ``the Punjab celebrated and the Balochistan did not`` are cheap tricks for small time political journalists but for our learned doctor to fall for them is really pathetic.

I am beginning to think-as other have mentioned too-that the doctor got reallycaught up in his anti-nuke rhetoric. The dynamics of the nuke politics in the subcontinent adjusts with every new geopolitical movement in the area. The nukes were a source of projecting power when they were first tested then they were deterrent and now both India and Pakistan are under pressure to move away from the nuke based relations. For a political analyst, it is important to understand that divulging too much on an act is counter productive. Dr. PH had opposed the nuke tests in the subcontinent and that was fine but once the tests happened, he needed to look at the politics after the tests. Instead the doctor is still talking abt things that really have no relevance. The nuke tests cannot be undone but there is likelihood that both countries may not have nukes in the next ten or 15 years.

“The US-India nuclear deal, if ratified by Congress, will add fuel to the fire. After India’s breeder reactors come on line, it will be able to produce as many nuclear warheads in just one year as it had in the previous 30.”

This statement makes me think abt the doctor’s judgment about the proposed nuke deal between India and the US. The whole purpose from the US side is to somehow curtail Indian nuke weapon making capabilities and not to provide it with the ability to create more weapons. With the proposed amendments and non enthusiasm shown by the US administration, it is quite evident that India would have to make the concessions that are required for the congress approval. At this point, one more thing is clear that this deal would not move forward until the new congress is sworn in Jan 2007.

The way things are rapidly changing especially in the nuke politics, the deal is already redundant and the US or the International nuke agencies will have to work on a comprehensive agreement with all the nuke-owner or the nuke capable countries to halt the nuke race in the World.

I think India rushed in to signing a deal that was not ready in all respects. The deal only provided Mr. Bush some temporary respectability in the International affairs. As I said things are moving so fast that temporary gains are already overshadowed but some other pressing mishaps. The hits that US has taken recently makes it even more difficult for the US to move forward with this deal sans deal altering concessions from India.

[Pakistani and Indian weapons programs have diverted substantial financial and material resources away from social and scientific needs, they have merely used scientific principles discovered and developed elsewhere. Not surprisingly, there are no worthwhile spin-offs]

Certainly true, and the people who should be engaged in discovering new scientific priciples keep themselves busy with the bomb politics.

#113 by viewer on May 31, 2006 6:43am PT


By using the word ``tolerate`` he quietly accepts the policeman role of America.


Refusal to accept reality doesn`t alter reality..


Mushy is El-Presidente because America wants him to do it`s dirty work like bombing the tribals and making sure the Islamists stay out of power and away from the nuke button..

To all Indians like Nasah, Sanjay, et al who are criticizing India going nuclear. Could you please tell me how in the long run India should be ready to deal with nuclear armed US, Russia and China. Since the end of WW2:

China - Captured Tibet, attacked India, Vietnam and a proxy war thru North Korea against South Korea. Threatens Taiwan regularly.

US - Attacked Vietnam, Iraq, Grenada and Panama unjustifiably. Threatens to attack Iran.

Russia - Invaded Afghanistan, Hungary, Czechoslovakia. Colonised the Eastern Europe for half-a-century.

Ranting and raving against nuclear weapons is easy. Can you give me straight forward answers on how to deal with other nations besides Pakistan. Long-term goals are not just Pakistan hyphenation for India.

That is what Pakisatanis thought when they acquired the Patton tanks.......never learned from mistakes.....History repeats itself.

[For the time being, with General Musharraf in power, the US is willing to tolerate Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal – and may even satisfy some of its needs for advanced conventional weaponry]

This statement from Hoodbhoy seems as if he is a spokesman of the American establishment. By using the word ``tolerate`` he quietly accepts the policeman role of America.

Instead of:
a) enrolling PhD students and getting involved in producing new research
b) putting efforts to successfully run the science departments
c) defining and implementing the strategies to improve the poor state of science in Pakistan

our ``brilliant`` scientists like to enjoy getting involved in the politics of bombs. My point is that this activity is not of better use than presenting papers on the thermodynamics of djinns.

[What Pakistan’s Bomb Could Not Buy]

Before starting writing on this topic, it will be helpful to have a detailed discussion about WHAT PAKISTAN`S BOMB HAS BEEN ABLE TO BUY. This list is certainly larger than the list created by Hoodbhoy.

Hoodbhoy: [Many gaming scenarios played in the US strategic war planning institutions indicate that there are well-rehearsed contingency plans if Pakistan’s political situation changes radically after General Musharraf’s departure, planned or otherwise. Clearly, Pakistan is a country that is closely watched and monitored]

Of course, ``closely watched`` and ``monitored`` with the kind help of persons like Hoodbhoy.

#102

Nothing surprising. The US-Pakistan relationship is coming to an end. The shoulders-off gesture by President Bush to Gen.Musharaff was not a momentary knee-jerk reaction..it was a sign of times to come.

