Dr. Ayesha at it again

[Awaisi]

Sallam

First of all, may I commend Hkhan Saheb for keeping a very close eye on her ...writings. ;)

I believe what she is saying makes a lot of sense. We have since independence kept ourself at a distance from the Ruskies due to other impediments of our foreign policy.. Russia was the first country to recognise state of Pakistan after independece and not only offered to built steel mill but also invited Liaqat Ali Khan to visit Moscow. However, Mr. Khan chose to visit USA and was given a rousing welcome. The consequences of keeping a distance from Russians need not repeated here.

I concur on her suggestion that we should forget any military relationship with them in the short term, and instead promote and strengthen economic cooperation. This will in the later stage provide us with enough leverage compelling the Russians to adopt a more balanced approach when dealing with India and Pakistan. The military cooperation will come as a by-product of the economic relationship. The foreign office has to wake up to the realities of the current times. Russians despite that they have been cut to size cannot be ignored, they still are a super power and command lots of influence around the world. In fact their economy is improving and they are coming out stronger after their Afghan debackle. We can make use and exploit our God-given strategic location on the globe and offer transit route as well as acess to our ports for gas pipeline to Russians.

Awaisi

[H Khan]

Pakistan’s choices in face of India’s arms acquisitions


Ayesha Siddiqa-Agha
says Pakistan’s plan to purchase new weapons systems makes one wonder if the policymakers really appreciate the situation in which Pakistan is placed


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

India is embarked on a massive military modernization programme. That naturally worries Islamabad. One aspect of India’s enhanced military capability is of course the increased security threat it poses Pakistan. But the real problem lies in Pakistan’s inability to match India’s potential. Pakistan’s economy can no longer afford an arms race. Neither can the country hope to get substantial military assistance from abroad. Moreover, the international environment is not conducive for pursuing Islamabad’s traditional national security policy. If anything, the world wants that policy and its supporting structures to be dismantled. What options does the country have? More importantly, is there an understanding in the defense establishment of what lies ahead?

Recent reports suggest that Islamabad has re-opened talks with Paris for the acquisition of fighter aircraft and additional submarines. PAF’s hopes to acquire the American F-16s have been dashed. It seems the service is now looking for other sources to improve its capability. Reportedly, the PN is also interested in acquiring more submarines. One can understand the concerns of Pakistan’s military. The fear that once India manages to improve the quantity and quality of equipment, it will attain a substantial offensive punch that could be used against Pakistan is genuine. India’s arms procurement plans are geared towards improving the quality of the equipment and matching it to the country’s power projection goals. It is negotiating procurement of major offensive weapons systems and qualitatively superior systems, sub-systems and upgrades. Within the next five years, India is likely to sign deals worth about US$8-10 billion. This will include an aircraft carrier, lease of nuclear submarines, trainer jets, anti-ballistic missile system and other significant hardware.

Yet, the ongoing negotiations by Pakistan to purchase weapons systems approximately worth US$7-8 million makes one wonder if the policymakers really appreciate the situation in which Pakistan is placed. :confused: The country does not have the resources to match the adversary. Moreover, aid donors are no longer comfortable with any increase in the non-development budget, including defense. The new thinking is that Pakistan should give priority to the education and health sectors and invest in the socioeconomic development programmes. The prolonged financial mismanagement has forced donors to look at the negative balance between defense and development in Pakistan. Any additional expenditure on the defense sector would enhance the problem of the crowd-out of social and investment spending.

In fact, an increase would run the double risk of more crowd-out (thus making the regime unstable) and of destroying the very economy that produces future military expenditure. So any war machine that Pakistan mounts must be simultaneously viable within the economy and stand a possible chance of winning/surviving a war (or at least as far as any war interests may be desired). To explain this a bit further, though defense is a public good, resource allocation is not as ‘voluntaristic’ as one may imagine. Military expenditure has to respond to both national objectives and the prevalent economic environment in order to avoid high opportunity costs.

