President Musharraf in the USA (merged)

CM, do you want to compare BMW with Coke. I think you have NEVER been to Pakistan. Since we are talking about Pakistan and it's economic policies. There is a total of 7 BMWs in Pakistan, and 4 of them 1968 Models. Get real. Let's face it, EU is not about easing the 3rd world mess or help with their blance of payments (it is only to ease trade amongst Europeans, else they will call it Global Union).

CM. EU is not the kind of Global Power that you may think it is. Haven't you seen it's role in the most recent international conflict? By the way, their role was from "none" to "get lost".

Look i wont even read what you said. Because the US GDP is 10 trillion. While the EU GDP is 8.6 trillion in Euros. Take in the exchange rate and you get 9.25 plus trillion GDP. So much for your 1/20th of size.

CM,if you take into account of the current Govt Debts and the Govt Deficit Vs the current Account Balance, you will see how EU is only about 1/20th of the US economy (read the current papers in TIDE of the IMF). With Germany alone being 25% of the contributor to all it's indicators (well, with the current unemployment there, it wont be for long), and it's balance of payment with the US, do you really in your head believe that EU can stand up to the US in terms of economics? All the US has to do is to stop importing wine from France (a hefty contributor to French economy) and see how they cry foul? Secondly, what kind of market do you envision in EU about Pakistani products? Aside from Hashish.

Sweetie, the only reason you wont read my argument is because it flies way over your tiny little head.

Closing arguments on President’s visit to the USA.

US sees new phase of relations

WASHINGTON, June 29: Pakistan and the United States have entered “a new phase” of their “long-term predictable relationship,” director, South Asia, US state department, Jerry Feirstein, said on Saturday.

Speaking at the annual get together and oath-taking ceremony of the Pakistani-American Congress as the chief guest, he said President Gen Pervez Musharraf’s visit had given a new longlasting dimension to the friendship. It had now spread to cooperation in trade and commerce, he said.

“President Musharraf’s visit marks the beginning of a new phase of US-Pakistan relations. Our commitment is to develop a warm long-term bilateral relationship between the two countries,” he said.

He said the success of the Operation Enduring Freedom was not possible had the US not received cooperation from Pakistan. He said the opportunity of cooperation was seized in the wake of the Sept 11 tragedy.

In the new phase, the official said, the long-term relationship the US wanted to build with Pakistan had got to be with the country and its people, not confined to a period or personalities.

He said that besides the $3 billion package announced by President George W. Bush, there would be an amount of $120 million for the education sector. He said the trade and investment framework agreement signed during the visit could make advance towards a free trade agreement.

He said the USAID would give $2 million dollars for implementing the science and technology cooperation agreement, to be matched by a Pakistani contribution of $500,000. He said the driving force of the new relationship was the shared perceptions and strategic interests of the two countries.

Mr Feirstein said the mistakes of the past should be avoided in the new phase of relationship.

He said the Pakistani community in the US was playing an appreciable role in the economic activity and it could help consolidate the bilateral relationship.

The war against terror had put Pakistan on the frontline, he said.

Senator Mohammad Azam Swati said the community must work for cultural assimilation and join political mainstream of the US to be able to stand up and be counted.

PAC President Mohammad Ashraf Abbasi and chief of the Pakistani-American Christian Association, Manny Alam, also spoke.-APP

President Musharraf’s invitation to American businessmen!

Americans invited to invest in Pakistan

LOS ANGELES, June 29: President General Pervez Musharraf on Saturday asked the American businessmen to help build a strong Pakistan-US relationship by bolstering the bilateral trade and commercial ties.

**He informed a meeting of American legislators and entrepreneurs at a breakfast meeting that steadily improved economy, commitment to privatization, a large market, continuity of policies, a strategic location and a safe environment had made Pakistan an ideal place for doing business.

“It is the private sector, the investors and entrepreneurs who will provide depth and strengthen to the fresh Pakistan-US strategic partnership.”

The president said of the over 600 international companies doing business in Pakistan, the majority was earning a profit ranging from 20 to 60 per cent. **

He referred to improved security environment and said Pakistan had been able to counter terrorism through an effective strategy backed up with speedy actions and effective intelligence gathering.