In fact Pakistan has outlived its utility in the geo-political calculations of the US for this region. America has now strong foothold in Afganistan and it is not going to leave that place for the next 100 years--take it for sure. Afganistan is in better geographical location to expand america`s influence in Central Asia than Pakistan. The double whammy for america is that it can more easily create trouble in Tibet from Afganistan than from Pakistan. And the third utility of Pakistan in taming India to open its markets is already over.

Now, either Pakistan has to wait for another 9/11 so that lady luck smiles on it again and US comes running to its doors. With US in Afganistan, that possibility is now remote. The other thing is Pakistan returns to true democracy in 2007 and starts on a clean slate once again. That possibility is remoter--because as things stand today, Musharaff is not going to either give up his Post or even Uniform and the 2007 elections will be as ``free and fair`` as that of 2002, with the results already known. The only difference can be that ``Baba and Bibi`` (Shariff and Benazir) may accept some junior post under Prez.Musharaff--though chances are less. If President Musharaff reneges his promise of returning true democracy in 2007, it will not go down well with the western world.

So overall, the chances of Pakistan returning to Pariah Status post 2007 are very high and what is now started appearing in US media are nothing but signals of the future.

Re: # 105
[America has now strong foothold in Afganistan and it is not going to leave that place for the next 100 years--take it for sure]

Are you sure that America will remain a superpower for the next 100 years or so. To tell the truth, I donot see America assuming that role for more than 15 years.

#103 by invst_banker on May 31, 2006 4:07am PT

faisal ``liberace`` uno..is that you?

so why is allah giving india aids?

i think we know the answer to that question:

http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/News/International/2006/05/31/1607407-sun.html

India tops world AIDS infections

JAKARTA -- India has the largest number of AIDS infections as the spread of the disease shows no sign of letting up 25 years into an epidemic that has claimed 25 million lives, the UN reported yesterday.

So this is why AQ Khan is in isolation and his family isn`t being allowed to meet him...Congress is putting the squeeze on the pakis while the administration bombs pakis in the tribal areas...Now if John Roberts repeats the Farifax DA`s quote about pakis selling their mothers, all 3 branches of the US government will have come down on the pakis..

What`re the chances that Q.Q. Khan will die of ``natural causes`` pretty soon?

Frustration mounts between US, Pakistan
Congress pressures Pakistan to give more information about possible proliferation, upsetting already-delicate ties.

By David Montero | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor
ISLAMABAD, PAKISTAN – One of the central relationships forged after 9/11 has hit a rough patch. The latest irritant between Washington and Islamabad came last week as US lawmakers urged Pakistan to wring more information from disgraced nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan, alleging that he may yet hold the blueprint to some of Iran`s nuclear secrets.

Earlier this month, Islamabad officially closed its investigation. While Mr. Khan remains under house arrest, Pakistani officials say they`ve given Washington all the details they could get out of him - though that information has never been made public.


``Some question whether the A.Q. Khan network is truly out of business, asking if it`s not merely hibernating. We`d be foolish to rule out that chilling possibility,`` said Republican legislator Edward R. Royce in a statement at the Subcommittee on International Terrorism and Nonproliferation hearing. ``Vigilance and greater international pressure on Pakistan to air out the Khan network is in order.``

So far, the tough talk is coming only from Congress, suggesting that the White House may be more keenly aware of the many demands already placed on Pakistan`s President Pervez Musharraf, including the pursuit of Al Qaeda suspects, the curbing of cross-border attacks into Afghanistan, and the development of good governance to keep radical Islam at bay. Some analysts say that the demand for access to Khan risks pushing an already delicate relationship to the point of overburn at a time when Pakistan is warming up to Iran.

``Even if the US gets access to Khan, he might not be able to give information on [Iran]. Khan has never been to Iran,`` says Hasan Askari Rizvi, a defense analyst in Lahore, Pakistan. ``If you apply pressure, you may not get the information you want. The US will have to determine its priorities.``

Interrogating Khan is a wish that Islamabad has never granted: Washington has always had to go through the Pakistani military to get to Khan, cherished as a national hero. Some say that`s the problem, that Khan has never been pressed hard enough. Pakistan authorities, however, defied Congressional demands last week, saying Khan would never be given up.

``The government of Pakistan does not allow direct interrogation of Khan,`` says Maj. Gen. Shaukat Sultan, spokesman for the Pakistani military. Pakistan`s foreign minister, Khurshid Kasuri, recently told a parliamentary session that Pakistan would not ``take dictation from anybody on our national interests.``

Some saw double trouble in these words. For not long after he spoke them, Mr. Kasuri and Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz were busy feting Iran`s foreign minister, who came to Islamabad with visions of building a $7 billion gas pipeline.

Other signs of a deepening relationship between the two Islamic republics include:

• a proposed joint investment company to boost bilateral trade up to $1 billion;

• the ratification of a bilateral preferential trade agreement by the Iranian Parliament;

• a new Iranian center in Pakistan to provide artificial limbs for quake victims;

• Pakistan`s opposition to a military option in the Iranian nuclear controversy.

