PR Congress (26-12-08)

Can public relation professionals play a role in building a harmonious society in a globalisation era? This was the question at the top of my mind when I registered for the International Public Relations Association (IPRA) 17^th Congress in Beijing. The theme of the congress was “Public Relations Build a Harmonious Society in a Globalisation Era.” But not much justice was done to the congress theme.

As all the public relations professionals, who participate in such conferences, are either employees of an organisation directly or belong to PR consultancies, we fail to break the corporate shell in which we work or for which we work. The discussion and conference papers are thus within the corporate PR sphere. So it was all about creating harmonious relations between the businesses and their stakeholders. I guess senior PR practitioners who were at the congress did not want to be ambitious to expand the discussion beyond the area which they know well and are able to influence. On the other hand the fact is that most of the conflict points which are obstacles in the way of ‘building a harmonious society’ are of political and economic nature.

The emphasis of most speakers was on the role of public relations professionals in helping the corporate world to improve communications with their stakeholder. I have always been of the view that PR professionals should establish a two-way communications between their clients/companies and the stakeholders. Mark the emphasis on two way communications.

The corporate world or for that matter any organisation should listen to their stakeholders and refrain from monologue. In today’s world when the need for good governance and transparency is of primary importance, dialogue is important. The prevailing financial crises which have sent all the developed economies reeling down to recession have further strengthened the need for transparency. And how do you achieve this objective: one by communicating openly and honestly with the stakeholder; and two by listening to the voices of all the stakeholders and addressing their genuine concerns.

The cost of ignoring this and under-mining the need of expanding the scope of work of public relations can result in damaging the reputation of a corporation. Even many governments refuse to recognise the importance of the real role of their PR experts.

Octogenarian PR Guru Harold Burson defined the role of PR professionals at the IPRA Congress rightly: “The chief public relation officer has four roles: corporate sensor, corporate conscience, corporate communicator and corporate monitor. As corporate sensor and corporate conscience, he she contributes to and participates in the decision-making process. It is his/her job to anticipate changes in the social environment and make sure the corporation’s response meets public expectations. In the roles of corporate communicators and corporate monitor, he/she speaks for the corporation both truthfully and timely and makes certain the corporation is delivering on its promises.”

The problem is that there is very little understanding about this composite role of the PR not only in the corporate world, but also with most governments. As Harold puts it “PR is often enlisted after the strategy has been developed by others in the organisation perceived to be more knowledgeable about business than we in public relations. Often regarded as communicators than policy advisers, we increasingly find ourselves serving as ‘arms and legs’ rather than using our brain power.”

My personal experience of 20 years in this field tells me that each word is true. In Pakistan there is very little understanding about the four roles PR should perform as defined by Harold. When I opened up Pakistan’s first PR consultancy the good thing was that most CEO’s of the companies used to take personal interest. For example, one leading multinational oil company’s Deputy CEO used to have weekly meetings to brief me about the major policy decisions being taken and seek advice from a PR perspective. Once a month I was required to brief the CEO about the business and political environment. In crisis situations the company position was decided in consultation with PR advisers. At times PR advice over-ruled the CEO’s stance at the board room. Only a handful of companies follow this practice now. This practice continued for many years, till the PR management was relegated to the middle ranking managers, who were only interested in media relations. Sometimes I see corporate arrogance ignore the new kids on the block – the civil society – although they have become extremely influential and affect the corporate reputation across the globe.

Many global corporations value the importance of managing their reputation. In today’s Thomas Friedman’s ‘flat world’ it is becoming all the more necessary. The question CEO’s have to ask themselves is who is managing their and the company’s reputation? And what are the stakeholders’ expectations? Reputation is important as the ‘third bottom line’ and it does affect the business. So somebody has to wear the PR hat at the decision making level. Those who manage business on a day-today basis often miss the PR implications of a decision for the company’s reputation.

The same is true about governments. Once two of Musharraf’s government ministers asked me that why perception about the government was not good? I told them one because perceptions are proportionately linked with the behaviour; and two decisions that lead to behaviour are taken giving least consideration to the public perception. Then I asked who is responsible for the behaviour, they smiled and said Sheikh Rashid. Now when I hear him on various TV channels he is often found complaining that his advice was ignored. The same is perhaps happening to my one time colleague Sherry Rehman. I hear grumbling from some top people in the government that she is not managing the media well. I think she has been assigned the role of spokesperson which she is doing well. But as a perception manager, as discussed above she cannot deliver if the behaviour of the government falters.