Thus, donors would impose the conditionality on Islamabad to reduce its overall non-development spending. Since defense is the biggest expenditure head in this category, Pakistan would be expected to reduce or, at the least, not increase military expenditure. It is important to note that there is a difference in the two above-mentioned propositions. Whether Pakistan is allowed not to increase its defense spending or forced to reduce it will eventually depend on the net economic growth and the correlation between GDP growth and defense spending.

According to the Economic Survey for 2000-2001, Pakistan has a GDP (FC) growth rate of 2.6 percent with defense spending calculated at 4.88 percent of the GDP (FC). This figure does not include funds that have been diverted under other budget heads but originally belong to the defense sector. Adding those figures and expenditure incurred this year due to tension at the border (roughly Rs 10 billion) would increase the defense budget to over 5-5.5 percent of the GDP (FC). Assuming that the economy would grow at the rate of 2.5-3 percent in the next five years, the government could barely maintain the existing growth rate of the defense budget at 4.8 percent. Of course, the assumption is that all other factors including exchange rate and inflation remain constant. This would essentially mean lack of capacity to undertake major military modernisation.

So how does Pakistan’s defense sector survive in the next 5-10 years while India enhances its offensive capability? One window of opportunity might be provided by India itself. Considering that the acquisition, assimilation and anchorage of technology do not follow a linear trajectory, one might hope that it would be some time before India can fully operationalise the new weapon systems. Also, given the internal organisational friction in India it might take them 5-10 years to do that. Meanwhile, Islamabad would have to get extremely creative with its foreign policy and financial resource allocation planning. It has to find ways to avoid tension escalation and military conflict in any form. Some suggest that the government should encourage American presence in the region to avoid conflict with India. One would not like to evaluate the merits of this argument at this moment. However, it is vital to transform financial planning to be able to get ‘greater bang for the buck.’

Policymakers have to acknowledge the fact that it is essential to adopt cost-cutting strategies to avoid a collapse of the military machine. This can be done at two levels. The first relates to checking growth of non-development expenditure under other budget heads. This could provide the defense sector with badly needed resources. For instance, the recent increase in the pay of the President, judiciary and ministers should have been avoided since the total bill would take away resources from where they are most needed. Second, the wastage in defense spending that is currently very high must be reduced and the recovered resources used to buy better technology or simply diverted to socioeconomic development.

There are a number of areas where effective cost cutting could be managed. For instance, procurement of weapons, spares or supplies, and defense production are some of the areas where resources could be conserved. In fact, what planners must do at the operational and tactical levels is to prioritise spending based on re-determined priorities. Islamabad would have to revolutionise its fund allocation system by introducing greater flexibility in expenditure management. The entire concept is to devise a strategic financial plan based on a three-tier planning process: (a) determination of net resources at hand, (b) matching it with objectives and visa versa, and (c) the ability to make alterations in the financial system/planning aimed at providing resources for the most critical areas and reducing wastage of funds. Clearly, a new system will have to be more responsive to the endogenous and exogenous factors with the ability to undertake rapid changes in deployment of resources without affecting the overall financial performance negatively.

India is busy in acquiring technology. This gives Islamabad the opportunity to restructure the defense sector and make it more efficient. Finding alternatives this time, however, requires adopting an inward looking approach. Instead of waiting to get economic and military assistance from abroad, the focus should be on harnessing national resources. The government and the military establishment in Pakistan need to evaluate their operations critically to recover resources. Most important, defense spending in Pakistan can no longer be treated as a domain beyond questioning.



can someone help me out in giving a summery of this article because I can't understand her main goal of this article?????????

[Awaisi]

Khan Saheb,

(Yet another one from this self appointed expert on Pak military...)

Apart from poor math (refer to the bold text), this article is very subjective, vague on occasions and often digressing . She has failed to come up with any relevant examples when criticising the govt. It is a complete waste of time reading it.

Awaisi

[H Khan]

Awaisi sahib,

Good! Atleast I know that I am not the only one who was on the same wave lenght.


Questions for Rommel and Mansoor:

In her classes what does she actually teach: like topics and subject matter?

[M Ahmed]

Salam,

She never turned up to teach in my department and now we have to register with another course in another department in university. It seems that she has no plans to turn up either.She was supposed to teach a course titled " Technology and Defence Policy". I have heard from some students who have studied from her that she emphasizes on being "objective" and not to accept the typical government line on defence issues. Trust me, there are much worse people out there who are engaged in systematic brainwashing of the best minds among the country's youth.Will tell u more in my PM.

