New Pakistan and US interests: First contact.

In a few days from now US Secretary of States Mike Pompeo  and the US Chairman of Joint Chief of Staff, General Joseph Dunford will arrive in Islamabad for the first face to face contact between the new govenrment of Imran Khan and US officials. Initial comments from Washington are that South Asia is vital to US presence in the region and fighting terrorism is high on the agenda. After the Pakistan visit Pompeo will head to New Delhi where he will joined by the US Secretary of Defense Mattis for a two plus two meeting with Indian officials and a number of agreements, including defense matters are expected to be signed.

This visit can be viewed with an open mind considering that the PTI government has not yet dealt with specifics on their foreign policy agenda. To that extent the US will see the visit as exploring the landscape of the PTI government on issues of terrorism, stability in Afghanistan and gauge the acceptance of the new government by the powerful Pakistan military. The Indian meetings by US officials could well be seen as a pressure tactic to let Pakistan's new government know that India and the US can forge a relationship which could not necessarily be in the best interests of Pakistan unless they tow the US line, especially on terrorism.

Imran Khan and his government a likely to view the issues fundamentally different from the way Pompeo and Washington see matters. In Khan's eyes the issue of fighting terrorism cannot result in Pakistan being a client state to the will of the US, or for that matter anyone. Does this mean they will continue with fighting terrorism? I would like to believe yes, but not in the way that the US would want a free hand in conducting operations on Pakistani soil. Imran is a fiercely independent person and to him respecting Pakistan's sovereignty will be paramount.

For the US the issue will be of trusting Pakistan's commitment to fight terrorism and their constant fear that to some extent there could be collaboration between Pakistani officials and the terrorists to fore warn them of impending attacks. General Bajwa and the military high command in the Pakistani military are radically different from the people who followed Gen Zia ul Haq and his Islamist agenda which did mean closeness to the Taliban. After the horrifying attacks on Pakistanis by the Afghan based Pakistan Taliban any notion of the military wanting to help these elements is out of the question. Imran is most likely going to convey this to the visitors and in a sense he has a better card to play. If the US does not accept the position of his government then he can simply say we will take care of what is within our borders and others look after their borders.

Unlike the PPP and PMLN governments before him Imran Khan has no misgivings that the US will be an evergreen ally of Pakistan. In his eyes the cost Pakistan has paid in over 54,000 casualties from the war on terror is far more than the $20 billion of aid given to Pakistan by the US. This does not mean he is not a realist. Pakistan does want stability in Afghanistan but he will be equally forceful to emphasize that Pakistan is also the victim of cross border attacks from Afghanistan. On the Indian side while Kashmir, like always will be discussed, it is more likely that Islamabad will do well to present the evidence of Indian interference in Baluchistan.

It is also clear that the US and India would know that with the CEPC agreement with China there is no doubt that China now has an economic and political interest in stability in Baluchistan, where the main port to be used by CPEC is based. India shelters one of the Baluch dissident leaders from where he has been trying to stir trouble in Baluchistan. I would not be surprised soon after Mr Pompeo leaves a high ranking visit from Beijing will emerge. It is natural that the closer India and the US become the closer will China and Pakistan be.

While we are not dealing with Cold War politics and alliances, there is a sense within Pakistan for some generations now that the US does not really regard its links to Islamabad as a high priority. Yet so long as US has a military presence in Afghanistan having Pakistan friend is vital to maintain supplies and support from and through Pakistan. Imran Khan has indicated that he would ike to work with Kabul on a new footing and this would mean an admission by them that terrorist elements from their side of the border do cross into Pakistan to commit heinous crimes. I do believe that as Pakistan and Afghanistan work out a better relationship the US will also see the utility of treating Pakistan more as an ally rather than as a lackey.

In essence Washington can see its relationship with Islamabad through the clouded glass of past perceptions, or it can accept that in the new vision of Pakistan Imran Khan and his government could present the opportunity for a fresh start. This will need a new approach to cooperation on issues of mutual concern and for its part it is more likely that Pakistan too will not rely on US economic and military aid as much as it has in the past. Pakistan will also have to show its commitment to a new approach to regional politics and a serious desire to reduce tensions in the region. While thorny issues with both Afghanistan and India may remain the embracing of dialogue and reducing tensions will determine the depth and sincerity of this new approach.

On a note of caution nothing major would come out of this first contact other than each getting a sense of the other side. I am also convinced that the US side might well be impressed that indeed a new Pakistan is emerging and with it they in Washington will have to also develop a new strategy for South Asia. I would imagine admitting that Pakistan has been a victim of terrorism also is a good start.

McCain: Imprint from his death.

The passing of John McCain is a monumental, but sad, event in two crucial ways; its the end of an era for a man who stood by what he believed and on the other hand it defined the pettiness of the man who happens to be the President of USA, Mr. Donald Trump.

John McCain was a permanent fixture on the US political scene, with his presence in the Senate, his unsuccessful bids to become the President of the country, and most of his conviction in what he believed. While one may not have agreed with him on many issues one had to concede that he was a Republican with a heart of decency and good values. For me one of the most memorable moments was when one of his supporters lashed out, in a Q&A session against Barrack Obama, with whom McCain was locked in battle for the Presidency, he stopped the lady and told her that Obama was a decent American and showed a rare pedigree of respect for his opponent that makes it a memorable moment.

He put the interest of the country first at all times and worked in the Senate with a bipartisan spirit which won him the respect from the other side of the aisle. While for us foreigners abroad he did articulate an aggressive foreign policy stance, which one could disagree with, he still allowed his conscious to decide his position of matters. He was against the use of torture as a means of policy and while not pro-immigration, was certainly not devoid of humanism on the issue. His critics may say he was too wishy washy and middle of the road, but it would seem he was torn on many issues, like abortion, immigration and taxes. I showed that he tried to gauge the pulse of the nation in deciding at a particular time his voting pattern.