So whether it is at the corporate or the government level, reputation management is a too serious and important thing to be ignored. It has to be based on truth and right behaviour. All spin-doctors ultimately have to eat humble pie, when they try to cover up the mistakes of the companies or governments they work for. PR without ethics is deception; leading professionals agree and such shenanigans violate this principle. (ayazbabar@gmail.com Blog: babarayaz.wordpress.com )

Please pause for honest soul searching! (19-12-2008)

 

A German journalist, who heads the South Asia Bureau of ARD Radio and is based in New Delhi, was visiting Pakistan last week. His question to me was very direct and blunt: “Who runs Pakistan?” By implication the question was loaded, as it means that there is a doubt in the international community that the new democratic government is the real ruler. In the context of the recent Mumbai attack, it also shows that the thrust of the reporter’s story would be that the PPP-led government is not controlling the India policy of Pakistan. So, all the talk of President Zardari to open up trade and investment doors between the two countries is at best his personal opinion.

 

My reply to him was that Pakistan has been ruled for a long time by the military directly and indirectly, so the tussle between the democratic government and military establishment for space would continue. So far the national security policies have a prominent hallmark of the establishment and the civilian government had had little say.

 

Today when Pakistan has been completely isolated and is facing tremendous pressure to walk the talk about taking action against the Jihadi organisations, we cannot beat around the bush. The reaction of majority of journalists and politicians in Pakistan is that of denial. Some channels anchors and talk shows hosts even went over-board in the name of ‘Nationalism.’ Listening to them it seemed that the attack has been on Karachi or Islamabad and not Mumbai. The choice of guests was also very selective and one-sided. As a result the whole emphasis of broadcasts was that India shouldn’t have raised a finger at Pakistan, although the Indian Prime Minister was cautious in his accusation as he talked about “some elements in Pakistan” and did not blame the government directly.

One TV journalist defended his channel in a private gathering on the ground that we should have watched some leading Indian channels who were talking against Pakistan. Thus he said our media had to respond but acted better than them. Undoubtedly, there are many holes in the Indian story, undisputedly, majority of the Indian politicians and electronic media lost their balance and jumped to conclusions, and certainly, some Indian leaders and celebrities angrily called for bombing Pakistan. But does that mean we should react to them instead of following a saner path. Number of Pakistani and Indian journalists were also cautious not to play in the hands of the terrorists who wanted to reverse the normalisation process.

 

Unfortunately alongside over 200 victims of Mumbai carnage there lies the body of objectivity and sanity on both sides of the border. The journalists were heard taking pride in taking a Nationalist stand. The question is should the journalists be blinded by “Nationalism?” I think if one has to be objective he/she has to de-National, de-class, de-religion, de-ethnic and de-race himself/herself. It’s easy to be objective and enlightened at somebody else’s expense. But it is tough at ones own expense. Particularly, when one has to be dispassionate about something one belongs to. One has to rise above all prejudices to analyse any issue.

 

Ruling establishment in most countries demand that journalists should safeguard the national interest. Many among us fall for this trick. The parameters of this ‘National interest’ are set by the ruling classes, what we have to see is whether the policies based on these lines are pro-people or anti-people – that is the only bias a journalist should have. Let’s look at this in the present context.

 

Pakistani establishment has nurtured militant Jihadi organisations for many decades now. They think that these Jihadis are a national asset against India and the Afghan Taliban are assets in Afghanistan. The mess we are in has proved beyond any doubt that these organisations are actually liabilities. We are bleeding at their hands. They have become so powerful that they want to dictate the country’s foreign policy. The parliament says that Pakistan should not allow anybody to use its territory for interference in other countries. Taliban and Jihadi organisations are openly violating this mandate of the people of Pakistan. Instead they believe that Pakistan should continue its support to the Taliban and India-specific Jihad.

 

The media should not defend these people just because the Indians and Americans are against them. That is a negative approach. We should not let our anti-India and anti-American feelings overpower sanity. We should keep in mind that the poor people of Pakistan want peace with their neighbours and cannot afford to be hijacked by the militants.

 

In all religions there is a provision of ‘Toba,’ ‘Confession’ and ‘Yom Kippur’. The idea is to first accept ones mistakes, (if sins is a harsher word), repent on them and not commit such mistakes again. Our problem is we are in a state of denial, so how can we move on to the correct path. I am not saying that Pakistan should immediately accept responsibility of Mumbai attacks. But we should take a pause and do some honest soul searching. That we have number of such militant organisation which are anti-India cannot be denied. The same is true for India which has a number of homegrown militant movements rising from sharp inequality and brutal state suppression.   