Regards.

[Ali Mian]

Asalaam-u-Alaikum,

Let me take a crack at this. Basically what is being said here is that instead of trying to compete with India militarily we should take on a diplomatic approach and not spend money on defense because we cannot afford it. In essense what she is saying in kinder gentler words is that we should forget about taking on India militarily, we cant afford to do it and we should come to some sort of compromise with them and spend our resources else where.

There are many flaws in the argument being posed in this article. Firstly the very main premise, when India is clearly building up its armed forces and obviously aimed towards Pakistan, how can any responsible individual ignore that. Would it not be sheer stupidity too look the other way and say oh well, I am going to spend my money on building more schools while my neighbour is planning to attack me. Dont get me wrong, education is the most important of things. However, without a strong defense or deterrence it does not matter how good a social system you have if someone can just walk in and take over/destroy what you have built. What the article in my opinion is arguing is that Pakistan accept India as a hegemon and become a periphery state. Not acceptable to me and not acceptable to the vast majority of Pakistani's.

The argument of Pakistan not being able to afford defense purchases and it causing the collapse of our economic system is also flawed in my opinion. Defense purchases even if we are looking at $7-8 billion are long term agreements with a variety of payment options. In our case we are not only looking at mere purchases but also transfer of technology that will enhance our local production capabilities. Yes it is true that our economic situation is not good but that has alot to do with mismanagement of our existing resources which need to be managed properly. We have in place a debt management policy and have been able to reduce our debt. Also in case of military purchases, the military does have funds set aside for purchases that can be used. The article makes it sound like we will have to cut and slash these funds out of the social sector which will create social unrest and turn the public against the government. Again, not true. Assuming such is not giving due credit to our public who does indeed understand and realize the importance of meeting our defence needs vis a vis India.

The next point which is flawed is related to the economy. It assumes that the economy will maintain the present growth rate and will not grow in the future. Though I agree that when making plans one must plan for the worst case scenario, however if one looks at trends our GDP has increased year by year. There have been improvements made in society but it comes down to mismanagement of funds again.

The point relating to us have 5-10 years before India can absorb all the new technology giving us time to work on the political front is also flawed. It does not consider the fact that what if such diplomatic overtures do not work? They have not worked for over 50 years, are we to assume we have a guarantee they will work this time? In case these overtures do not work, Pakistan will be 20 years behind India when it comes to comparative military technology. Afterall they would have 10 year head start (assuming we take the authors advise and not buy any hardware) plus we would also need 5-10 years to induct technology in our forces as well. Putting us far behind India and making us very vulnerable.

Anyways, I would ignore this article. It does not in my opinion seriously consider the ground realities in the region and is more utopian than any thing else.

wasalaam
Ali Mian

[H Khan]

Improving relations with Russia



Ayesha Siddiqa-Agha
says the military must de-link foreign policy from its narrowly focussed agenda


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

n an apparent attempt to revamp Pakistan’s Russia policy, Islamabad has been expressing the desire to improve relations with Moscow. This seems in line with General Pervez Musharraf’s desire – which he has expressed on several occasions – to improve relations with states with which Islamabad traditionally has had poor relations. The decision to broaden the policy can only be hailed. But there is a catch. The new policy could fail to take off in the absence of a dispassionate review of the traditional foreign policy based on original thinking. Further, problems could persist if the military does not pull itself away from foreign policymaking.

Consider the case of reaching out to Moscow. Despite making the right noises, Pakistan has failed to make any headway with Russia. Why is that? For a start, there has been no thorough analysis of the structural constraints that prevent Islamabad and Moscow from developing friendly ties. Clearly, without identifying the causes that have kept the two states apart, relations cannot be improved.