Washington`s relationship with Islamabad, meanwhile, is under greater strain as the US and its allies in Afghanistan face stepped up attacks from the Taliban. Islamabad remains extremely sensitive to claims that the insurgency operates from across the border in Pakistan. Earlier this month, Col. Chris Vernon, chief of staff for British forces in southern Afghanistan, told the Guardian newspaper, ``The thinking piece of the Taliban is out of Quetta in Pakistan. It`s the major headquarters. They use it to run a series of networks in Afghanistan.``

Nor has Washington`s courtship of Pakistan`s nemesis, India, helped matters. The US has offered a civilian nuclear deal to India while flat out refusing one to Pakistan.

It`s all led to dampening of relations that some analysts say are now at their lowest point since 9/11.

``Pakistan`s real gripe is with the Americans. In recent months an angry Musharraf has quietly, but deliberately defied them. Relations between the two countries have not been so poor since 9/11,`` writes noted journalist Ahmed Rashid in a recent edition of Pakistan`s The Daily Times.

For analysts like Mr. Rashid, pursuing Khan now would be tone deaf at a time when Islamabad is in no mood to do Washington any favors or jeopardize its ties to Tehran.

``[Officials in Washington] don`t understand the regime in Pakistan,`` contends Ayesha Siddiqa, an independent defense analyst in Islamabad. ``It`s a rent-seeking establishment, providing a service to the United States, like regimes in the Middle East. But ... beyond a certain point, [the Pakistanis] have a mind of their own.``

Some see it differently, pointing out that the views recently expressed in Congress do not necessarily represent those of the Bush administration. ``The US administration and the Pentagon understand the limits of what Pakistan can do, but the Congress does not,`` says retired Lt. Gen. Talat Masood, a political analyst in Islamabad. Mr. Masood says that Congress, being influenced more by public opinion, has unrealistic expectations that threaten relations with Pakistan.

That`s a gamble, given that Khan may have nothing substantive to say. Giving up Khan is also a huge political risk for Pakistan, since it would only add fodder to the claim that Pakistan is America`s stooge, analysts point out. Plus, if Khan sings, he may implicate some of those in power. ``It`s suicidal to hand him over,`` says Siddiqa.

What is needed instead are better measures to build trust, analysts say. A recent US proposal to generate economic activity in Pakistan`s tribal areas, where the Taliban are said to be growing in popularity, is a concrete step in the right direction, points out Masood. He says more bilateral trade and education assistance are the needed antidotes to the current tensions.

Trust, he and others add, cannot be managed so long as the current relationship remains one of demand and follow. ``Even if [Pakistan] follows the US verbatim, there will still be so many frustrations,`` says Masood. ``Raising the expectations too high can spoil the relationship.``

the likes of hoodhboy can bray as much as they want. no one pays any attention to them except for the clowns who populate this website.

real progress in pak will be driven by people like these:

National Bank of Pakistan Looks Overseas to Expand Operations
2006-05-30 18:49 (New York)


By Naween A. Mangi and Haslinda Amin

...Raza, who spent 28 years at Bank of America in the U.S.,
Yemen, the U.K. and Pakistan before being hired by the
government to run National Bank in 2000, is setting up a network
that runs from Riyadh to Dhaka, the Bangladesh capital.
He has opened offices in the Bangladesh port city of
Chittagong, Bishkek in Kyrgyzstan, Baku in Azerbaijan and the
Afghan cities of Kabul and Jalalabad.

....As normally frosty ties between India and Pakistan warm,
official trade between the two countries, currently $500 million,
may expand to include more of the estimated $2 billion traded
unofficially. The Middle East is being targeted by the
government as a major source of foreign direct investment.
Pakistan has attracted a record $3 billion in foreign investment
this year.
``Over the next 10 years, we will become increasingly
integrated with these economies,`` said Nadeem Naqvi, chief
executive officer of AKD Securities in Karachi. ``If Pakistan
becomes even half the energy and trade corridor it`s being
projected as, National Bank will be very well placed to take the
lead in financing.``
Since Raza took the helm five years ago, National Bank`s
profit has multiplied 27 times to 12.7 billion rupees ($211
million) in 2005.
``We were a sleeping giant,`` Raza said. ``We had the
customers and branches, but we didn`t have the elements to
leverage our franchise.``

Business Graduates

Raza reduced the number of branches by a third to 1,240 and
shed half the 27,000 employees the bank had in 2000. The bank`s
bad-loan ratio has shrunk to 14 percent from 33 percent.
He has hired 100 business school graduates every year,
invested in technology and reduced the layers of bureaucracy at
the bank. The time taken to approve a loan has been cut to 10
days from 100 days.
Pakistan`s economic expansion has contributed to profit
growth at the nation`s 38 banks. The $118 billion economy
expanded 8.4 percent in the year to June 30, 2005, the fastest
in two decades, and is poised to grow at an annual pace of as
much as 8 percent over the next five years, Prime Minister Aziz
has predicted.
Raza expects profit growth to moderate. National Bank`s
profit more than doubled in the year ended Dec. 31. The bank`s
business will still grow, helped by lending to agriculture and
small and medium-sized enterprises, Raza said.
The bank`s market capitalization has grown to $2.8 billion,
from $100 million when the government first sold shares in the
lender in 2001.
``National Bank is among the most attractively valued banks
in the region,`` said Muddassar Malik, who oversees 5 billion
rupees of assets as chief executive officer of BMA Asset
Management Co. It`s ``a core holding for a lot of mutual
funds.``