 

On the other hand the Indian government and media should realise that the Mumbai attacks were actually Mr. Zardari’s Kargil. Nawaz Sharif’s peace efforts were torpedoed by Musharraf clique. Zardaris bold moves for taking relations with India to another level were sabotaged by Mumbai attackers. And this suits both the Islamic and Hindu militants. Saner people on both sides of the border can save the situation by defeating agent provocateurs.  (ayazbabar@gmail.com Blog: babarayaz.wordpress.com)

 

Beijing IPRA (13-12-2008)

 

Nobody talks about the 1949 Great Socialist Revolution of China anymore. Most of the speeches by the government and private sector Chinese speakers I heard last month at the 17th International Public Relations Association (IPRA) Congress in Beijing talked about last 30 years only. For the Chinese it seems the modern history starts in 1978 December – a year after Chairman Mao Zedong’s death and emergence of Deng Xiaoping as the party leader.

 

Most of the Chinese I met during my one-week visit, barring a couple of self-employed persons, were happier with the “Socialist Market-Economic System” compared to “pure socialism” days (1949-780. Though hundreds of Chinese still pay their reverence to Chairman Mao’ embalmed body lying at the Tianamen Square everyday as liberation leader, they are not nostalgic about the time he ruled. Rather the older generation still remembers the ‘great failure’ of the “Great Leap Forward Policy” (1958-60) which led to a famine and the repressive “Cultural Revolution”1966-76. However two self-employed tourist guides I met complained that life has very competitive now and inequality has increased. But they also confessed that their families’ standard of living has improved a lot since the new policies have been implemented.

 

The reason is simple China has been the world engine of growth in the last 30 years which is the result of the ‘socialist market-economy.’ For example in 1980 China new leadership set three objectives: First to double their $250 billion GDP in10 years; second, to double it again by the end of the century. (This target was surpassed by the disciplined Chinese). And third, to double the GDP twice within 30-50 years of the current century. Surprisingly, they have far surpassed the last target in the first 8 years of the 21st century – China’s GDP stand at $6.4 trillion today. That makes it the world’s second biggest economy.

 

And today when the developed economies are facing recession, the world growth is still going to be led by China and India. Though the economic forecast from both the countries are also talking about substantial drop in growth owing to transmission of global meltdown, both the countries are targeting for at least 7% growth. Even if the official growth figures are taken as over-stated, the fact remains that both countries has large vibrant informal sector which is not counted here.

 

Awed by the signs of tremendous progress in Beijing; overwhelmed that in the last 30 years they have surpassed all the objectives set at the Communist Party congress in 1980; and impressed by the fact that in spite of being an export-oriented economy it is likely to sustain the impact of global economic crisis, I wonder have our economic policy makers ever tried to study the Chinese Socialist Market-Economy model. I think the Chinese miracle has to be studied in depth. “We have managed to adopt market economic principles but we put people first,” Wang Guaquing a senior official explained.

 

As no discussion has been held in Pakistan on this subject let’s take a bird’s eye view of the Chinese “Socialist market-economy” policy. The visionary of Chinese miracle — Deng Xiaoping’s, of view was: “A centrally-planned economy doesn’t signify socialism because capitalism is also based on centrally-planned system; a market economy definitely does not exclusively belong to capitalism because socialism also has a market. Whether it is centrally-planned economy or a market-economy, they are both a method of economy.”  This a part of continuous debate internationally (unfortunately, not in Pakistan) about whether market economy can be developed in a socialist society. I would take it further and invite a debate whether market economy can be employed putting people first?

 

Dr. Le Huu Tang, Vice-Director of the Center of Social Studies ,Viet Nam and Prof. Liu Han Yue, Director of Guangxi Academy of Social Sciences, China in their joint book “Economic Reforms in Viet Nam and in China: A comparative Study,” have explained the economic reforms in the two countries. According to them: “A socialist market economy is not a spontaneous market economy. The market is a method and a measure for the most effective arrangement and organisation of natural resources. Yet it has its weaknesses. To make for these shortcomings, the Government intervenes to meet the market economy needs, including macro regulations. In addition to the two traditional methods applied by the market economies in general, which are monetary and financial policies, China resorts to central planning system. As a method for macro regulations, a central planning system has two layers: First, a master plan for national economic and social development; second, some important plans in regulating economic activities in operating the national economy.”