As he gradually drifted closer to his end from the brain cancer, John McCain was detailed in planning how his funeral must be held and in it sow the seeds of a remembrance that would define him for generations to come. The fact that amongst others he asked for former President's Bush and Obama to offer an eulogy at his funeral shows the depth of the man. Absent from even the list of invitees is President Trump.

This brings us to the second imprint from the death of this American hero, John McCain. Trump has shown a pettiness in dealing with the death of John McCain that shows the character, or the lack of it, in Trump himself. Just as one cannot forget the image of McCain correcting the woman one cannot forget the image of Trump hands folded in front of him and ignoring questions about the death of John McCain. He even stopped the issuance for a formal statement from the White House on the death of the Senator, and some suggest was behind the fact that the flag did not fly at half mast over the White House on that first day.

Yes McCain was no fan of Trump and disagreed with him, and indeed he was a bitter rival of both Bush and Obama. However, both Bush and Obama had the class, as indeed did McCain did, to know that political differences and personal respect do not have to be strange bedfellows. At the end of the day we are brought up to say that once a person dies we must not speak ill of them.

All differences aside Trump could have acted Presidential, he could have taken the higher moral ground and invited or not to the funeral made sure he pays the right tribute to an American who was first and foremost a patriot. Sadly the death of John McCain defines the greatness of McCain in the same way it defines the characterless pettiness of Donald Trump.

Imran's Government and Tolerance.

When Imran Khan gave his speech, which comprehensively covered many subjects of national interest, I mentioned two aspects were visibly missing in his speech. The protection of minorities and upholding the freedom of the press. In any democracy worth its salt these two aspects of society form the litmus test against which the sincerity of the democratic process will be measured. I have followed the social media and recent events within Pakistan with a slight sense of unease. While attacks against a free press have not emerged there has been an upsurge of violence against the Ahmadi community of Pakistan.

On the social media side I find PTI supporters seem to be aggressively rude to anyone who criticizes the PTI government and particularly Imran himself. I do feel social media played a role in marshalling the young voters to the PTI camp, and kudos for Imran and his team to do that, but it is time they make a sincere effort to educate their followers that dissent and disagreement are the pillars upon which democracies are built. Trolling someone who disagrees with you is really creating an elected oligarchy and the first steps towards elected fascism.

I am sure a number of tweets are ready to be targeted at me right now, so let it be said that Imran Khan's knows I am a friend of his and a well wisher of his, but he also knows I would be the first to tell him and his party members when I feel he is wrong. What is said is to benefit him and he would know that sycophants for friends are really the enemy within who do not advise one when one is making mistakes. So for what it is worth here is my say.

Minorities.

I have always taken inspiration from Mr Jinnah the father of our nation, who was adamant in his speech to the Constituent Assembly in 1947 what in framing the constitution they must consider Pakistan as the country for people of all faiths. I also believe that Mr Bhutto embattled by street protests in 1976 declared the Ahmadis as 'non muslims' to appease the religious right who were stone throwing against him in growing numbers. I am not an Ahmadi and yet as a Muslim I do not believe that Mr Bhutto or even the National Assembly has the right to declare anyone a non-Muslim. This is a dangerous trend and in the end everyone can decide who is a Muslim and who is not.

That aside, its an event of history and one has lived with it. But what one cannot live with is militant attacks against a community based on hatred or petty disputes that are then given a religious color. IN the same token it is not for the Mullahs or any one to tell a community if they can celebrate a religious event or not. This is against the teachings of our Prophet and contrary to the tolerance He showed towards the other faiths. In the end whether someone is a good human being or a good Muslim or Christian, or Hindu or Ahmadi will be only in the hands of Allah and not decided from the pulpit of a Mullah with a narrow view of not only the world but the very religion he claims to speak for.

I believe the Minister of Human Rights and the Prime Minister himself should take a clear and forceful stand on such intolerance and ensure that minorities are protected. It is not about restoring any image of Pakistan, it is about doing the right thing and the decent thing. A mere promise of investigating matters is one small step in the right direction, but something bigger, bolder and noble has to be done. The militant Mullahs must know that the laws of the land do not allow such discrimination and certainly not such violence and they should be dealt with accordingly.


Free Press and Social Media.

As said before the social media was a critical part if the PTI strategy, and they certainly knew how it use it effectively and good for them. However, this social media following should not be used to educate their followers to show tolerance, respect and dignity towards all who may disagree with them. Sadly this technology of a nano second can also create a hysteria where violence can erupt. After all just recently in India a Muslim man was killed because someone spread a false news about him slaughtering a cow and lo and behold he was lynched. The incident of the attack on the Ahmadi community was also instigated in part by a social media false narrative that the Ahmadi's had attacked some Sunni Muslims, a news that the Mullahs caught on to, did not verify and launched their die hard supporters to take revenge.

These things should not happen in the Naya (New) Pakistan and while these incidents are isolated they do not abode well for the country if not checked now. Imran you have the charisma to tell your followers that you do not want them to behave in this way, you have the ability to tell them to be decent and dignified in the New Pakistan and to accept criticism and praise in the same manner. This is the best education you can impart upon the nation.


We have to learn only from how in the US social media has been used by none other than the country's President to create divisions and hatred of a level never seen before. I would argue that the fissures that Mr Trump has created in American society will take generations to heal. I believe Imran you are way different and better than Mr Trump and you can set the example of decency and respect and tolerance for minorities like never before. This was also the hallmark of our Prophet's governance.

Trump 'Truths'. A short history.

My mother always said do not lie because you need a phenomenal memory to remember what you lied about. The truth is never forgotten, but lies, by some quirk of mental process, fade out. Of course there is another twist; if you want to remember a lie then keep repeating it till your audience believes its the truth. Donald J Trump has entered a new realm of human psychology with not only forgetting his lies but spinning new ones. Sadly were it not real it would be an amazing reality TV show called the The Lying Apprentice President.