--Editors: Penna (mgd/snc)

Re: # 100
Dear Invest_Banker,
No doubt Mr Reza has done a terrific job at NBP, but you fail to mention the history of NBP before 2000 which is replete with Govt ineterferrence through job creation and dishing out loans to please their supporters/cronies. Surely Mr Reza and other bankers were helped because the Govt has shown a genuine interest of restructuring its financial sector through privatization and added bonus of being a beneficiary post 9/11. Granted, Pakistan has experienced a economic period of posterity, but the real test of any system or leader arises in crunch times. Pakistan faces number of constraints going forward in the form of galloping inflation, rising interest rates, deficits, higher import bills and a possible drought or poor crop for the fiscal year.

On a separate note, you have failed to understand Mr Hoodbhoys argument against the use of nuclear weapons. The same Bankers (reza etal) and enterpreneurs who are responsible for the economic boom of last five years would fully endorse Mr Hoodbhoys opinion cause capital needs prinicipal protection, ability to profit and not live in the fear of being frozen which was the case back in 1998.

Why is it that the quality or nationality of foreign investors coming to Pakistan is very different when compared to our neighbour India? Wrong state policies, perceptions of a failed state, risks of increased fundamentalism and lack of security not only for capital, foreigners and locals.

No matter what now.

nukes are a done deal in South Asia and their history

cannot be reversed easily.

That said and done, I still had reservations about our

technology leaps in India and Pakistan on my visit there

about a year and a half ago.

Nukes yes! Clean Public Restrooms No!

Never knew where to find relief and did not

want to join our masses on the walls or in the fields.

Maybe if that technology could also find its way there

people like me would be happier.


Ras

Ref viewer #91

[``nuclear weapons and missile development is today second-rate science``
I wonder why the practitioners of ``first-rate science`` in Pakistani academics are increasingly attracted towards the politics of nuclear weapons. Could they please explain how much Pakistan has benefitted from the practice of their first-rate science?]

The first-rate academics of Pakistan are working on the thermodynamics of djinns and how it can be used to generate pollution-free electrical power, a cutting-edge research area.

Re: # 98
[The first-rate academics of Pakistan are working on the thermodynamics of djinns and how it can be used to generate pollution-free electrical power, a cutting-edge research area]

For a professional scientist, who is working in a premier university, getting involved in the politics of bombs is equally useless as it is the study of thermodynamics of djinns.

WASHINGTON DIARY: Borrowed prosperity —Dr Manzur Ejaz

What happened after 9/11 is well known. The termination of the hundi system along with rescheduled foreign loans and sale of state-owned corporations helped add to the state coffers, particularly, the foreign currency reserves. Insecure Pakistani immigrants also directed more investment to Pakistan. And the US pumped in billions of dollars to buy all kinds of loyalties as it had during the Afghan-Soviet war. The Indo-Pak peace moves also helped lift the borrowed confidence of Pakistan’s ruling class. A wave of unprecedented speculation took hold of Pakistan and the millionaires from the classes with large assets became billionaires overnight.

It reminds me of the proverb “anhay daiy pair haith bataira aa gia” (The blind man stepped on a quail). He then declared to his wife that he always ate good quality meat. Pakistan’s imported and rehabilitated economists have stumbled upon the 9/11 quail like the proverbial blind man. Since then they have been all over the world, receiving honour for the great “break-through” in which they have not played any part. As a matter of fact Pakistan’s economy has never stood on its feet — it was always propped up by US-leased and -sanctioned support.

To trigger the domestic economic growth, the State Bank of Pakistan took the most dangerous turns of all — it boosted consumer spending by printing money. It hyped up the growth numbers for a few years to make Ishrat Husain look good. The prices of assets were inflated — about 1,300 percent in some cases. Acting as cheerleaders of the US treasury, the World Bank, IMF and other international institutions joined the chorus to praise Pakistan’s economic progress.

All this was meant to create an illusion in Washington, in a bid to convince the US elite to stand behind America’s saviour, General Pervez Musharraf. Even for Washington’s anti-Pakistani core, while Pakistanis were devils Musharraf was an angel. Or that is what they pretended for the time being.

But something has drastically gone wrong in the last few weeks. First “deep throats” have classified Pakistan as a failed state and “big mouth” experts and legislators at a Congress Committee hearing whipped Pakistan in a way that Washington journalists have not seen for a while. They declared that the Dr AQ Khan case was still open and that Pakistan should be forced to hand him over!

And at a recent gathering of bankers, participants were convinced that Pakistan’s economy was at the verge of collapse. Nonetheless, they were mystified about the manner in which Pakistan goes in cycles of boom and bust. What a surprise!