 

(Doesn’t this sounds familiar when you hear the champions of unbridled market economy these days).

 

The taste of this pudding is in the fact that China has grown into world’s second largest economy in a short span of 30 years and that it keeps its 1.3 billion people fed, provides them with education, basic health facilities, excellent infrastructure facilities and reasonably good law and order. This is no small achievement. It dwarfs the criticism of China by its detractors on account of less democracy, abuse of some human rights, protests for more rights in remote provinces and Tibet issue.

 

The Chinese people are single-mindedly pursuing their economic development objectives following the political policy of “peaceful co-existence and no interference in the internal affairs of other countries.” Shouldn’t we be going to China for getting Knowledge and not just toys for our army? May be we can learn a few lessons from our friend China that can really benefit the people of Pakistan. (ayazbabar@gmail.com

Blog: babarayaz.wordpress.com )

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Are Taliban fighting a National Liberation War in Afghanistan? (19-08-2008)

 

Taliban’s guerilla war in Afghanistan is often labeled by some liberals and confused leftists as a National Liberation War. It is indeed their democratic right to say what they think is right. But the issue is most opinion-makers use political terminology without going into dispassionate objective analysis, which sends wrong messages to the people.

 

At the face of it is quite a populist statement used by our journalists and some analysts. They claim that Taliban are actually fighting to get the foreign forces of ISAF out of their country, hence it is a National Liberation War. Anything which is anti-American sounds good and erroneously considered anti-imperialist. They glamourise the Taliban’s war in Afghanistan, without going into the depth of the issue and forgetting a major point that these forces are there to help stablise an elected government and mot make Afghanistan a colony.

 

Any political scientist would first refresh his memory about the circumstances in which such a war has started. Second, ask a question where this so-called National Liberation would lead the country? Third, what does it promises to the people of the country, particularly the poor people? Fourth, who are these ‘liberators’ fighting? Fifth, how are they fighting? Sixth, are the majority of the people in the country supporting this war? And there can be a number of other minor questions, which we should not deal with here.

 

So first let’s look back into the recent history of Afghanistan. The 1978 April revolution was led by the communist parties of Afghanistan. Some of the early reforms they introduced were things like compulsory male and female education, abolition of “Walwar’ that is a tradition of buying a bride, reformation of oppressive private money lending system, women’s rights etc. There was nothing unIslamic in these reforms. But Pakistan decided to interfere in their internal affairs and created batches of so-called Islamic Mujahideens led by Gulbedin Hikmatyar — a long time ISI client. Then Ziaul Haq sucked in the American and Saudi government and increased incursions in Afghanistan. The Afghan government made a mistake and invited the Soviet Union forces in to defend them. The Soviets were wary of the US-led insurgency in their backyard and were tempted to send their forces. They paid a heavy price for this mistake. The communists also lost their ground because of infighting.

 

Once the Pakistan-US-Saudi sponsored counter-revolution was successful and the Soviet forces were pulled back, the inevitable happened. There was all out war between various Mujahideens’ group and Afghanistan was divided among various war lords, with Pakistani intelligence seeking to establish its proxy government in Kabul.  Who suffered most in this game? The poor people of Afghanistan. It is important to remember this phase of Afghanistan history, because once the ISAF forces would be out without preparing the Afghan government to take effective control, the country would again drift into a civil war among tribal war lords.

 

Then came the Pakistan sponsored Taliban who managed to conquer almost 80% of the country and established their brand of Salafist Shari’ah. No doubt they brought peace to the area they controlled, but in bargain they established a government based on religious and ethnic fascism. Intolerance to other sects and religions was rampant. Should we forget that when the whole world was pleading they were destroying Buddha’s statues. They gave sanctuary to extremist anti-shia groups like Sipah-e-Sahaba, who went on rampage against the Shias in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Their style of government gave Islam a bad name across the world. Men were forced to keep beards, women were wrapped from head to toe, their education was stopped, and economy was managed in a most primitive manner which further made life difficult for the people. Above all they agreed to provide shelter to Al Qaeda for training the Jihadists for a global Islamic revolution. The list is long and does not given credentials of national liberation front to Taliban.

 

The foreign forces which are now in Afghanistan did not come to colonise the country, they were sucked into this region thanks to the Taliban’s foolish policies. Pakistan and the world did give them enough time to move away from exporting terrorists to the world. The “Great Terrorist University’ created by Taliban and their worthy ‘Al Qaeda’ friends played havoc not only in western countries (who they consider infidel) but in Muslim countries also.