Well, lets go into this make believe world of Mr Trump and postulate his truths.

There is the allegation that he used the N word. The truth is that he does not know the N word because he cannot spell it, and what he cannot spell he does not speak out and explains why his total vocabulary is perhaps 500 to 700 words. He has never called a black man a 'nigger' but he has called the land of their ancestors 'shit hole' countries. Somehow in his amazing brain 'shit hole' sounds more palatable than the N word.

Then there is the truth behind these payments to two women with whom Mr Trump had a romp in bed and one even spanked him with the Forbes magazine; with Trump on the cover of course. After all if you have to be sleazy lets do it with class. But look at this matter a little differently rather than attacking his payments to these women. It should make you proud that the President of the United States of America i.e. Mr Trump, would never have sex with a woman and not pay her for it. His only mistake was that he did not pay them immediately after the sexual sojourn; perhaps he got a call from his wife to pick up a loaf of bread on the way home.

If you cannot applaud Mr Trump for his absolute propriety in paying those two women (and who knows many many more- in his words), there is this noise about the way the payment was made and its violation of election rules. Since he has never read any document or report which is more than one page typed out in quadruple line spacing, it is unlikely that the King of Tweet would have read the election code for people who seek public office in the US. The truth is that in Trumps eyes the judge who interpreted the law in the Cohen case has not read the code because if he has then it would Clinton and Obama in the court not his trusted lawyer.

The truth is that Trump should be believed about is there was no collusion with the Russians, after all he has said that for over 400 times by now, why cannot this stupid media read his lips, "NO COLLUSION".  The meetings between his campaign staff, including his own relatives, and Russian operatives first never happened, but then they did happen but no one told him. When it seemed that he may have known the truth was bent yet again to mention it was about adopting children, like adoption was some code word to cover any sinister purpose of the meeting. The final straw was when Trump said the truth is those meetings were useless as they had no dirt on Clinton; this suggests the meetings would have been productive if they had dirt, thus the intent was indeed collusion. But why should we believe collusion happened? After all my Facebook friends friend tells me that this is all a 'witch hunt' and for him if his President says it never happened that settles the matter.

No there is this slight problem of Michael Cohen, who Trump now says the truth is that he was one of 'many many' lawyers he had hired and 'to be frank he was not a very good lawyer'. Well the truth is that Mr Trump took pity on this 'not very good lawyer' and kept him on for ten years. After all what good lawyer would knowingly break the law, as he admitted to the judge, and knowing he is breakign the law hand over not a thousand dollars but thousands and thousands of dollars to women a couple of weeks before the election? Well the truth is these women out witted the best negotiator in the world, The Donald, by timing their reminder for the unpaid payment for the sex they offered Mr Trump at a moment he just could not refuse.

I can see how easy it is to dwell in the world of the Trump Truths because they come at you sometimes at the rate of 47 tweets a day. However there is one Trump Truth I disagree with. He claims he won the US election. Wrong, the election was won by President Putin of Russia, period no discussion on this. Proof, a winning President is above reprimand, above question and above criticism, and Donald J Trump has not once reprimanded, questioned or criticized Mr Putin, the true winner of the US election.

Key to Peace in Afghanistan: A solution

After 17 years of a dead end military involvement in Afghanistan, the United States of America is learning, like the Russians and British before them, that taming Afghanistan is next to an impossibility. In their drive to defeat the Russians, the US with its Pakistani and Arab allies created the means to arm the seven groups fighting them, being short sighted that after the defeat of the Russians, these seven groups would turn on each other, as indeed they did. A divided war torn country was then introduced to the emergence of the Taliban, initially supported by Pakistan, the US and some of the Arab countries. The introduction of this new military force turned the tide of the seven groups leaving only Ahmed Shah Masood's North Alliance to oppose them.

What then followed in a country still bereft with civil war was a Taliban government with a social and religious agenda that was archaic and brutal in all respects. However, for the average Afghan it was a respite from the civil war and the death and destruction they had faced for over two decades. Events of 9/11, the harboring of Osama bin Laden by the Taliban suddenly changed the situation as the US bombed and then intervened militarily into Afghanistan under the label of the War on Terror. Pakistan, not nimble enough to distance itself from the Taliban were caught between pressure from the US on the one side and their own security fears that Kabul in the hands of anti Pakistan elements would mean unrest in its own northern borders.

Once the retaliation attacks from the Taliban spilled into Pakistan cities and with each bomb blast the consensus emerged that Pakistan had to deal with this terrorism because from an Afghan and US problem there emerged a Pakistan Taliban which was even more militant that their cousins in Afghanistan. However as these militants were targeting both Afghan assets and Pakistani targets, a new dimension came on the scene with the US using drone strikes in both Afghanistan (where they had said they were at war) and Pakistan (where they said they worked with an ally being Pakistan). These drone strikes were limited in their success but more importantly caused collateral civilian casualties; in one case a school being targeted where no militant elements were present.

While the Pakistani government in public condemned the drone strikes, privately they did nothing to ask the US to stop them. One of the major turning points in Imran Khan's political journey was his opposition to these drone strikes with his now famous words, 'we are the first ally in history to be consistently bombed by the US'. His early stance of speaking to the Taliban to arrive at a peace settlement was seen as him being pro militants, and today we forget that both the Afghan government and even the US are speaking directly to the Taliban.

As history has worked out today Imran Khan is the Prime Minister of Pakistan having been elected in a remarkable turn around for his party. While an exhaustive strategy of Afghanistan has not emerged there are enough indications in these first few days to suggest that for one he wants peace in Afghanistan, and secondly he is strong enough now to create the conditions to bring this about.

