Double Your Trouble
As you’ll recall, a few months ago when people cared a lot about foreign policy, people worried a lot about Pakistan. Seemed to be a country with a ton of problems, and many possible risks to the United States, and it was hard to see the clear way forward. But then came the financial crisis and people sort of stopped paying attention. But of course they have an economic crisis in Pakistan, too:
The Zardari government is sailing into a perfect storm of political instability and economic turmoil. The economy is in a virtual freefall. International agencies have slashed its credit ratings. The rupee has hit an all-time low against the dollar. Capital flight is believed to be continuing despite efforts to stop it. Suicide attacks and kidnappings have led to the repatriation of foreign skilled labor. The bourses are a blood bath as foreign investors continue to pull out. Unable to pay its bills, the government has taken to issuing I.O.U.s to private- and public-sector companies. Overall inflation is at a punishing 30-year high. Power shortages, the worst in at least 15 years, are disrupting businesses already hurt by higher input costs. To top it off, much-needed funding and easier terms promised by Pakistan’s allies and multilateral donor agencies have yet to materialize. Foreign-exchange reserves, worth about two months of imports, are fast running out—and with the worsening economic situation, so is public patience.
For its part, the Zardari-led coalition government, already besieged by political rivals and insurgent groups, has had to take unpopular measures to prop up the economy. It has raised taxes, upsetting the business community. It has trimmed government spending, prompting bureaucrats to grumble. It has increased tariffs on power, angering consumers and businesses already fed up with outages. And it has phased out subsidies on imported fuel, leading to price increases in everything from bus rides to cooking oil and prompting small, periodic protests. “Inflation accounts for most of the public disgruntlement,” says Mansoor Hussain, a columnist for the English-language Daily Times. “The popular expectation seems to be that the U.S. and world community will not allow Pakistan to fail and will foot our bills for what is still considered by us to be their war,” he told NEWSWEEK. But an oil deal with the Saudis is yet to come through, and substantive foreign-currency inflows remain elusive despite public commitments by allies, including the United States, which is facing its own economic crisis. Hoping to attract capital from various sheikhdoms, the government is dusting off a privatization program that has been stalled since the then chief justice overturned a steel-mills deal leading to his ouster.
Something to keep an eye on. Realistically, the U.S. is less likely than ever to make the sort of substantial commitment to Pakistani economic development that it seemed we needed in the recent past, even as that kind of commitment looks more necessary.
29 Responses to “Double Your Trouble”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
October 17th, 2008 at 8:08 am
Just more proof of my long-standing claim that only the army can effectively rule Pakistan. President Bush did America and Pakistan by stabbing General Musharraf in the back, and encouraging venal and incompetent so-called ‘democrats’ to take power. If Pakistan is to be saved from Islamic jihadism, the General is the only one who can save it. He is an indispensable bulwark against jihadism, and I consider it criminally irresponsible, bordering on treason, of the Pakistani ‘democrats’ to try to get him to step down.
Pakistan must be ruled by the sword, or else it shall be ruled by the Book. Make your choice.
October 17th, 2008 at 8:09 am
You use the phrase “of course” way too much, and it’s kind of obnoxious.
October 17th, 2008 at 8:36 am
Well, I’m sure Islamic fundamentalists will be able to sweep into power by promising to reform all those problems in the listed article–I mean, everyone knows that reforming national monetary policy is one thing the Taliban is indisputably great at.
October 17th, 2008 at 8:43 am
Pakistan is a sad mess of a place. That said a vanishingly small number of people there want a strict religious state. Even in the wild west this year non radical Muslim politicians won elections. The crazies have no chance of establishing a government in Pakistan. They can disrupt to country to the point of further ruin but they will never run it.
Musharraf’s ISI was crucial in establishing Taliban rule in Afghanistan. The armies and intelligence services continual game of footsie with the crazies does not represent the will of the voters. It’s impossible to say if a stable representative government is possible there but the record is clear that military rule of Pakistan has been a disaster on a grand scale for everyone. The army didn’t effectively rule Pakistan. It effectively prevented for a decade any chance that effective rule would be given a chance to develop.
Dick Pump Head Cheney bought into the simplistic Musharraf ’solution’. Since he is wrong about everything that’s all you need to know.
October 17th, 2008 at 8:44 am
Make your choice.
My choice? Fantastic. Stand back and let a man come in and do The Popcorn.
October 17th, 2008 at 8:52 am
Rapier,
Musharraf was forced to make overtures to the Taliban because the U.S. government would not give him enough money and weapons he needed to govern. If we made a commitment to give Musharraf everything he needed to fight the Taliban, then he would do it, no question.