 

The present Afghan government cannot be brushed aside, like some analysts do, as just an American stooge. We have to again recall that in a high volatile and fragmented atmosphere there were elections in Afghanistan in which people from all the ethnic communities and areas participated. Many women were also elected, who were previously not allowed to go out of their house. The Afghans elected the present government.

 

These elections and the government is indeed far from what one would like it to be. But the fact is that the process of democratization has started no matter how ugly it looks at present and is definitely better than the dictatorship of Mullah Omar. The Taliban if they have any love for the people and respect for democracy should participate in the coming election in 2009. That is the only civilized politics in today’s world. Once Afghanistan would stabilise and develop its own forces for maintaining law and order, the whole world would support withdrawal of foreign forces.

Now the second question who are they fighting for? An important factor which is overlooked by our political commentators is the demographic composition of Afghanistan, which is as following: Pashtun: 42%, Tajik: 27%, Hazara: 9%, Uzbek: 9%, Aimak: 4%, Turkmen 3%, Baloch 2% and Other 4%.

This shows that 58% of the population is not Pushtun and even they are divided between Pushto and Dari speaking. The bulk of Taliban forces come from the Pushto speaking Afghans. So please do not paint the picture that they represent the aspirations of the majority of the Afghans. President Karzai comes from an important Pushton tribe Popalzai. His father was killed in Quetta by the Taliban which according to Karzai had ISI backing. (see Ahmed Rashid’s latest book on Pakistan, Afghanistan and Central Asia ‘Descent into Chaos’). There are other Pushton tribes which are against Taliban.

It should also be kept in mind that the situation is not that bad in much of Afghanistan, because the Taliban support is mostly in Southern Afghanistan. Many other cities up in North and in the West have little Taliban’s support.

Third question: We have to see what Taliban are offering to the people if their ‘so-called National Liberation war is successful. The answer is no progress for uplifting Afghanistan from its abysmal position, but retrogression for sure. Now if we have the interest of the common Afghan people in mind, we should not glorify a reactionary movement. Our minds should not be clouded by our dislike and aversion for the US government mistakes.

 

The answer to the Afghan problem is that the elected government has to be stablised and we all know they cannot do it alone. They need international support. True, US-led forces presence in Afghanistan is not a good idea. Perhaps they should be replaced with the Muslim countries force under the UN umbrella. This umbrella is there already which has brought in ISAF forces. Initially some Muslim countries were invited but they shied away.

 

All said and done stability in Afghanistan is not important for the country but also for the world. The Taliban-cum-Al Qaeda terrorist university has to be closed, period. Pakistanis have been the worst sufferers of terrorism, after Afghanistan, because this Taliban’s war has spilled over into our country. Our establishment has nourished these people dreaming that one day they will help getting the Kashmir issue resolved and in installing a proxy government in Kabul.

 

The time is up for this old policy. The need is that we declare openly in the parliament that Pakistan has reviewed its policy which has thrown us in the eye of a storm and would not allow anybody to use our land for interference in our neighbour’s affairs. At the same time we would not tolerate their crossing the border at free will. Policy of traditional soft borders with Afghanistan has to be changed so that nobody can blame us for providing safe havens to Taliban and there are no more incursions into Pakistan from the Afghan side.

 

Similarly, all Jihadi organisations, which are still operating openly in the country, should be convinced and pressurized to close shop. They cannot be used as a pressure lobby in dealing with India any more, the geo-political situation has changed so let’s bury our old tools.

 

And to my liberal and leftist Taliban apologists I would say that please be careful and deal with anti-imperialist issues and religious fascism resurgence in the right perspective. (ayazbabar@gmail.com)

 

 

 

 

Africa (25-11-08)

 

 Early last month I had an opportunity to visit South Africa and hear the presentations on economic and business environment of six African nations – Angola, Algeria, Egypt, South Africa, Tunisia and Morocco. They were invited to participate in a meeting of the German trade fair organisers – Messe Munich International. All the African participants were Obama supporters and were upbeat about the growth of their economies in spite of the fact that global financial crises reports were pouring in on us every morning.

 

Sitting there I was wondering while China and India are paying much attention to increase their economic relations with African countries which represent a market of about a billion people with imports of more than US$ 150 billion, why it remains low on our priority list. Pakistan’s export to Africa was a little over US$ 1billion in 2007 (i.e. 0.66% of the total exports to Africa).

