Important message

[jeypore]

And in the same light, while the Pakistan army policy planners are certainly not the brightest of any bunch, it's unfair to suggest that the Pakistan army policy planners have been an obstacle to trade with China - certainly they have been late coming to the understanding that trade policy and not AID policy, is a part of the geo-strategic calculations of all self respecting nation states.

This is where I disagree with you Mr. Muse. The hindrance of military does not negate the actual democractic gov't formation in the country.. In my opinion only, it plays a major role in economic terms, based on relationship of buyers and sellers.......

 

[muse]

This is where I disagree with you Mr. Muse. The hindrance of military does not negate the actual democractic gov't formation in the country.. In my opinion only, it plays a major role in economic terms, based on relationship of buyers and sellers.......

Can you clarify this further - what hindrance of the military?

 

[jeypore]

Can you clarify this further - what hindrance of the military?

There are lots interms of economic terms which this thread is about, but in latest case for me to give an best example of is; When the US gov't asked for full scale operation against the Haqqani network to the democratic gov't in Pakistan, the military had a "special meeting" based on there demands. This equates to me that commander and chief is not Zardari, but Kayani. So the dichotomy of which system is still ruling... If the populace does not have enough confidence of the ruler how can a country be formed, either it is military or democractic run country..

 

[muse]

That's at least one understanding of events, however, it's also the case that for the armed forces Afghanistan and China are very different propositions and actually the same is true for the professional politicians -- so while it is absolutely the case that the Army in particular will take a very keen interest in the situation in Afghanistan as it relates to security of Pakistan, it is also the case that the army has not been an obstacle to further trade and economic integration with China.

Really, I'm not arguing that the army's influence in Afghanistan events is small, quite the opposite, but that does not mean that the army has been or is, an obstacle to greater economic integration with China - it could be a stronger proponent, but that does not mean it is an obstacle.

Look, in the US there is a strong input by the armed foerces in security policy, does that mean the US is undemocratic?

 

[jeypore]

That's at least one understanding of events, however, it's also the case that for the armed forces Afghanistan and China are very different propositions and actually the same is true for the professional politicians -- so while it is absolutely the case that the Army in particular will take a very keen interest in the situation in Afghanistan as it relates to security of Pakistan, it is also the case that the army has not been an obstacle to further trade and economic integration with China.

Really, I'm not arguing that the army's influence in Afghanistan events is small, quite the opposite, but that does not mean that the army has been or is, an obstacle to greater economic integration with China - it could be a stronger proponent, but that does not mean it is an obstacle.

Look, in the US there is a strong input by the armed foerces in security policy, does that mean the US is undemocratic?

No, but the Military cannot act based on Gov't will full act in US and that is the difference.... A perfect example is the OBL killing, until Obama approval, the mission would have not been possible, so the question is posed again, either Pakistan is ruled by Military or Democratic system? The answer to this question directly equates to economic terms also...

 

[lcloo]

I don't know about that. The goal set for Sino-Indian trade is $100 billion, currently it is at $60 billion.

Whereas trade between the Chinese mainland and the tiny island of Hong Kong, is today already at around $200 billion per year.

I don't think you will be able to dislodge our three largest trading partners, which are the EU, the USA and Japan. Not in ten years.

Also not to forget ASEAN. In 2010, the China-ASEAN trade was US$292 Billion.

 

[lcloo]

Why blame it only on Pakistan? or then on Zaradari? It is clear that whenever trade becomes a one way traffic the incentive of imports will decrease. If really the case is that China wants better and increasing trade with Pakistan then it can also increase the imports from Pakistan which will make the Balance of Trade more harmonious. Why treat Pakistan as a market for exports and thus reduce their internal economic strength incrementally?

Surely the way to increase trade is also to allow Pakistani exports in to China. Specially the textiles. Is that not?


But then I can understand that why should China look for Pakistan's interest?

This statement is flawed. When did Chinese businessmen treated Pakistan an export market? The trade is depending on supply and demand of goods desired for consumption.

And China do not treat every trading partner as their export market. Australia and ASEAN have trade surplus with China.

In the China-ASEAN trade of 2010, China registered deficit of US$16.3 Billion. We export more because there is need of our goods in China.