To achieve any modicum of progress some key stakeholders in this process will need to have a major rethink of their own approach. For one the Afghan assertion that every terrorist attack in their country is guided from Islamabad has to change; after all the Pakistan Taliban are harbored in Afghanistan also. Secondly, the United States will have to realize that Pakistan will be an ally but not one to be dictated too. Thirdly, India's peripheral role in supporting the anti Pakistan rhetoric on the argument of terrorism will need to be toned down and focus shifted to a peace process between India and Pakistan independent of the Afghan policy. Finally, the Taliban must choose whether a strategy of terror will succeed given that now ISIS has become one their enemies within the Afghan landscape.

This last element is interesting as most of the Taliban in Afghanistan are Pushtun's and they see the ISIS as foreign fighters, and thus in a sense is a departure from the thinking of the Taliban in the pre 9/11 era were foreign fighters were seen as brothers in arms. Whether the Taliban and the Kabul government can work out an arrangement of coexistence is up to the Afghans themselves. However, it has to be recognized by the new government in Islamabad that a step towards peace must include the expulsion of all Afghan militant elements from Pakistan and to then work with Afghanistan, and the US for a better policing of the border. The US will have to learn to trust the Pakistan government to deal with terrorist elements within their country rather than taking matters into their own hands with drone strikes.

The US position has been that they had to conduct drone strikes unilaterally because they could not trust the Pakistan intelligence services to do the job! While there may be truth that a decade ago the intelligence service would have had militant sympathetic elements within their ranks, the past three heads of the military have been judicious in cleaning up the image and the rank and file of the intelligence service. With 50,000 Pakistanis having died in this War on Terror there is a sentiment within the military of Pakistan, 'enough is enough', and they would wisely follow the lead of Imran Khan to bring about a peaceful era with Afghanistan.

The biggest problem for the US is that leaving Afghanistan on its own will result in a sudden collapse of the current central government, an creation of conditions of 17 years back and a decade before that when each time Kabul's government collapsed a civil war followed. We also have to consider that with China's investment in CPEC in Pakistan it is natural that they will begin to take a more active interest in peace in Afghanistan. I guess we stand at the unique crossroads where all parties, including the Taliban realize that peace is the only way forward. I do believe that an initiative between Pakistan and Afghanistan under the new government in Islamabad is the best opportunity for the US to exit Afghanistan and do it with grace and leave some framework which both Afghans and Pakistanis would welcome and support in the region.

In terms of specifics the following must be done, not in any particular order;

• A bilateral meeting between Afghanistan and Pakistan followed by a meeting between the two of them and USA. 
• The Taliban be convinced to start bilateral talks with the government in Kabul with a precondition of a ceasefire first. 
• An agreement be reached that none of the parties will arm or support elements in each others country. 
• The creation of a joint intelligence task force which will be mandated to deal with all common threats to the parties. 
• An economic uplift plan in the areas where the war on terror caused the most damage, on both sides of the border. 
• Constant reviews of the peace plan and to take steps early enough to avoid any divergence from the agreed agenda. 

The first step can be taken by Pakistan and it would seem some positive comments have come from the new government. The US and Afghan side should not ignore these initial exploratory forays by Islamabad because they must understand that while Pakistan cannot decide the outcome of events in Afghanistan it can play a key role to achieve peace in the region. Yes it may sound to Kabul that this is the usual rhetoric for peace from any new government in Pakistan, but this is a government that seems to have a better pulse of the nation and taking a step towards them is a good way to put that sincerity to test. For their part Imran Khan and his government should consider a comprehensive strategy towards this peace effort or they will, in terms of their Afghan policy be left on the way side of history. 

Pakistan PM speech: A breath of fresh air.

Imran Khan's first speech as Prime Minister was less a speech than a sincere talk across the table. No pre-written speech, just a few pages of notes and a delivery that would make even his skeptics applaud him for being long on ambition and sincerity. If there was anything lacking in the speech it was little reference to Balochistan, the protection of women, the protecting of minorities and upholding the tenants of a free press. But then in a speech which dealt with issues of malnutrition in children to economics there was much to chew on for the observer.

If one was to chart the social impact of political leaders of Pakistan then one can clearly say Imran set the tone for a social economic agenda than simply a political agenda. Mr Jinnah. the founder of the nation, on August 1947 spoke of a vision of Pakistan, a speech much forgotten in the shrouds of intolerance (covered in my previous blogs), and now Imran has touched a nerve with the people of Pakistan and his words have to be seen as a sincere demand for change, and change to which he and his government will be held accountable. In 1968, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto in his 'roti, kapra, makkan', (food, clothing and housing) for all speech for the first time spoke of the down trodden and the unheard majority of the country. His attempt at democratic socialism and nationalism was at best a failure, but give him the credit for an inclusive social agenda that set the stage to which now Imran Khan has stepped up.

The take away from the speech is positive, asking for change in education, governance, judicial responsibility, accountability, and most of all creating a paradigm shift in not one aspect of Pakistani society but pretty much across the board. The key question is how his agenda of change will be funded as he inherits a State Treasury which is bare, a debt burden that every month sinks the nation further down the tube. It would seem his initial internal economic emphasis is on broadening the tax base through better collection, routing out corruption which has been rampant, and bringing economic changes at the grass root level all coupled with an austerity drive that is indeed praise worthy.

Converting the Prime Ministers house to a university of excellence indicate more than anything that the lavishness of 524 staff is what he does not need. Though I would have suggested that converting it into an All suites 6 star hotel would be more profitable for the nation. I do believe that in respect of life style he has always been pretty down to earth, and is not one who loves money for himself. The biggest challenge will be taming the bureaucracy which has always been the worm inside the government to weakens its agenda. Apart from the curse of nepotism it is a machine which is slow to change and some hard decisions will be needed in reorganizing the civil service.