 

On my return I raised this question with TDAP, who said that they have also realised this short-coming and have prepared a strategy to boost exports to the African markets “As part of a diversification strategy, TDAP has developed an Africa plan to focus on 15 countries identified as the first tranche based on potential and representation support at the initial stage.” These countries are: Morocco, Algeria, Tunis, Libya, Egypt, South Africa, Mauritius, Mozambique, Angola, Kenya, Tanzania, Sudan, Ethiopia, Nigeria, and Senegal.

The 15 countries selected account for about 63% of Pakistan exports to Africa in fiscal year 2005/06, whereas the 6 countries alone (South Africa 26%, Kenya 6.58%, Egypt 6.18%, Mozambique 5.96%, Nigeria, 4.45% and Mauritius 3.345%) accounted for almost 50% of the export of the country to Africa in that year,” Mir Nasir Abbas Director General TDAP explained.

 

South Africa is the jewel in the crown of Africa. It is leading the continent intellectually, politically and economically. Per capita income of South Africa is only second to oil rich Angola in the African continent. But this is a deceptive indicator as it does not reflect the prevailing acute inequality in the country. The major problem of the South African government is that of unemployment, which has soared to 40% and AIDs which has affected 21% of its people. Most South Africans blamed this to the influx of Zimbabwean refugees, who are willing to work on low wages. High unemployment and inequality has created serious breach of law and order. Tourists are warned to avoid late night outings and to be extra-careful. Most palatial houses in Cape Town and Johannesburg are fenced with electric wires. But the good thing is leaders like Nelson Mandela and Bishop Tutu kept their houses in the Soweto District, unlike our leaders who moved to posh localities as soon as they came in power.

 

The ANC government which has led the country peacefully from Apartheid has been in power now for the last 15 years and has been trying to narrow the inequality gap between the white and black inhabitants of the country through an ‘economic empowerment policy’. This is an affirmative policy favouring the black population, who form two-third of the population. They were brutally exploited by the white colonisers of the country for centuries.

 

The beauty of South African anti-apartheid movement was that it was supported by many natives of European and Indian origin, who were opposed to the discrimination with the black Africans. They suffered with their black countrymen and as a result provided a base for the smooth and bloodless transition of power led by Nelson Mandela. Had it been the movement of the black natives of South Africa only, it would have made ‘national reconciliation’ implementation difficult. In countries where the national liberation movements failed to break the ethnic barriers, we have seen bloodshed after the success of the movement. The wrath of the dispossessed against the privileged ethnic or religious communities can only be pacified, if the exploited feel that an enlightened section of the privileged class was supporting them during their struggle.

 

For the last 15-years ANC enjoyed two-third majority in the assembly, which is expected to be diluted in the coming elections in 2009. A powerful group has announced to leave the party and establish South African National Congress led by the former Defence Minister. While some European diplomats and white South Africans are looking at it as a positive development, most blacks were not happy about the split in the party.

 

Pakistan needs to develop this market, as there is substantial demand for textile and construction material in South Africa. Our exports have risen to $318 million in 2007 from $280 million in the previous year. Total import of South Africa stands at around $73 billion as against the exports of over $63 billion.

 

Another African state which offers business opportunities to Pakistan is the oil-rich Angola. Its GDP size is around $86 billion growing at 22% per annum owing to the massive infrastructure development work undertaken by the government. The country has substantial current account surplus as it is exporting oil, timber, diamonds and cotton worth $42 billion against the imports of just $11.43 billion. The country is already importing textile and cement products worth $8.4 million from Pakistan.

 

Oil-rich Nigeria is however one of the worst examples of national wealth plundering. Its $274 billion GDP is highest in Africa. It also has a huge current account surplus as the total imports are $35.5 billion as against the $57 billion exports.  But owing to the large population, mismanagement and corruption the inequality in income distribution is acute. This has resulted in high crime rate and volatile ethnic conflicts.

 

Pakistan should focus on these markets and develop an extensive marketing plan which looks good on the TDAP Strategy paper, but I hope it is implemented quickly. The reason for hurry is that expect for a few products where we may have some edge this middle class market would soon be swarmed by the Chinese products. Some exporters have concerns about the payment systems with African countries, which can perhaps be developed by improving our banking relations and using reliable international banks (which are hard to find these days!). ayazbabar@gmail.com Blog babarayaz.wordpress.com

 

 

Mumbai Carnage (29-11-2008)

Globalised terrorists have re-surfaced in Mumbai killing over 160 people and injuring over 340 till the time this column is being written. Such attacks whether they are at Marriott in Islamabad or the on-going battle in the Federally Administrated Tribal Areas of Pakistan or in Mumbai — the financial and commercial hub of India – are equally abhorrent.