Interestingly, the approach adopted by Islamabad so far is based on an erroneous assumption. It is felt that by putting weapons transfers at the top of the bilateral agenda, relations with Moscow can be improved. In fact, the military establishment is unhappy that the cash-strapped Russians are unwilling to sell weapons to Islamabad or refuse to believe that Pakistan has really changed tack on Afghanistan. Military analysts in Islamabad now blame the strong pro-India lobby in Moscow for thwarting Pakistan’s efforts to make headway with Russia. This is partially true, though after hearing this views one is reminded of the early- to mid-1990s when the GHQ was convinced that Moscow would sell weapons to Pakistan because of its dire need for foreign exchange.

At the time, the top brass was unwilling to listen to the Foreign Office. Officers familiar with Russia had suggested a careful review of the policy and pointed out that certain key issues may not allow smoothening of relations. Some of these included the issue of the Russian prisoners of war in Afghanistan, Islamabad's Afghan (and later, Taliban) policy, the memory of the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan and the pro-India lobby. The FO identified these factors and said that they would continue to hamper attempts to improve relations. The military was also informed of the imperative of a policy review.

While it is a relief to know that reality has dawned on the military establishment, a policy review remains as distant as ever. Four factors need to be considered if Pakistan wants improved relations with Russia.

First, Islamabad needs to recognise that there are structural reasons for poor relations between Pakistan and Russia – that relations cannot improve merely by statements of good faith. Second, despite the Indian lobby in Moscow, relations can improve if Islamabad were to abandon its approach of looking at Russia only as a significant arms producer and a potential weapons supplier. Weapons must not be discussed until the overall tone of bilateral relations has improved. That could take several years. Even on that score, things would have been better if the military establishment had not tried to engage the Russians to get a favourable deal from the French on fighter aircraft. That opportunity to develop arms transfer links in the early 1990s was thus blown up by Islamabad’s double game.

Recently, the Army was very unhappy over Moscow’s lack of enthusiasm to supply it with Mi-17 helicopters. Similarly, the PAF has been longing to negotiate a deal for Sukhois or the MiGs. Islamabad gets upset when Moscow refuses to sign the deals because of its domestic political and policymaking compulsions. What the brass needs to understand is that it will take concerted and consistent efforts in all directions and over many years before Islamabad can develop arms transfer relations with Moscow. In addition to the Indian lobby, the other impediment for Moscow is that it does not look at Pakistan as the kind of potential buyer for which it would sacrifice its other customers or review its other considerations. A point worth noting is that while Russia is supplying to China, which is India’s adversary, it refuses to sell to Pakistan. Given Pakistan’s financial constraints (in addition to other reasons), it is logical for Moscow to not consider Islamabad a serious and long-term buyer.

Third, Islamabad needs to make efforts to develop cultural and trade links with Moscow. This would help increase interaction between the two governments and the peoples and lay the foundations of more meaningful, long-term relations. Permitting free flow of information, student exchanges, cultural delegations etc, would help make the Russian public and policymakers understand Pakistan better. This could help reduce some of the misperceptions and open up channels that would be useful in the future. Policymakers must understand the need to formulate policies that help make the right sales pitch for the country. This is especially true of countries like Russia that were closed to Pakistan.

Finally, the bureaucratic machinery should be reformatted to help improve relations. This has not happened so far. For instance, the way intelligence spooks follow Russian diplomats in Islamabad and keep tabs on their visitors is out of sync with the government’s desire to improve relations with Moscow. Clearly, they are still following instructions from the Cold War period. The bureaucratic machinery either does not understand General Musharraf’s desire to broaden the foreign policy base or it simply does not care about a more nuanced approach. Be that as it may, a continuation of old policies would only serve to discourage contact between Pakistanis and Russian diplomats. Similarly, the ministry of education does not seem to take note of the number of scholarships offered annually to Pakistani students by Moscow. There are many other examples along these lines but the point is that a new policy needs a new approach and this is not the way to go about it.

A vital point that must be reiterated is that the core issue is not really improving links with one particular country, but transforming the process of formulating and implementing foreign policy. One important ingredient of this is to de-link it from the military’s technological needs. In fact, fulfilling Islamabad’s weapons requirements has forced its foreign policy into a cul de sac with the foreign office forced into a narrow groove in either trying to find connections with suppliers or complying with the security policy and falling pathetically short of taking a fresh approach on foreign policy issues.