Also the US$292.8 billion trade is expected to reach US$500 billion in 2015. One very important factor in our trade is the launch of China-ASEAN Free Trade Area (CAFTA) in 2010, which reduced the average tariff on goods traded between China and a majority of ASEAN countries to near zero.

 

[satishkumarcsc]

Well I have this principle....If something goes wrong I need to get back to the drawing board and see what is actually wrong.

Infrastructure & energy:

Alright....this is one place that Pakistan is lagging behind. The reason I would say is 'Poor water management'. If it was managed properly and not wasted you could have a yearlong supply of dams and fresh water which is a huge asset that also caters to the farming sector. And electricity and proper connectivity leads to good spread of information and lots of techniques and innovative methods that are usually followed.

The Kharif crops must be properly chosen and the grains to be provided should be of higher yield quality and this must be overseen by the government itself. The main problem that both our countries face in farming sector is the maintenance and sustenance of the supply chain which is further hindered by bad roadways and rail-road connections which also goes back to infrastructural developments.

So first the energy lines and supply chains must be taken care of so that future development is possible.

Identification of Industries:

For starting up, Pakistan can follow an Indian model of joint-production and development. Like Maruti and Suzui did. It was not a super duper car but it was our own....it was crap but gave confidence that even we can make carss. The automobile industry is one such. It needs a huge support base of smaller industries like the rivets, screws, wires, electronics, mechanics, maintainancec....with a start of a government-private partnered automobile company and with proper SME loan structures you can easy set up a small scale industrial base across the country....you dont even need to export it but the cash flow will always be there. And because of the huge industrial base that you build if the products are reliable you can export these as spares and thus helping you to grow as a manufacturer slowly. Japan and Germany after the devastation of WW2 rebuilt themselves like this, and I dont think Pakistan is so devastated.

Next is proper evaluation and mining of your resources and establishing a proper mining industry.....this is one industry which needs a lot of funding and can be done only by the government right now....a responsible government will have controlling stake in it's energy and resources.

Well it might sound awkward but in India politicians just promise 'bijili, sadak aur pani' to get votes...not making India a sper power....this was in my state 20 years back. When MMS opened up the Indian economy in 19991 we were begging everyone to invest in Tamil Nadu. During last government the CM announced that rice will be given for Re.1 through public distribution system for people below poverty line and a 14" remote controlled color TV for free. The opposition which won this time is now implementing a mixie, fan and laptop for free. And this was achieved solely due to making education available for every class and sect of people for the past 5 decades.

Mid-day meal scheme with 2 eggs which actually fed all children undergoing education changed the face of this state which has seen only drought for the past few decades before 1991 and the investment that came in through its educated workforce in foreign countries made it the secondary destination for every industry in India which is now a huge economy.....this is the growth story of my state. Why cant Pakistan emulate it?

 

[muse]

Great post though I am a bit confused about how it relates the subject under discussion

 

[GOD OF WAR]

First of all, the reason your military created there own economic well being because your gov't could not sustain there on existence, based on constant perception of Indian threat....In economic terms they made investment to fund themselves. Intern your military has become more powerful then your own democractic system today.... I think you need to solve that problem first, because until you do not, Pakistan military will keep doing shenanigans to fund it's own operations..........

Thanks..

Well, that may be your take on the matter on which entirely entitled to, but just to let you know, I agree with the likes of Bismark, Voltaire and Montesque so I really don't care if the army or civilians are running the country as long as the one ruling is not inept. I shun the governance model put forward by 'the poewers that be' in the name and style of democracy, and the fact that we have been made to believe falsely that this democracy crap is our bastian of hope. So while i respect your point of view I do not agree with it. As Voltaire put it on popular government, "I prefer to be ruled by One Lion than One Hundred Rats".

And O, nothing beats the shenanigans of politicians!

 

[GOD OF WAR]

There are lots interms of economic terms which this thread is about, but in latest case for me to give an best example of is; When the US gov't asked for full scale operation against the Haqqani network to the democratic gov't in Pakistan, the military had a "special meeting" based on there demands. This equates to me that commander and chief is not Zardari, but Kayani. So the dichotomy of which system is still ruling... If the populace does not have enough confidence of the ruler how can a country be formed, either it is military or democractic run country..

So in essence you're trying to say that system and decorum must be upheld even if its at the cost of some traitor trying to please his foreign master? what kind of logic is that? Uphold the constitution and destroy the federation???