 

Pakistan government was quick to condemn the terrorists attack on the nerve center of India and offer help. The Indian government in its knee-jerk reaction pointed fingers towards Pakistan implying the terrorists have links across the border. Whether the terrorists’ foot-steps can be traced back to Pakistan or not in the course of investigation, one thing is clear that these death merchants want to sabotage the peace process between the two countries. Whenever there is some positive development the terrorist strike back to derail the process. Even this attack came at the heels of the recently concluded meeting between the representatives of the two governments in which it was agreed to co-operate against terrorism.

 

The good thing is that there are many people on both sides of the border who understand that the terrorist organisations are now actually targeting the peace process. Both governments also realise this but are often found bogging down under the political pressure of the hardliners. The Indian government should realize that there are three types of people in the terrorist organisations in Pakistan: One, the leaders of Jihadi organisations who are benefited by the war economy and hence want tense relations between the two countries; two, the rank and file of Jihadi organisations who have been brainwashed to believe that it is their religious duty; and three, the underworld which thrives on such conflicts.

 

Another problem is the serious trust deficit between the two countries. The Indians believe that behind every trouble they have there is an ISI hand, while Pakistanis see RAW’s backing of trouble makers in their country. Now the most difficult issue is how to first sift the reality from a bag full of myths. Our problem is that even the Afghanistan and American governments are blaming us of covertly supporting these Jihadi organisations, which are considered terrorist outfits by the world. In this backdrop the decision of the government that intelligence should be shared between the two countries and some top ISI officials visit to India in this regard is a right move. Such moves will help in building the shattered trust and confidence between the two countries.

 

The strong sentimental reaction in the name of inflated perception about sovereignty of the country does not sync with the reality. The truth is that there are dozens of terrorist organisations in the country, who claim they are operating in India and Afghanistan. The truth is that they had enjoyed the establishment’s patronage for many years. The truth is that after 9/11 the establishment has been trying to reign-in these organisations. They may not be having government support at present but they have not dissolved themselves. Most of them are now self-propelled and consider the government as renegades. It is because of this that we hear statement by the leaders of the Tehrik-e-Taliban that they have PPP and ANP leaders on their hit list. The Indians should also take note of this that now terrorists are poised in battle against both the government, so we need to fight it out together. And stop blaming each other.

 

Similarly, the people have to understand that as long we do not prove it to the world that we respect the sovereignty of our neighbours by stopping cross-border infiltration of the terrorist in Afghanistan and India. As long we don’t abide by the crucial clause of International Law and the recently passed resolution of the parliament that says that we will not allow use of our territory against any other country, we would be fools to expect that the world will honour our sovereignty. Respect of ones rights is earned by respecting the same rights of others.

 

Trust deficit about Pakistan has a history of decades based on the stupid policy of harbouring terrorists for achieving national security objectives. This deficit cannot be bridged overnight. Apparently, the government has started moving away from this adventurism, but not without resistance. There are many within and outside the establishment who have a vested interest to ignore the changed geo-political conditions. I am not surprised that the hawks are trying hard to sabotage the peace process between Pakistan and India. I am surprised at the naivety of those who talk about protecting Pakistan’s sovereignty without historical and legal perspective. (ayazbabar@gmail.com  Blog: www.babarayaz.wordpress.com )

 

 

Free-market fundamentalism fails! (19-11-2008)

Free marketing fundamentalism has received a big set back from the on-going economic crises. What is evident from the present crises is that fundamentalism does not work. May it be political, religious or of an economic doctrine. The Chinese premier was right to observe that “the teachers have some problem” – a typical guarded statement of the Chinese leaders. But the French who are considered to be visionary in Europe were not that guarded: President Nicolas Sarkozy says “Self-regulation is finished.” He also maintained: “Laissez-fair is finished.”

 

The recently concluded G-20 meeting also recommended closer-monitoring and more regulations of the financial system. These 20 countries represented 85% of the world’s US$60 trillion economy. A closer look at the GDP of this bloc shows that the four Bric countries collectively (Brazil, Russia, India and China) have emerged as equally big economies as the 20 countries European bloc. Though this bloc is also showing signs of catching American influenza, the reports so far are that they are expected to have pruned down GDP growth rate as against the recession in the G-8 countries. What saved them from the severity of the flu is that they have not listened to the ‘teachers’ and opted for unbridled markets.