With provincial governments in two provinces the PTI agenda of change will be limited in its enforcement in both Sindh and Balochistan. While he has indicated he would work with the leadership of those provinces on reforms to the police and local civil service it will have its share of frustrations. I would like to believe improvements in the provinces they control will bring about some urgency in the other two provinces to follow suit. I was particularly pleased that while he took a broad swipe at corruption and corrupt political leaders his speech was tame in terms of attacks on the opposition.

We can sit back and cynically dismiss his ambitious agenda as nothing short of what General Musharraf promised, but then there is an essential difference, the general did not have a peoples mandate to live up to. There has been criticism also about his choice of the cabinet as some of the ministers had served under the general; however I do feel this is a start and I would not be surprised that there would be changes mid way in his tenure. His team building skills are well known as indeed his impatience with under performing members usually results in a change.

The way I see it, if Imran Khan and his new government can deliver even 30-40% of his agenda he would have done more for the country than the 21 Prime Ministers before him. He will have to learn to be open to accepting his failures, however small they may be, as challenges that failed and acknowledge them and move to a new path to achieve the same aims. However, the ground swell of expectations he has created is also accompanied by the enthusiasm of people willing to change and be facilitators of change. Many who voted for him actually did so with the view that the two other parties have been given five chances between them to change things and perhaps its time to try something new. This speech seemed to suggest to them that at least in terms of the talk he has done his bit, now people will want to see him walk the talk. The first steps he has taken within the first two days as Prime Minister its clear that he will walk the talk and that too more boldly than many would be prepared for. But then this snowball of change will continue to roll with its momentum and Imran's first task of getting it rolling has started.

Imran Khan: Prime Minister with an economic mountain to climb.

Imran has finally done it, and congratulations to him, and it reminds me of the long discussion he and one of his close banker friends from New York and myself had in my hotel room in Dubai back in 1996 before he took a flight back to announce his entry into politics. I remember arguing that he should not join politics but become the 'Ralph Nader' of Pakistan; to be a socially prominent Pakistani questioning the governance of the country from the outside. I told him our politics is dirty and jumping into it will drown good people into the filth. He said then, 'sometimes one has to step into the gutter to clean it'.

Imran Khan, kudos to him, not only jumped into the gutter to clean it, but also aroused the passion of a nation that the only way forward is a new Pakistan. Yes we as people always reinvent ourselves, its the one wave of emotions that instils the hope that things will not only change but will be new. His social agenda aside, the biggest obstacle, and one that can derail the promise of a new Pakistan, is going to be the horrible state of the economy in the country.

Nawaz Shareef's government has left the coffers of the country empty, a mountain of debt that needs restructuring and emergency financing to keep things going. Yes Pakistan will have to knock on the doors of the IMF yet again, and bilateral assistance from friendly countries may reduce the size of the begging bowl it will not eliminate it. The critical issue will be the long term fix that is needed in the country, and yes educating the work force to become more productive and investment in science and a better industrial base are sound policies but they will bear fruit over the longer term. Some measures have to be taken immediately for the country to get back on its feet. While insurmountable its not impossible. Here are a few suggestions.

1. Revenue Improvement.

Tax evasion and leakage of government revenues are one of the most chronic issues facing the economy. A few years ago it was estimated that 35% of the total electric power produced in the country was stolen by consumers or important political figures just did not pay the bills. In addition the tax collection, while improving, was still inefficient and in some areas even corrupt.Immediate reform of the tax system and the revenue collection improvement should be done within the first 100 days. This should start from the top and all members of Parliament should set the example of settling their bills.

2. Circular Debt.

One of the most damaging legacies of the three PML(N) and two PPP governments has been that they allowed circular debt to increase to astronomical levels. The primary reasons for this circular debt are the miss pricing of the power rates between suppliers and consumers (in addition to the subsidies) and the non collection of the revenue from key large consumers of power. The miss pricing adds about 12% of the total power bill to the circular debt and there is in general a 30% short collection from consumers. This huge gap is then financed from commercial banks against state guarantees thus adding to the national debt and weakens the financial system.

My suggestion would be to create a new power utility company, all miss priced utility supply contracts where private power providers were given 20-30% return on equity through favorable pricing should be renegotiated and/or phased out. No power company in the world has such guaranteed returns. The circular debt should then be restructured along new arrangements and a portion of the revenue collection improvement to be allocated to pay this debt off. As of now say the 30% leakage of revenue is totally plugged then 10% of this revenue is used to pay off the circular debt.

3. Boosting Exports.

A national strategy for boosting exports should be put into place. Economic zones, with tax holidays and incentives be created and seek to bring in companies from China, Japan and other areas who wish to create export based industries. This coupled with improvements in the work force, bringing law and order into the country would be a positive step. Value added exports should be seen as a priority rather than simply exporting minerals and agricultural produce.

4. Expenditure control and Enterprise Philosophy.

While Imran Khan seems to suggest a drive towards austerity, there has to be broad acceptance of this philosophy through the rank and file of the government. A more proactive foreign policy and a normalization of relations with India and Afghanistan might also augur in an era of reducing defense expenditures. While unions are preventing a major over all of large organizations like PIA and the Railway, there has to be either a dogged determination to make these companies efficient, or to simply allow new companies to be created which are lean in operating costs and more enterprise oriented.


While this is a broad brush approach to what is fundamentally a major and chronic problem for Pakistan, what needs to be understood is that for the PTI government to achieve this there has to be a clear focus between short term and urgent measures and long term systemic changes. Education and health care and job creation have to be considered fundamental to the longer changes needed but without addressing the urgent short term actions needed a long term strategy will be doomed to failure.