A few months ago, a good friend from the World Bank was up in arms when I pointed out that Pakistan’s economic growth was borrowed from US largess and consumerism. Now everyone is coming around to parrot the arguments they could not earlier bear to hear. This U-turn is not unexpected because they all prosper in their jobs by constantly changing their tinted glasses as prescribed/ordered by the US treasury.

On the contrary, if they had done an elementary statistics course — a tall order — they would have seen the correlation between the US’ use of Pakistan and the latter’s prosperity bubble. It has occurred again and again during the military regimes of Ayub Khan, Zia ul Haq and now General Pervez Musharraf.

Furthermore, has the so-called neo-liberal economic model, being followed in Pakistan by imported economic managers worked anywhere? Did it succeed in South America where the neo-liberal economists presided over the countries? If so, then why are the socialists coming to power with a vengeance in South and Latin America? But people who keep changing their tinted glasses will never learn, as says Shah Hussain:

Suchi gal suniway kewnkar, kachi haddan wich rachi

(How can they ever hear the truth with half-truths in their bones?).

The writer can be reached at manzurejaz@yahoo.com

#93 by behram1

Behram,

Jadon dhoti eey chuk litti, jo wee aanda ey maar jawey ....... te taele wee asi dendey aan.

This is front Page material. Please acknowledge & recognise it as such

``nuclear weapons and missile development is today second-rate science``
I wonder why the practitioners of ``first-rate science`` in Pakistani academics are increasingly attracted towards the politics of nuclear weapons. Could they please explain how much Pakistan has benefitted from the practice of their first-rate science? As the history shows, the gradual but increasing drift towards politics of these ``first-rate-science practitioners`` resulted in their inability to establish and successfully run scientific institutions, the task for which they were hired and appointed in Pakistan. The statement that the ``Bomb`` is only a product of, and giving rise to, the second-rate science may seem fine and digestable especially if it comes from not from the self-proclaimed practitioner of ``high-science`` who have their own demonstratable history of failures in terms of linking their work to their country and its economics and failing to regenerate themselves so as to be of some benefit to the Pakistani academic life.

Zeemax sahib,

What is important is that when national assets are offered for sale, all investors, whether domestic or foreign should be given the same transparent terms and certainly no preference should be given to foreign investors. If after that, foreign investors still outbid domestic investors either becuase they have more money or becuase they are better able to unlock value, so be it.

Regards

Zeemax sahib, you are circumscribed by the ``nation-state`` mentality. We need a more global approach to face the forces of tyranny and a good start would be to guage the winds that are blowing towards those forces and then fart in that direction rather than detonate a nuclear bomb and prove nothing in the process. The US is indifferent to any use of nuclear weapons in that region, while to me even the thought of any side using it, or using it for any kind of ``diplomacy`` where the change of its use is there amounts to barbarism and inhumanity and complete moral depravity.

Re: # 88 by masadi on May 30, 2006 5:24am PT

Dear masadi:

{then fart in that direction}

Lately, I have noticed that you are farting a lot. Are you having gas problems?

Respectfully submitted,

#85 by tahmed32

So Pakistan got it`s money`s worth from the nukes.

Is that why Pakis went wet in their pants when the Indian Army walked to the borders in 2001?

India got to call itself a ``nuclear power`` but also painted itself into a corner militarily in the region despite having the second largest military in the world.

If a Pakistan can walk into Indian territory in 1999 despite knowing fully well that Indian nukes could obliterate it, what makes you think India can`t do the same? So there.

#85

It is precisely for this reason that these two gentlemen have been forgotten in India. Look, what a pathetic state BJP is in today.

Its the time Pakistanis also forget them.

sanjay #84 I dont know about the ``fear psychosis`` that we Pakistanis suffer from, but 1998 certainly changed the sound of music played by indian politicians from Advani`s rendition of the 1814 Overture (the one with cannon booming) to Vajpayee`s gentle hymn of Silent Night (the one that talks of all being calm and peaceful).

So Pakistan got it`s money`s worth from the nukes. India got to call itself a ``nuclear power`` but also painted itself into a corner militarily in the region despite having the second largest military in the world.

So, we applaud the brilliant performance of indian politicians. Please ask Advani to come and take a bow. The buddha is indeed smiling. :-)

#82


Indian leadership continues with beligerent statements and Pakistan continues with nuclear ambiguity. Indian public pressures the BJP Government to come through with their threats to resolve Kashmir once and for all by attacking POK. Pakistan invites the Indian attack and puts the bomb on the table. US/UN rushes in and some red faces in India. No sanctions on Pakistan. No freezing of accounts. Back to the negotaiting table with a bomb PLUS a moral high ground.

I think Pakistanis have to get over this fear-psychosis that one day India will attack and subjugate them. India will not enter into war with Pakistan unless badly provoked by Pakistan itself. The reason is (considering a hypothical situation that India attacks and does subjugate Pakistan) there no tangible gains which India will get out of it. Many studies here have indicated that per day cost of a full-scale war would be Rs.300 Crore per day and India would still require 30-45 days to defeat Pakistan(assuming no foreign help comes in the way of Pakistan). That would put the cost of war at around 3 Billion Dollars atleast. Now ,how would India recover this loss??