Pakistan, he said, had apprehended more Al Qaeda terrorists than any other country in the world.

He informed the gathering that Pakistan had initiated mega-projects like Gwadar deep sea-port, coastal highways, motorways and coal energy projects, and said the presence of the huge infrastructure would make the country an ideal gateway for business transportation from Central Asian states to the Gulf through Afghanistan.

Translaton the oppositions in for it :rolleyes:

:hehe:

US economic package to pakistan ‘a peanut’

ISLAMABAD, June 28 (Online): The US economic package may be beneficial for Pervez Musharraf in his personal capacity, but it will not benefit Pakistan at all instead it would only be used to fulfil the US objectives.

This was said by former ISI Chief General Hameed Gul while giving an interview to Radio Tehran when contacted to react on President Musharraf’s meeting with US President George Bush at Camp David that had evoked conflicting reactions in Pakistan.

When asked about his opinion about the US economic package of $ 3 billion, Hameed Gul said, “The US had ridiculed the Pakistani nation and our services by amounting this package. The nation did not want to act against a Muslim country and then the Americans themselves estimated that Pakistan has suffered a loss of $ 10 billion, but now they have given peanuts to us, which we have really minded.”

Replying to a question on rumours that some secret agreement has been reached on the Kashmir issue and recognition of Israel, Hameed Gul said, “I do not believe that he will do so. After all he is a Pakistani and in view of our valour and our specific circumstances, I do not believe that such rumours are correct.”

Reacting to President Musharraf’s statement that Pakistan should review its Policy on Israel, Hameed Gul said, “If he says this, it makes no difference. It is not a democratic way, as the nation would not like to recognition of Israel.”

“If he takes any action ignoring the nation’s sentiments, its results will also come to light,” he added.

Answering a question on the future of Pakistan’s nuclear programme, Hameed Gul said the pressure on Pakistan regarding its nuclear programme has been there since the beginning but nobody in Pakistan can reverse it.

“We have achieved nuclear capability and the United States should now close this chapter but unfortunately it is the pressure from the Israelis that Pakistan or any other Muslim country should not possess nuclear capability,” he added.

Hameed Gul explained that conspiracies against Pakistan’s nuclear programme would continue but the real question is whether or not we able to counter these conspiracies through wisdom, sagacity and prudence.

“Obviously the Islamic countries cannot do so alone, we have to sit together and chalk out some strategy,” Hamid Gul said.

Commenting on the LFO issue, Hamid Gul said, “It is the government that would have to show some flexibility on the issue as nobody accepts LFO willingly.”

He said that both the ruling party and the opposition are opposed to it whereas the ruling party members are not publicly expressing their views but the opposition is aware of it and that it is accepting the LFO under compulsion, under a hanging sword.

“Therefore, it cannot last long through this artificial support,” he said.

When asked if there is any possibility of dissolving the Parliament, Hameed Gul said that there is and if such an action does take place then the situation would deteriorate.

“The responsibility of that situation would obviously lie on the people who are insisting on the LFO,” Hameed Gul said in his concluding remark.

Aid package peanuts

He said that if the CENTCOM was itself saying that Pakistan had suffered a loss of 10 billion dollars due to the Afghan situation then the least could have been that our losses were made up. Calculating at today’s purchasing power of the dollar and the advancement in technology an additional 9 to 10 billion dollars and a sizeable number of modern F- 18 air-crafts should have been demanded, he said.

The nation, the parliament as well as even concerned Ministers of defense and foreign affairs have been effectively excluded. No body knows what we are expected to deliver in return of the peanuts of 3 billion dollars.

It is obvious that policy interests of the US administration remained a decisive factor during the badly conducted negotiations. Perhaps what the Pakistani side has agreed to was so much against our interests that even the ministers were not taken in confidence, he said.

Bob Woodward, in his book points out that Gen. Musharaff joined the war against terror without asking for anything when that was the moment for him to ask for writing off the entire loan and asking for the upgraded version of F-16s.