A key corner stone of the policy has to be accountability and for this there has to be stronger regulation and more powers to the State Bank of Pakistan. PTI is runs the risk that PPP had in the 1970s when they over promised the people and to meet those promises printing money was seen as a necessary evil resulting in inflation and with industries nationalized a weak economic performance. The electorate who so passionately rallied to the call of a New Pakistan also have to be patient that a New Pakistan cannot be created in a microwave in seconds. There are going to be serious challenges ahead of this government on the economic side and clarity of policy and purpose will be a useful tool to have.

Trump and Trash Talk.

There is always a sense of curiosity within us for the extreme in human behavior. Its like watching the bizarre behavior of people on the Jerry Springer show, or staring at images of the war dead in photos, or simply wondering how far can trash talk go. In the schematic patterns of expectations when it comes to trash talk, rightly or wrongly, there is a mental image of the trash talker. It may sound like verbal (or racial) profiling but one does not expect some personalities to trash talk.

Imagine the Pope, or Nelson Mandela, or the Queen of England trash talking! It is so out of field that our mind would simply reject the possibility. In the same profile we would assume the President of the United States would simply not trash talk; it cannot be comprehended by the brain. But then Donald Trump has radically changed that. When he used the words 'son of a bitch' in talking about NFL players he did two important things; One, he brought trash talk into the Oval office, not like Lyndon Johnson who used explicative words in meetings, but Trump did it through the power of mass media. Secondly, President Trump killed the dignity and decorum that comes with the office of the President of the United States.

Look more deeply into the words of this man, not what he claims the 'fake media' say, and in his own words you get an unadulterated insight into a man who truly believes that if he shot someone in Times Square his diehard supporters would not waver from him. When speaking to many of his supporters I am struck by the vehement idolatry they hold for him, his abuse is brushed aside as 'a man who speaks his mind', his racial innuendoes are ignored (some from his base admire him for that), his now legendary ridiculing of people who he once praised in the most flowery prose is seen as draining the swamp, even though he selected these people.

Donald Trump has not bent the rules of decorum and decency he has simply raped them. And those who ignore his misogyny and disrespect for people are equal participants in the rape of what values we expect from the White House. He has called people to have 'low IQ', 'shameful', a 'flunky' and best of all said Steve Bannon, his one time strategist and a man he praised was 'sloppy Steve' and a 'leaker'. I doubt there is anyone who has left the Trump camp and been treated with dignity after leaving office.

Trumps trash talk is not entirely domestic. He has called the Prime Minister of Canada 'very dishonest and weak', picked a twitter spate with the Mayor of London, ridiculed the entire leadership of the countries of the European Union and then very strangely after calling the dictator of North Korea a 'rocket man' praised him as being very honest and trustworthy?  In all these tirades and temper tantrums Trump has never once said a word against the person of President Putin of Russia.

His supporters love this 'style' of the man who will 'Make America Great Again'. This is not style my Trumpettes this is a mental illness to not know what the highest office in the US demands of a person in terms of manners, decorum and behavior. Whether he will make America great again is still open to question but he surely has taken the office of the President of United States of America and tarnished with the sort of trash talk that makes one cringe.  He has taken his critics to be disloyal to the country, a trait dictators show, and proved Hilary Clinton right that he has a 'thin skin' and a 'twitter temper' could lead him to launch a nuclear strike. Okay the nuclear strike part may be an exaggeration but there is no denying that he conducts his domestic and foreign policy through the mirror of what he personally feels aggrieved by. In his world, and that of this supporters, you dislike Trump then you must be a traitor to the US!

What is alarming is that while we can grin at this trash talk and simply say 'Oh well that is Trump', we have to deep down admit that with each slur, each personal attack by this President he is tearing down one brick of the institutions that make democracies great. As of this writing he has tweeted 38,500 times; that is 38,500 bricks of democracy have been torn out of the edifice of a free press, an independent judiciary, and the over sight of Congress on the Executive branch of government. Not long ago in history there was a dictator in Europe who was also tearing down the walls of the institutions of his country and a whole nation watched in silence as his supporters cheered the man who was going to make Germany great again. A World War and the path of horror later it took 6 million people of that country to die for the misplaced ideals of that man to wake up from a drunken stupor and bear the collective responsibility of one man's madness.

While I am not suggesting that Trump is going to be a Hitler, but I have no doubt in my mind there are some things he wants which are disturbing. Trump wants a muzzled press, a subservient Congress and a compliant Judiciary; a world where he can decide who to 'lock up', who to expel, and which journalist to get air time. So my friends this is not trash talk, this is symptomatic of something much more disturbing and you have the choice; sit back eat your popcorn and enjoy the show, or stand up and start putting those 38,500 bricks back again where they belong.

The World According to Trump.

For a rating obsessed person it is not surprising that Donald J Trump spends more time on Twitter than he does in the Oval office. Between Twitter and his rally speeches there is a world that has been sliced out of the world of reality that is the world that our dear President of the United States lives in. It is a world in which, in the words of former President Bush; 'you are either with us or against us'. However, POTUS 45 has added another dimension to it; 'you may be with us but when I decide you are not with us then everything associated between us is erased from my memory.' Remember Paul Manafort, he was only a small runabout in his campaign, and Michael Flynn, he only knew he was a general and they spoke perhaps twice, once about the great election success and the second time about a good golf swing!

One of the important things in Trump's world to possess is 'selective amnesia'. People think he lies, no he does not lie, he just switches on the selective amnesia function in his brain and that allows him to spin out whatever tale he wants to on any particular day. This tale, in his world, is not connected to anything he may has said earlier and that is his final word. This ensures there is no cross reference to what he may have said a few hours, days, weeks, months or even years earlier. Like months back he said there were no contacts between his campaign and the Russians. Then Paul Manafort got entangled in the Russian web, and it was revealed that Donald Jr met with Russians in the Trump Tower. Mr Trump then said it was a meeting about adoptions. Now, using his selective amnesia function he says sure they met with the Russians but whats wrong with collecting dirt on your political opponent?