If the Foreign Office is allowed to do its work unimpeded, it could make its assessments independent of the military. That process could then become the basis for a more realistic foreign policy.





When was the Army dissatified with Mi-17? In fact, they love the performance of this chopper thats way PA has more than 40 of these birds in its inventory.

But the question is way is she such a Russian lover?

[nausherwan]

But the question is way is she such a Russian lover?

Maybe her dad was Russian!!!

[Rafaqat]

need we fall to such a low level Nausherwan ??

[AkramIshaqKhan]

I think she raises valid points. Crictism for the sake of critism is not fruitful.
JK.

[Malik]

Pak-Russia friendship entered in new era: Anis

Updated on 2002-03-22 11:21:01


MOSCOW, March 22 (PNS): Pakistan and Russia are entering a new era of friendship with their joint support for US led fight against global terrorism.

"Pakistan is an integral part, like Russia, of the coalition against global terrorism," Pakistan's deputy foreign minister Anis ud din Ahmed told a press conference at the end of a three-day visit. "We are on the same side of the table regarding Afghanistan, al-Qaeda and the desire for regional cooperation," he said.

Moscow and Islamabad have expressed readiness to closely co-operate with other countries in seeking a comprehensive solution of the Afghan crisis and rebuilding of Afghanistan's economy and social infrastructure.

Ahmed insisted Pakistan had established "absolute control" of its frontier with Afghanistan in recent months, although he conceded that the border had not been "sealed 100 percent."

The Pakistani envoy said it was important to distinguish between indigenous Taliban and non-Afghan fighters. "We feel that a deeper understanding of the facts is necessary when talking about al-Qaeda. We must separate them from the Afghan remnants of Taliban, people born on that soil, who don't need to flee anywhere because they are in their own country," he said.

"As for the non-Afghan component, it would be wrong to assume there are tens of thousands of militant warriors. They just don't exist. Or that they enjoy the protection of the Afghan people, and can slip across the border without being identified," Ahmed said.

The deputy foreign minister said his talks in Moscow had raised Pakistan's dispute with India over the Himalayan region of Kashmir, which is divided between the two nuclear-armed rivals, both of whom claim the whole territory.

"Military tensions between Pakistan and India are and ought to be a deep cause for concern," Ahmed said, adding that Pakistan wanted "good neighbourly relations" with India, and would "welcome any move for normalization."

Russia has repeatedly appealed to India and Pakistan to display restraint and launch peace efforts to diffuse current bilateral tensions.

Ahmad is the third Pakistan envoy to visit Moscow in less than two months as part of Islamabad's drive to improve relations with Russia and seek Moscow's mediation in resolving the outstanding issues with India.

End.
http://www.paknews.com/main.php?id=11&date1=2002-03-22


----------------------------------------------------



The continuing drought and water shortage have taken a heavy toll on Pakistan's economy. The water shortage has impaired the country's ability to generate hydel power causing pressure on forex reserves. Pakistan's cotton crop has not been impaired and large scale manufacturing has recorded strong growth. However, performance of external sector has been lackluster. The good standing with International Financial Institutions (IFIs) has not yet helped in reviving widespread investment nor accelerating the pace of economic activity to meet the expectations of public at large. It is also evident that unless Pakistan receives medium-term assistance on soft terms, the external payment position will remain under severe strain. The balancing act between keeping the debt burden under control and achieving a healthy balance of payments remains the biggest challenge for the economic managers.

-----------------------------------------------------

I think Pakistan and Russia need a mutual agreement that will insure economic and political stability in the region.

1) I think we need to develop better relationship with Russia to resolve the on going dispute with India.
2) Good relationship means, better Economy in term of Pakistan is selling their goods to Russia and GIS states.
3) More foreign investment in Pakistan will improve Pakistani Economy.

Look at the fact that there were only 300 million foreign investment in Pakistan between 2000-20001 and country like Saudi Arabia had 8 billions dollar foreign investment by USA only.

4) Russian may even help Pakistani Defense industry.
If you guys remember that Pakistan Purchase T-80UD tanks from Ukraine for $650 million deal in which $150 million went to Russia. (There reason Russian were angry because they wanted half the profit)