The situation in Bangla Desh was different. There was also the question of saving oil-rich North-east from China. The geography of BD, India and Northeast is such that the NE is connected to India through a very thin corridor a few miles wide. In a situation when China attacks North-east and if Pakistan occupies the thin corridor and holds on to it for a few days, India would have lost its Northeast.

So dont waste your time/energy/precious resources in putting your acts assuming India ,one day will attack and annihilate Pakistan.

Of course, provided you dont have a guilty conciousness inside you.

#81 by majumdar

...If someone is intelligent enough to see value where other investors dont and benefit from such insight, he deserves to make the money...

No argument about that. But only if that `someone` was from within the country so that whatever value was restored, it would remain within the country. When foreign funds play the private equity game, they repatriate that value abroad. That`s where government policy comes in. The present policy has placed the country on a firesale.

Rgds

#31 by masadi

Masadi,

Thanks for contributing to the question ... HOW `not` detonating would have helped Pakistan !.. It was indeed a serious question, and not a rhetorical one.

Ok. So in your view Pakistan should have held back, but till when? Indeed that is exactly what the global forces you mention pressured Pakistan to do. Very serious consideration and debate went on within the political government of the time as to the response during those two weeks. I think what tilted the scale in favor of detonating was the body language of Advani/Vajpayi which was telecast widely in Pakistan and the public started clamoring for a tit-for-tat. It was quite obvious that the Indian administration did not in fact believe that Pakistan actually had a working bomb in its closet.

Was detonation really necessary? I think it wasn`t necessary at that particular time and did more harm than good. BUT, it was ultimately necessary. Pakistan did have to put the bomb on the table `sometime` for equal negotiating status.

When would have been that `sometime` the optimum time? Consider the following scenario:

Indian leadership continues with beligerent statements and Pakistan continues with nuclear ambiguity. Indian public pressures the BJP Government to come through with their threats to resolve Kashmir once and for all by attacking POK. Pakistan invites the Indian attack and puts the bomb on the table. US/UN rushes in and some red faces in India. No sanctions on Pakistan. No freezing of accounts. Back to the negotaiting table with a bomb PLUS a moral high ground.

Plausible?

Zeemax sahib,

There`s nothing hanky panky about private equity. Surely it is not the investor`s fault if sound companies get into trouble because of poor management or temporary adverse business circumstances. If someone is intelligent enough to see value where other investors dont and benefit from such insight, he deserves to make the money.

Regards

#72

Private Equity investment is nothing more than organised theft. How it works is through picking companies with strong cash-flows and assets but bad profits due to management troubles. Private equity firms (e.g. leveraged buyouts of yore) borrow to take over the firms through bridge-finance, take over the companies, and pledge the same cash-flows to replace the bridge-finance. They then strip the company`s assets, whittle down the workforce, bring in management to turn around the core business, then sell it off for a quick buck and look for the next target. Kindly note the 30% expected IRR on this particular fund.

So don`t jump up and down too much about this Abraaj Capital stuff. These are just more thieves of the private rich man`s banker Shaukat Aziz`s club looking for quick profits. This kind of financial engineering (aka day-light robbery) doesn`t help the country at all.

Re: # 80 zeemax on May 29, 2006 11:48pm PT

{Private Equity investment is nothing more than organised theft.}

Understood. Now the Arabs are out to steal Pakistan`s assets on the cheap. Yet they are shunning Pakistani workers at the same time. Why are we still concerned about Starbucks latte?

And the streets of Pakistan is full of anti-western slogans. Why?

{So don`t jump up and down too much about this Abraaj Capital stuff. These are just more thieves of the private rich man`s banker Shaukat Aziz`s club looking for quick profits. This kind of financial engineering (aka day-light robbery) doesn`t help the country at all. }

Agreed. No jumping around here.

Did you notice somehow this topic is conspicuously absent from discussion? Is it that most interactors are not enlightened enough? Or do they just not care?

Respectfully submitted,

Re: # 80: That is one aspect of private equity. This is also how a lot of companies make acquisitions, restructure their financials etc.. Debt is also an asset. Cash flow financing is one aspect of doing a PE transaction. 99% of all PE deals are still straight equity heavy investments. Entrepreneurs use debt to minimize dilution all the time, why don;t you rail against that? You have issues with LBO`s, then so be it. No investor would put money in a company and laden it with debt only to see it struggle.

#78 MAJUMDAR


India and Pakistan being third rate nations face little external threats except for each other-

India and Pakistan are not nations. They are just two clowns wearing Nuclear hats.


But good quality nukes maybe handy just in case a trillion barrels of oil were to be discovered under the soils of Jhumri Tilaiya or Chakwal.

Yes-or in case we have to protect our Aishwarya Rais and other Miss Worlds.

76/77,

Very good points, Sanjay.

