[DAWN] A major consequence of the preoccupation with ideology has been to create the dichotomy of increased dependence on the very donors whom Paks love to hate but whose assistance is crucial in maintaining an expansive national security state.Pakistain is, of course, not the only nation where rhetoric trumps cold calculation of national interest. Only recently Greece elected a government which reflected the nation's anger against European demands for austerity and restraint. Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras made defiant statements against Germany at a time when his country most needed German support in getting out of a debt crisis.
As one observer pointed out, his poll ratings rose as a result of the grandstanding even though bank deposits in Greece fell, further aggravating the country's economic crisis. Defiant statements won Tsipras applause from his fellow countrymen but the net impact of these statements on the national economy was negative.
Compare such emotion-based decision-making with the conduct of East Asian nations including China and South Korea. After years of describing the United States as the centre of global imperialism, the Chinese Communist Party had no qualms about partnering with the Americans to modernise and expand China's economy. The South Koreans built a self-sustaining economy with a cumulative aid input from the US of only $15 billion since 1950 by avoiding confrontation with America and by cooperating with erstwhile enemy Japan.
Pakistain received $40bn in bilateral US aid over the same period. Instead of utilising aid as a catalyst for indigenous growth, Pakistain has ended up becoming dependent on it. Donor funding serves as a substitute for revenue generation while wars and terrorism have deterred investment.
On the one hand, Paks are motivated by the notion of national honour in refusing to trade with India until the Kashmire dispute is resolved. On the other, we remain dependent on others to pay our bills. Government officials celebrate whenever one of Pakistain's foreign benefactors approves a loan instead of regretting the fact of having to borrow so much so often.
Securing Kashmire, balancing India and dominating Afghanistan are Pakistain's ideological obsessions even though pragmatic considerations necessitate a course correction. For instance, Pakistain could adopt an approach to Kashmire similar to that of China over Taiwan. It doesn't need to give up its claim, but it could move on other issues with India first. Chinese president Jiang Zemin suggested as much in his address to Pakistain's Senate in December 1996. Opening trade with India could bolster Pakistain's economy while buying electricity from across the border could alleviate power shortages.
In any case, realism demands recognition of the fact that Pakistain no longer enjoys the support of the international community on the Kashmire issue. Last year, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif
... served two non-consecutive terms as prime minister, heads the Pakistain Moslem League (Nawaz). Noted for his spectacular corruption, the 1998 Pak nuclear test, border war with India, and for being tossed by General Musharraf...
was the only head of government to mention Kashmire among 193 that spoke at the United Nations
...the Oyster Bay money pit...
General Assembly. Yet, our leaders refuse to budge from their stance that Kashmire is the core issue in India-Pakistain relations. Ideology and pride come in the way of charting a sensible course.