‘Radical Muslim Politicains’? Nawaz Sharif IS an agent of Jihadism. Just because he isn’t bombing U.S. buildings doesn’t mean that he doesn’t want Pakistan to end up in the same place as the Taliban. He attempted to enact Quranic law in Pakistan. That;s all you need to know.
October 17th, 2008 at 9:32 am
Hector, you seem to know even less about the culture and people of Pakistan than you do about post-enlightenment Western Civilization, and that’s really saying something. But by all means, please continue to enlighten us with nuggets of wisdom about the heroic dictatorial superpowers of the world’s only indispensible man — Pervez Musharraf.
October 17th, 2008 at 10:31 am
How about we buy there nukes? They get cash, we get security. Everyone wins.
October 17th, 2008 at 11:50 am
Ummm… yeah, backing repressive military dictators has really worked out well for us in the past. Hector, stick to the abortion stuff; at least normative arguments don’t make you look silly.
October 17th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
AlanC9,
This isn’t the Cold War, you might have noticed. Unlike people like Somoza, Batista, and the Argentine Generals, Musharraf is not out for personal gain, he’s not part of an oppressive oligarchy and he isn’t an ideological fanatic. Look at who his opponents are, and then honestly tell me you’d prefer to see Pakistan ruled by the Jihadists.
October 17th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Look at who his opponents are, and then honestly tell me you’d prefer to see Pakistan ruled by the Jihadists.
Holy false choice, Batman!
Also, I hope you don’t plan to import that “the dictator just loved the country so much that he had to take over and ignore the will of the people” line to other countries.
Also, I unfortunately cant’t find the article I’m looking for right now, so you have no reason to believe me, but the Pakistani military is hopelessly corrupt. This one, starting on page 2, isn’t bad, but it’s not the one I’m remembering.
October 17th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Washerdreyer,
Actually, I think that situation is in fact applicable to many other countries. It’s hard to argue that General Velasco overthrew the government of Peru for any other reason besides that he truly loved his people. General Musharraf, like many other authoritarian leaders before him, loved his country and was driven to take power because no one else was up to the job of keeping the country free from Islamism.
One of the basic rules of morality is that you don’t stab your friends in the back. General Musharraf was a true friend of the United States, and of all people who would greatly suffer under the Jihadist yoke- women, Christians, Hindus, moderate Muslims, Ahmadiyyas. The United States betrayed him, and in doing so tarnished its name greatly. Perhaps we can try and make up for it by sending a force of U.S. soldiers into Pakistan to guard and protect Musharraf- it’s the least we can do, and his safety is far from assured in Pakistan, what with sleazebags like Sharif and the sycophants of the Bhutto family on the lookout for revenge.
October 17th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Yes, the Bhutto family and associates are also corrupt. I don’t know anything about Sharif’s corruption or lack thereof, but would be unsurprised to hear that he’s very corrupt. The fact of endemic corruption isn’t a reason to support one of the corrupt parties, and certainly not a reason to support the anti-democratic one.
Characterizing discontinuing support for a dictator as stabbing your friends in the back is questionable. If it were the case that was happening (Musharraf really was, in a strong sense, a friend of the United States and supporting elections really was stabbing him in the back) it would be an interesting case of moral conflict. I don’t think that’s the right way to look at it.
October 17th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
hey matt:
zardari met with china two days ago and was promised a “bailout.”
we’ll see how soon it comes through and on what conditions.
October 17th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
Washerdreyer,
Pervez Musharraf wasn’t personally corrupt, and if he had had more U.S. support he could have imposed discipline and rectitude on corrupt officials in the military. That Musharraf was anti-democratic is neither here nor there. Democracy is a means, not an end, and when it fails to serve the end it should be dispensed with. At this moment in time, liberal democracy is a singularly inappropriate system of government for Pakistan as well as many other countries.
October 18th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
well i guess talks with the chinese didn’t go well for zardari.
he comes back empty-handed.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/19/world/asia/19zardari.html?hp
March 1st, 2009 at 7:03 pm
cialis
I want to say – thank you for this!
March 2nd, 2009 at 5:33 am
levitraIt is the coolest site,keep so!
March 11th, 2009 at 4:57 am
Incredible site!
March 14th, 2009 at 5:40 am
I want to say – thank you for this!
xanax
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:26 am
tramadol
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:33 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:22 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 5:12 am
Not that I’m impressed a lot, but this is more than I expected when I found a link on Delicious telling that the info is quite decent. Thanks.