General Musharaf was concerned only with receiving praises for himself from the American administration, since in his view such praises strengthen his unconstitutional hold on power. General Musharrf may have earned personal praise but only after bartering away vital national interests.

US economic compensation to Pakistan Peanuts!

Have to agree 3 billion is very small in comparison to the price pakistan has had to pay. What was busharraf words Pakistan first huh looks like they come second best behind american intrest yet again! Cost pakistan several airbases, security on its borders, CIA offices all over pakland and 10 billion to join American slaughter of afghanistan and they get 3 billion in return. Does’nt take einstein to work out something wrong with the maths here :2guns: :ahaa:

Imagine the alternative if Musharaff didn;t take the courageous step and turn the policies 180 degrees. You would have had US South Asia SUpreme Commander sitting in Islamabad.

He has shrewdly balanced unpopular sentiments with the correct policies. You have to commend him for that.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Matsui: *
Imagine the alternative if Musharaff didn;t take the courageous step and turn the policies 180 degrees. You would have had US South Asia SUpreme Commander sitting in Islamabad.

He has shrewdly balanced unpopular sentiments with the correct policies. You have to commend him for that.
[/QUOTE]

matsui

thanks for pointing that out. Musharraf may not be perfect, no one is, but he is doing the right things for teh country. His decisions have been right. had he made some other choices teh same ppl who are on his case now would have been on his case for other reasons.

A top Bush official said 10 years from now we’re going to look at this meeting here, up at Camp David and say, ‘This was an historic meeting.’

I’ve written the date(06/24/03) down. Let’s check back in 10 years. :slight_smile:

There are three ways to look at it.

  1. Is financial package adequate?
  2. What are/were the alternatives?
  3. Are Musharraf's policies pro-Pakistan?

Now, we can all argue one way or the other that $3 billion (if it ever materializes) is great or 'peanuts'. That is besides the point. Because frankly, no one in this forum is privy to what went in behind the doors in the negotiations. The end result is that Pakistan got $3 billion of investments more than what there were three weeks ago. Its better than nothing.

On #2, the other alternative was that Pakistan joins Afghanistan in resisting the US aggression against Talibaan. Without looking at the crystal ball of "What If", the picture is not pretty by any stretch of imagination. Those who feel that would have been a great way to die are more than welcome to die in similar conflicts going around the world. And those who think our nuclear deterrent is some kind of deterrent against US, may actually be over-estimating. Nuclear deterrent only goes so far, after that it becomes a liability.

On #3, clearly Musharraf's policies are a contrast to defensive-protectionist-populist policies which are usually the forte of democratic parties. Political parties have to keep one eye on the electorate's wishes to make sure they keep their seats in the next election. A military dictator, by definition, is free of such niceties. He can take decisions, which on the face of it, go against the wishes of general populace. That is not so bad, if the intentions are good and the decisions are reasonably thought out. It will not be wrong to speculate that there is probably a disconnect between the opinions of educated populace and the uneducated ones who follow their favorite mullah or their village chaudhry. While the conservative policies (sending arms etc to mujahideen in Afghanistan, Palestine, Chechniya, Kashmir) are easier to defend and are likely to be popular amongst the more vocal electorate, they can prove to be a big liability in the country's international relations. There are pros and cons in both directions, and lets hope Mushy's policies pan out in the long run.

<>

Do you not think Musharraf follows the same game?

Not really. Musharraf is not too bothered if they don't have "Musharraf Zindabad" jalsas every day in parts of the country (though I am sure he won't mind at all), but for an MMA MPA (for example) it is a matter of their political survival to rile up the people on issues which they can easily impress upon. Its much easier to get cheers from a crowd of semi-literate but noisy audience by saying that "We will free our brothers and sisters in Kashmir from the evil clutches of Indian army", than to get a raise from the same audience by saying "It is in the best interest of Pakistan to consider whether to recognize the state of Israel".

