PRESIDENT of the Republic Asif Zardari was surprisingly in Pakistan at the end of last week, and more surprisingly in Karachi, considering his concerns about security as evidenced by his current penchant for building high walls around his various abodes, for one, it is said, blocking off a magnificent view of the Margalla Hills from the grandiose Aiwan in his (as opposed to our) capital city.
In Karachi, on one of his brief stopovers in Pakistan (those who follow his movements have it that he has spent over one-third of the term of his presidency outside this country) he spoke out to the nation assuring it that "I have belief in myself."
True to form, he made reference to "my" (as opposed to our) ambassador who had reported to him on reactions at the recent meeting of the Friends of Pakistan.
The president has it that apart from the normal Taliban-type terrorism, and its related sectarian terrorism, we are in the grip of a form of "economic terrorism,' which will be faced with courage. Courage apparently applies to the IMF and its rigorous conditions which this country has no option but to accept with good grace since no Friend is willing to come to the aid of a failing state and help it attempt to steady itself.
That the Friends are reluctant should come as no surprise to us. When a man looks to the world to "give me $100bn" the world tends to take a hard look at the man and his track record. During Zardari's time as "first gentleman' to the then prime minister in the 1990s, he was beset not only by accusations of corruption and an alleged fondness for kickbacks, but was also accused of being involved in criminal activities. Due to the state of our courts, and the machinations of the prosecution authorities, we are left in a state of limbo as to the veracity of these claims.
After all, $100bn is no small request particularly when it is sought in the form of grants, never to be repaid.
Pakistan, according to some international "experts', is the world's riskiest government borrower, which is another reason why the cash-strapped Friends have turned their backs on it and why the IMF has obliged, exercising a toughness of which we are yet not fully aware.
Last week brought two adverse reports from abroad, both of which firmly place Pakistan and its present government in a highly negative light. Britain's International Institute for Strategic Studies entitled its report "Pakistan on the brink' (nothing new of course), and has it that a "threefold crisis rocks the country's foundations", all of which are of its past and present leaderships' own making ‚ security, political and obviously economic.
Having been the major contributors to the making of the Taliban, we now have to live with the consequences ‚ one of the inheritances from the era of the 1990s with which this country is cursed. That "deals' have been done with the US and its forces are evident, and Zardari would not be where he is had he and his unelected advisors not fully gone along with the desires of the Americans who never cease to remind us, and quite rightly, that since 2001 over $10bn has been provided to Pakistan, most of which was intended to be used in the war on terror and the taming of Pakistan's Taliban menace.
"Deals' were of course done between our previous president, Gen Pervez Musharraf, Benazir Bhutto and the Americans when they ordained that in their and in Pakistan's interests Benazir must return and go into partnership with Musharraf. Sadly, it was not to be ‚ "they' (we still don't know who but we all have our suspicions) got to her first, she was eliminated, Zardari sprang with alacrity into her shoes and undoubtedly was only allowed to do so by the US when he agreed to even more concessions than had his wife and the general.
It was also obviously agreed that for the sake of his political survival he would make regular objections to the incursions into Pakistan's territory ‚ summoning the US ambassador, making noises in parliament and all that and so forth.
So, it would seem reasonable, even logical, that the US having paid Pakistan for its services is entitled to make demands upon it when those services do not seem adequate. Our army chief when head of the ISI was very much a part of the negotiations between the US government, Musharraf and Benazir (and later with Zardari), and he is probably more fully clued-up than anyone else (including Zardari) on exactly what Pakistan has agreed to deliver.
That it has not so far delivered is evident by the state of the country, the free run the Taliban forces have in the Frontier province and the happenings all over the land ‚ recently in Dera Ismail Khan, Bannu and in Islamabad where a retired general of the SSG was assassinated.
The political crisis is ongoing, despite the fact that Zardari managed to outmanoeuvre the PML of Nawaz Sharif ‚ a triumph that may be temporary as the Mian of Lahore is so far sticking to his guns. Things may even turn nasty if the situation in the Punjab continues to simmer, and if the Supreme Court judges rule adversely in the matter of the electoral eligibility of the Mian and of his brother, Shahbaz Sharif, who at the moment seems to be the only functioning political factotum of the country. He at least acts in his position as chief minister and makes an effort to deliver.
The IISS report, putting it mildly, calls Zardari's presidency (under this strange parliamentary system in which he calls all and every shot) "fragile", in fact so fragile that as preoccupied as the army is it may just have to once again "rescue' Pakistan from itself.
The report of the US government agency, the National Intelligence Council, aptly has it that Pakistan is a "wild card" when it comes to its future, that there will be continued instability, even state failure, and that it is at considerable risk for an economic collapse. We must be comforted by the fact that our president has a firm belief in himself.
By Ardeshir Cowasjee