India and Pakistan being third rate nations face little external threats except for each other-But good quality nukes maybe handy just in case a trillion barrels of oil were to be discovered under the soils of Jhumri Tilaiya or Chakwal.

Regards

#67

The contention of many Pakistanis in the forum that it is India which is spearding arms-race in the subcontinent is wrong. India does not spend excessively on defence. India spends a bare minimum on defence commensurate with its size and requirements.

It is Pakistan who lives in a false notion that India is going to annihilate Pakistan so it must match India bullet-for-a-bullet, missile-for-a-missile. Well, this is their judgement. It is this wrong notion that makes Pakistan spend more than what is required on its army and defence. Nobody is going to buy the argument that India should curtail its defence expenditure so that Pakistan also does the same. Both the countries have to see their defence requirements, to be bare minimum--not to say.

My sincere advice to Pakistanis is that first they should get out of this annihilation-syndrome otherwise democracy, first-rate ecomony,IT, high technology will forever remain a dream for them. To my mind, Pakistan should have a small army but extremely high-tech in nature and a strong modern Airforce for defending against India, if required. On the contrary, Pakistan maintains a large low-tech army(which can take over the country at will but is still not sufficient to defend against India--so you rely on the nukes) and a shoddy airforce.

#22 MAJUMDAR

It is true that Nuclear Bomb does have certain deterrence in a conventional war. Agreed. But in these days of globalisation, no sensible country is going to fight a conventional war with the other(except ofcourse the USA). The others would resort to subversion, insurgencies, rebellions etc. The bigger and economically more powerful will be in a better position to win this covert war.

Bangla Desh can also happen again now--nuclear bombs notwithstanding--but it will be through other means.

So overall in my view, the 1998 explosions by both the countries have not served any purpose for any of them. Neither it has increased the stature of these countries. As far as my knowledge goes, in the world nuclear corridors, India & Pakistan are more known as Nuclear Jokers than Nuclear Powers.

Re:arjun_m

Forget about Pakistan for a moment and look at what your namesake Arjun Singh is doing to India. At the rate he is going, half of IIT/IIM/AIIMS will be reserved category from next year. He is also sharpening knives to have same level reservations in the private sector. There goes India`s economic growth and chances to become developed. Not only that, it is tearing apart India`s social fabric as Bihar style casteism is goin to become part of the National discourse.

If Arjun Singh has his way, we will fall behind Pakistan very soon and lick dust. Pakistan does not have any reservations issue. If they ignore jihad and focus on economy and merit, they will kich India`s a$$ in less than 5 years, while we struggle to deal with 50% reservations. At least the muslims had a Jinnah who saved them. The upper caste, merit based people in India have no savior. They will essentially be consigned to living in a fourth world, substandard Bihar type country forever. So dont celebrate so much about Pakistan`s weakness. India is heading towards destruction at the hands of its politicians.

behram1 #70

`` Agreed to some extent. It seems that Pakistan is not getting those foreign remittances as much. This should be eye opener for some ``

Where are Pakistanis going to work ?

Gulf has been tapped out.

USA is off-limits due to shaky economy and post 9/11 limits.

Australia and Canada restrict intake to rich immigrants.

Europe has a sluggish economy. They take a few immigrants

Malaysia is taking a few Pakistanis. But they are losing factory jobs to China.

`` Also, having 43% of the GNP tied up in foreign debt should be an eye opener for Ali Bhai in educated circles of Pakistan. Why is it not? Who is robbing Pakistan? ``

The problem is not the 43% debt per se. It is what was done with all that money.
I would not mind running a 100% debt if it meant having great universities and great physical infrastructure.

Re: # 74 by bbabu on May 29, 2006 9:04pm PT

Agreed to most of your post, except

{The problem is not the 43% debt per se. It is what was done with all that money.
I would not mind running a 100% debt if it meant having great universities and great physical infrastructure. }

The main issue here is to find out from where is Pakistan borrowing? 43% of foreign debt is a too much. Are we getting loans from the rich Arab states? It must be stated at what % interest, etc.

Thank you for the post.

Respectfully submitted,

{The prime minister said Pakistan is an economy of $120 billion and 160 million people.}

With 43% tied to foreign loan (or approx. $50B). Is this considered good? Can someone explain?

Or are the paindoos in Islamabad are going nuts as usual?

http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=1111

Fund to facilitate investment of up to $1bn in the private sector

By Khalid Mustafa

ISLAMABAD: Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz on Monday announced the launching of $300 million Fund by two leading private equity firms one from the Middle East and the other from Pakistan. The Fund would facilitate investment of up to $1 billion in Pakistan across a range of industries over the next four years.

While addressing mediapersons, the prime minister described the launching of $300 million Fund as historic occasion as this is the largest fund Pakistan will have through private investors.

Abraaj Capital, one of the leading private equity firms in the Middle East, North Africa and South Asian region and BMA Capital, one of the prominent investment firms in Pakistan’s financial markets, have launched $300 million Abraaj-BMA Buyout Fund L P.

Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz said the Abraaj-BMA Fund would be raised from investors all over the Middle East. It is a private sector venture where the government has nothing to do except providing an enabling environment to attract investment.

Shaukat Aziz said this is beginning of a long journey where many other investors will come to Pakistan. He expressed satisfaction that every major name in the Middle East business circles is coming to Pakistan voluntarily. He was confident that the increasing investment would further boost growth, create more job opportunities and contribute towards stronger and prosperous Pakistan.

The prime minister said Pakistan is an economy of $120 billion and 160 million people. It is growing at 6 to 8 percent and the government is pursuing second-generation reforms to sustain this rate.

He said this year the economic growth is likely to be 6.6pc and per capita income has substantially increased to $846. He held out an assurance that the government would continue to pursue the policy of liberalisation, deregulation, good governance, transparency and privatisation.

The prime minister said there is great potential for investors to invest in projects including those relating to manufacturing, engineering, infrastructure and others.

Replying to a question, Shaukat Aziz said our privatisation plan is on track. He was confident that the process would lead to more efficiency, productivity and effective management of utilities. In this connection, he referred to the future plans of the new management of the Karachi Electric Supply Corporation (KESC) and hoped that it would bring better results for the consumers. Speaking on the occasion, Chief Executive Officer of Abraaj, Arif Naqvi said they have decided to launch the largest fund in view of the impressive economic performance of Pakistan and bright prospects.

He said the government’s increasing focus on privatisation and the extremely conducive regulatory environment for foreign investment present great opportunities for business. He said the Abraaj-BMA fund is targeted to raise $300 million and through co-investments will facilitate investment of up to $ one billion in Pakistan over the next four years. He said the fund has already attracted deals worth $50 million in various sectors.

The CEO of the firm said the target internal rate of return would be 30pc. Naqvi said the Fund would facilitate investments of up to $1 billion into Pakistan, across the range of industries over the next four years. “We believe that the partnership between Abraaj Capital and BMA Capital is perfectly positioned to leverage the present opportunities.”

congrats pakis..your years of investment in jihad has paid off..islamic terrorism has now seeped into the Paki DNA..

SSP vows to establish caliphate worldwide

* Around 5,000 SSP activists rally in Islamabad

ISLAMABAD: Activists of the Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan (SSP) vowed to establish a global caliphate, beginning with Pakistan.

In a rally attended by thousands of activists of the banned group to commemorate the birth of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) on Friday, leaders of the SSP called for an Islamic theocracy in Pakistan. “The concept of nation state is an obstacle in the way of the establishment of Khilafat. We will start the establishment of Khilafat in Pakistan and then will do so across the world,” said Zaheerul Islam Abbasi, a former general who was sacked and arrested in 1995 for trying to topple the government of former prime minister Benazir Bhutto.

Activists distributed pamphlets in Islamabad preaching jihad and hatred against Shias, as their leaders delivered fiery speeches to a crowd of around 5,000 late on Thursday.

They also sold video compact discs of the beheadings of American soldiers in Iraq, and militant activities in Afghanistan and Pakistan at the rally, which they said was convened to celebrate the birthday of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) this month. One of the organisers thanked the Islamabad administration for allowing the rally, which was held under floodlights in a bus depot, with hundreds of riot police watching on. SSP is known to have close links with Jaish-e-Mohammad, a militant group fighting in Indian-occupied Kashmir and with links to Al Qaeda.

Government might allow Sipah-e-Sahaba activities

Rockets red glare, (American) bombs bursting in (Paki) air..

US planes violate Pak airspace

How the North-West can be won?

By Behroz Khan

The news is quite disturbing for the people and the governmnet of the NWFP; it has been reported that the United States has warned that it will bomb any part of the province in pursuit of `terrorists`.

The warning, it is said, was conveyed to the NWFP governor, Khalilur Rehman and of course to the chief minister, Akram Khan Durrani, by none other than President General Pervez Musharraf himself at a meeting in Islamabad. The tone of the message, an insider tells TNS, is tantamount to bullying.

``The president told the governor and chief minister that Americans have warned that those who are hiding in the Frontier and elsewhere will be bombed out,`` a source privy to the meeting revealed, requesing anonymity. The warning left the president angry as well as concerned, the source added, saying this could be an epilogue to increased target hitting by umanned Drones on Pakistani territory.

The clergy-led government in the Frontier, already on the defensive over its silence on military operations in tribal areas and US air strikes, is taking the new warning as a declaration of open war. Confirming that President Pervez Musharraf has informed him of the new dangers ahead, Akram Khan Durrani has said that the US has warned to go after the so-called `terrorists` even in the settled areas of NWFP, if the attacks against the Americans and their allies continued in the neighbouring Afghanistan.

``What use is our strong defence if we cannot defend our innocent people against such naked aggression,`` said Durrani when approached for comments regarding the fresh US warnings. The US authorities, official sources said, are of the opinion that extremists and terrorists take shelter in the tribal areas along the Pak-Afghan border and parts of NWFP after carrying out terrorist attacks in the eastern and southern provinces of Afghanistan. Paki