Liars usually lie in the spoken word only, because unless its recorded, its your word against theirs. Now either Mr Trump thinks that somehow Tweets just erase themselves or he truly believes if he tweets 100 times a day people will never find the tweets they want to check, one will never know. But Mr Trump lies through tweets and leaves a gigantic record of his lies for people to pick on and then calls them fake news.

In a collective fit of mass hypnosis his base of supporters buy into this selective amnesia story and perhaps I have just give them a justification to say 'no Trump does not lie, he just has selective amnesia'. Its like some new mental condition that is a perfect alibi for a person who lies. The avalanche of lies that this President has espoused since taking office is embarrassing for the purists who see the occupant of the Oval office as someone who may bend the truth once in a while, even stack up facts in a convenient ruse to justify a policy, but to outright lie, even with TV cameras recording the events is a shock to say the least.

According to President Trump when he visited the UK he did not keeping the Queen waiting rather he was there 15 minutes early and waiting for her. Amazing that he did not see the video of Her Majesty standing alone even glancing at her watch as the Donald lumbered up 12 minutes late. What is amazing that when President Trump said this lie (or moment of selective amnesia) he was at a political rally and once could see the faces of the people behind him nodding in hypnotic agreement with this amnesia ridden man.

Things have not been going well for Mr Trump, the Russian probe is getting too close for comfort and if reports are to be believed Donald Jr may get incriminated into a nasty situation where he may have to speak out about the private number he dialed and who he spoke to. If indeed it was his father than the consequences of this will be like a wrecking ball hitting the Trump Tower.

In the world according to Trump there are some interesting options for him to respond to that situation. He could simply deny it and say his son was lying; after all like father like son. A second course of action could be he could invoke selective amnesia and say he never remembers the call from his son, or even more drastic, though not improbable, he could say 'which son? Do I have a son name Donald Jr? Why would I have son and give him my name because there can be only one Donald and that is me!'

One interesting thing to note is when Trump appoints someone for a position around him the superlatives of praise are mind boggling. The person is 'a very fine person', or 'one cannot find anyone better' etc etc. As the person departs the ever caring Potus does not even acknowledge the persons departure, and often the person learns through Twitter he gone; Tillerson was a case in point. Is this was it just being ungrateful or another bout of amnesia; 'Tillerson, who Tillerson, don't know the man!'

Historians will one day struggle to understand the mind of this President. He has amnesia about who his allies are, a delusion that he is the best negotiator in the world forgetting that negotiating what bathroom fitting go into the Trump Tower is galaxies removed from negotiating with Putin or the European leaders. His negotiating skills are about the same level as a teenager trying to get into a night club on a busy night. But seriously historians will wonder why would he pay money to a porn star to keep shut and then have amnesia ala Bill Clinton style, and say he did not have anything to do with Stormy Daniels. Writers will struggle to understand why this man started a trade war where his own base, the farmers and workers who voted for him, will lose jobs and be driven to poverty? They will be lost for words as to why he would believe Putin and his cohorts more than his own intelligence agencies? This is a list so long that historians and political watchers will not have amnesia over, but sadly the man in the White House does have amnesia about it. Should we just drop this amnesia crap and simply call it what it is; plain simple lying!

Pakistan, Afghanistan and the war on terror.

When one engages on a discussion on terrorism in the context of Afghanistan, the position of Pakistan, the United States and Afghanistan becomes the fulcrum of frustration upon which the diametrically opposing views rest. The web of relationships and the interactions lend more to realm of spy thrillers and the reality of both the complexity of the issue and the divergent motives of each of the parties. There is no denying the issues becomes important to Washington only because of their war on terror and the 17 year war they have been engaged in. For Afghanistan the issue of terror and war is historically steeped into the history of the struggle against Russian occupation and the residual politics after the defeat of the Russians.

Till the war on terror encompassed Afghanistan, there was a consensus within the divided and waring factions of Afghan society that after the defeat of the Russians United States abandoned their attention on how to rebuild the country. With as many as seven groups involved in a civil war and the absence of a credible central government Afghanistan became a free for all which attracted foreign players into fighting a war of proxy. The emergence of the Taliban, initially supported by both the US, Pakistan and some Arab countries was seen as the only force that could end the civil war, which in a limited sense it did. However, it opened up a wider wound in Afghan society as the Persian speaking section and the Hazara ethnic group were wary of the Pushtu speaking Taliban.

It was during the lingering war between Ahmed Shah Masood United Islamic Front and the Taliban that the events of 9/11 happened. The US bombed both the Taliban and the Arab fighters who had sheltered in Afghanistan with their leader Osama bin Laden. For Pakistan the fulcrum had shifted as now the Taliban-US-Pakistan common platform suddenly changed with the Taliban becoming the enemy of the US. The shift also brought to political prominence the very groups who blamed Pakistan for the success of the Taliban, (who were careful not to mention US support for Taliban), and because they unreservedly supported the US change towards the Taliban and Pakistan was slow to see the shift on the landscape it was natural that Pakistan's role was seen as conflicted.

Stepping away from this complex history we stand today at a juncture where both the US and Afghanistan have blamed Pakistan, and specifically its military for harboring the militant groups that have been attacking both US and Afghan forces. Such charges are not new, the importance today is that Pakistan gets a new Prime Minister who is has promised a new Pakistan and this raises the issue of Afghanistan and the war on terror to the forefront mainly because Imran Khan, the new PM, has a rather different approach to this issue. He is ardent about Pakistan's sovereignty being respected, a dialogue between all sides and even speaking to the militant groups to end terrorism.

Admittedly some of Imran's policy statements may sound as cliches and Afghan and US media, with of course the Indian media attacking Imran on his expertise and approach. Pakistan is blamed for harboring the Haqanni group, the principal group attacking Afghan and US forces. In response Pakistan has accused Afghanistan of sheltering the Pakistan Taliban, who attacked the school in Pakistan killing close to 250 children. Let us first deal with the issue of harboring terrorists.