 

Call for closer monitoring of all economies by the IMF, has irked the IMF President who made it clear that it was not the mandate of the Organisation to act as a ‘global central bank.’ Whatever is the mechanism, it is evident that the reckless financial world needs to be tamed. They had built a market of over $600 trillion speculative derivatives market – ten times the total size of world economy. The obsession with the laissez-faire led the regulators to believe that the market has the capacity to correct itself. A presumption that proved wrong.

 

While they say that earthquakes cannot be predicted except telling people whether they are living on the fault line or not, one knows that quite an accurate forecast can be made about storms. The present financial storm was gathering from late 2006 and whole of 2007, but the financial world meteorological satellite failed to catch it on the radar.

 

Saner economists were dismissed by the starry-eyed lover of unbridled free market as either socialists or anti-globalisation. Larry Elliot and Dan Atkinson titled their book: “The Gods that failed – How blind faith in Markets has cost us our future.” It was released early this year. They have named the “free-booting super-rich free-market operatives” as the ‘New Olympian Gods.’ And charge sheeted them as: “They promised economic stability, and have delivered chaos and volatility. They promised an economic order based on enterprise, thrift and personal efforts and have delivered one based on chronic indebtedness and wild speculation.”

“The promised a ‘transparent’ future in which all the costs and prices would be clearly laid out, allowing people to make informed choices in their lives. They have delivered a world of bizarre, occult financial knowledge, one in which everything from the true cost of mobile phone package to the real value of billions of pounds’ worth of ‘securitized’ debt is impossible to gauge.”

“They promised expanded middle class of property and share-owning individuals, a new Yeomanry of sturdy, independent citizens. They have delivered the unleashing havoc on professional and white-collar career structures, smashed up the pension schemes of the middle class and forced their children deep into debt for the privilege of attending university.”

 

Now we hear that the three automobile industry giants – GM, Chrysler and Ford — are asking for a $25 billion bail out package. Leading investment banks are being rescued by the American and European governments using tax payers money. What happened to all the talk about ‘survival of the fittest?’ What happened to the talk that the state should only restrict itself in regulating the interest of the public and let the market decide the faith of bankruptcies? What happened to the promises made after the 1929 US crisis, 1997 Asian crisis and Enron and Worldcom Crisis that next time the system will work?

 

When much smaller bail out packages were claimed by the industries in the developing countries like Pakistan, we were told by these ‘teachers’ through Bretton Wood sisters that we should let the market forces decide. Any benefit given to the textile industry, which is the backbone of the economy was called subsidies and we were punished for that.

 

The regulators have failed in their jobs to protect the interest of the common man. And so have auditors in looking after the interests of share-holders. Till about the last annual reports these world giants were not reporting huge losses. The trouble is that both the regulators and the regulated around the world are Taliban of the same madrassa that teaches ‘un-bridled free-market fiqah.’ So they went along with the blind faith that the market is sensitive enough to forecast a building storm. What we have seen is that it is not the market which raised the alarm; the alarm-bells were pulled by the non-profit organisations, independent economists and journalists. But their call was dismissed.

Now almost all the G-20 countries are injecting billions of dollars and cutting down on interest rates to boost their economies. The problem is that they have the money available. They are trying to raise much of the money from the sovereign funds of China, Singapore and oil-rich Gulf Countries. The real problem is that the developing countries like Pakistan, which are suffering from political instability and the twin menace of fiscal and monetary deficit, are being crowded out of the world cash-rich economies.

 

In the post second war period the world has progressed more than ever before. But at the same time inequality between countries and within developing countries has risen to an alarming level. Heightening inequality is tearing the social fabric of countries like Pakistan apart, it is happening everywhere. Beneath the calm surface and rising growth rate of China, India and some African countries, I had a chance of visiting in the last few months the inequality pot is boiling. Where the government control is loose and there is no social net for the people like China, you see inter-provinces tussles getting ugly, unemployment pushing up  the crime rate and terrorism catching the imagination of the have-nots.

 

The world poor would be hit hard by the present financial crises. The G-20 governments are trying to find a solution for reigning in the financial organisations and bailing out the businesses. But is there anybody thinking about the worst: anger-spitting inequality dragon? Indeed, it cannot be wished away by the faith-healers of ‘trickle down theory.’ It’s time for sustainable flow of resources to the dispossessed. (ayazbabar@gmail.com  Blog: www.babarayaz.wordpress.com )