By Afghan and US admission even after 17 years of the war in Afghanistan they only control around 40% of country. Large swathes of rural Afghanistan are either lawless or under the control of local war lords. In contrast barring the South Waziristan area of the tribal belt of Pakistan, most of the tribal belt is under the control of Pakistan government forces. Imran Khan would like to merge the tribal belt into the KP province of Pakistan thereby bringing more control over the area, a move which would make it more difficult for local tribal chiefs to shelter any of the militant groups. In contrast Kabul's control over its own rural areas is diminishing.

I would argue that the terrorist groups operating against Afghanistan do not need to bother to be based across the porous border in Pakistan when there is 60% of Afghanistan's area available for them to be based. It is exactly the same area where Pakistan claim the Pakistan Taliban are based and it is the eastern part of Afghanistan, given its rugged mountain range, which is least under Kabul's control. Logic does lose its importance when propaganda takes over the narrative and Pakistan needs to get all the stakeholders to focus on the intricate elements of this issue. Indeed it also needs to change its own wishy washy position on fighting terrorism, where the Army, after the school attack, has been be strongly against the militant groups within Pakistan, but also the political front has to be created that militancy is not good for any of the parties, least of all for Pakistan itself.

For its part the US has to stop blaming others for its failed war in Afghanistan and for once come clean that much like its policy post occupation of Iraq, the situation is Afghanistan cannot be solved my force alone. It needs to rewrite the narrative and not believe that Pakistan is causing instability with its neighbor. It has to redraw the way it works with Pakistan and encourage a clean up of its administration from any elements who may be sympathetic to the terror groups. I would imagine a new political force under Imran and the more progressive outlook from the military in Pakistan make this an ideal moment to achieve this. But this cannot be done by talking down to Pakistan and its leadership, and a major rethink within Washington should be done. Whether they have the strength to admit that they have had 17 years of failure of their policy is another matter.

The Afghan leadership needs to step up and accept they administer only a few cities and towns within Afghanistan and while they, and even the US have started to speak directly to the Taliban, they should not accuse others who speak to them as harboring terrorists. This is a battle for the minds and hearts of the people of both Afghanistan and Pakistan and such battles are not won through drone strikes and thoughtless military action. It does not also imply appeasement but a balance of approach is possible and to achieve this the rhetoric needs to be toned down on all sides. We have a chance of peace and a fresh approach and this must be given a chance.

Thank You Mr Trump.

We have a great deal to thank Mr Donald J Trump for; he has single handedly shown us how important Twitter and social media is, he brought the name of Putin into every home in the Bible belt, showed us how important walls can be in our life. I cannot understand why people are not acknowledging that finally in the White House we have a well read, successful businessman, a man with a sense of history and the man who taught the world how to negotiate. Mr Trump is the wizard of brevity, who else could sum up the most complicated world issue in less that 140 words on Twitter.

Most people do not know that it was this remarkable man's secret hand behind some important historical events in modern history. He was the one who  told President Bush not to invade Iraq, he was the one who brought attention to the importance of keeping your birth certificate in your wallet. Few know that it was Mr Trump who masterminded the end of Osama bin Laden, but since he did not have political ambitions he let President Obama take credit for it.

Just when the United States was losing its identity, its ethnic foundation and its religious compass, Mr Trump appeared on the scene and taught us to see how angry the white man living in a trailer park without a decent job really was. Mr Trump made sure we do not focus on the black-white divide, even though Black Lives Matter tried to distract him, and instead look at something much bigger, THE MEXICANS. He made Americans realize that the US will not remain a piñata for immigration and he, in his infinite wisdom, showed us that MS-13 is really the silent army and it must be that every Latino must be a member.

 Most importantly  by exposing the 'fake media' Mr Trump drove millions and millions (his words) of followers to my blog for that I must personally thank the Donald. He is right, why can't CNN give him credit for his role in the taking down of OBL, or for redefining the essence of diplomacy. Is it his fault that Mrs Merkle (Trumpets that is the Chancellor of Germany) cannot use Twitter. My friend Imran Khan is, as we speak, involved in Twitter exchange with President Trump which is redefining the war on terror and the role of US and Pakistan. In order to recover the $72 million Mr Trump spent on his golf trips as President he can not down size the Embassy in Pakistan and save that money, after Twitter diplomacy is the way to go.

On a personal level I want to thank Mr Trump for helping me sort out my Facebook friends. I always thought the 4,500 friends were there because of our love for horses and photography. Along comes Mr Trump and slight joke by me during the election suddenly divided my Facebook dear and close friends into three distinct groups. The ones who love the Donald, the ones who hate him and then the ones who don't care a damn but like the banter on my Facebook page. I lost four friends on Facebook one of whom I knew in person for 30 years and visited me a few times a year and had lunch with me each trip and copious amounts of beer. Another was a childhood friend of mine who told me that since I criticized 'her President' I was anti American and a terrorist. How else could I filter out the true character of these people were it not for Mr Trump. I have been saved such angst in figuring them out on own.

 I know the 'fake media' will say that it is not becoming of a President to have these Twitter tantrums. Well I see it differently, it makes me realize that the President of the United States is human, not a wax figurine without emotion. His burst of Tweets show he is no different from my friend who will post about what she eats at each meal, or another one who will tell the world about every little illness she has, or indeed the rather nutty one who informed the Facebook world that while in an elevator she was grabbed by her p....y. I got blocked when I asked her 'Was it at the Trump Tower?'


SO Mr Trump thanks for being human, or even sub human, thanks for filtering out my Facebook crowd, its more clear now, and thanks for making this blog so important to world peace. You are my hero....