Needless to say that Musharraf and MMA (for example) are leaders for two completely different kinds of audience. My fear is that while Musharraf is getting more popular amongst over-seas Pakistanis (who are more likely to be educated, knowledgable and opinionated) he is alienating more and more of the typical voters and semi-literate audience in Pakistan. His views attract to those who consider themselves as pragmatic, and rile up those who consider themselves soldiers of Allah and must carry out jihad in all corners of the world to protect the muslim brothers and sisters in distress.

The fact that Pakistan's own economy is not doing terribly well (especially for the lower-middle class) is also a big negative for Musharraf amongst the local populace.

But are "jalsas" a barometer for proper governance? I think not. I think what Musharraf does is frankly very easy compared to what would happen in a democratic setting. Try building consensus on issues through compromise due to factionalism. (which is a good thing) rather than unilaterally mandating policy.

Maybe that is what pakistan needs right now. But history in the coutnry has not been too kind when dictatorship is envogue.

And before people get into the nawaz/bibi rhetoric. Think about the length of time these people spent in power. What is more scary from an ousider's perspective is he coopting of the consitution. You canno coopt the supposed democratic process that you are trying to implemen by excersing total control over the legislature via singular veto. Just seems odd.

The rumor mill amongst expat Pakistan community in the US is in over-drive in saying that the real purpose of Mushy's visit to US is to get Uncle Sam's blessings to dissolve the Parliament as it is proving to be a big thorn in US-Mushy's plans for Pakistan. Now thats a real catch-22 for some to decide whether to support a friendly military dictator or to support an over-zealous democratic outfit which is not too keen on US policies.

The good thing about Mushy's dictatorship is that we don't hear much about mass murders, gunda-ism of chamchas and general fearful and torturous environments created by most other dictators. So its difficult to bring visions of Marcos, Saddam and Ceausescu when talking about Musharraf. That is one abhorrent by-product of most dictatorships, carried out in the name of "supreme national interests" no doubt, which thankfully we don't have to deal with here.

But that is just a tangent.

Your point would have been valid if Mushy is really making decisions single-handedly. Yes, he probably has it easier than most, but I doubt he is not running into resistance from within his own power-base on most issues. I am not talking about PML-Jamali. Its always better to have friction amongst your closest advisors on matters of national importance. Bush's war council (Cheney-Rumsfield-Powell troika) is probably a good example.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by NYAhmadi: *
CM, do you want to compare BMW with Coke. I think you have NEVER been to Pakistan. Since we are talking about Pakistan and it's economic policies. There is a total of 7 BMWs in Pakistan, and 4 of them 1968 Models. Get real. Let's face it, EU is not about easing the 3rd world mess or help with their blance of payments (it is only to ease trade amongst Europeans, else they will call it Global Union).

CM. EU is not the kind of Global Power that you may think it is. Haven't you seen it's role in the most recent international conflict? By the way, their role was from "none" to "get lost".
[/QUOTE]

NYA compare the added FDI, employment and the spillovers due to establishing a BWM plant in Pakistan to that of a coke plant. Which increases pakistans welfare more? Plus if we use EPZ - the chinese model - there would be added benefits once we comply with TRIMS.

I am not talking about the mess in the third world. I am talking about what Pakistan gets. This is called Pakistan affairs after all. Now NYA dont be a whiner. We are discussing economic benefits. Lets not bring Iraq into it.

Economically the EU growth is stronger than the US. The Euro is stronger. The EU has the ability presently to hurt the US badly with that 4 billion dollar retaliation waiver from the WTO. The EU gives out the largest amont of FDI, which btw is not tied. Unlike the US. Like you said the population is larger and going to become larger with the expansion, so you have a much larger market than the US for Pakistani products.

Larger market, with S&D and the GSP = increased exports = more money for pakistan. Pretty simple no?

As for the 1/20th remark. First decide if you are taking just the GDP or involving other calculations. Once you have decided get back to me so we can discuss it.

I also suggest you read a paper by Simon Evenett - my dean of studies. You as an economist should have heard of him. Its been a couple of months since i read his paper, but anyway his paper on trade partners and dependency states that countries like the US and EU are so interlinked economically that if one does bad so does the other. Balance of payments doesnt really mean much in this regard.

Trade decrease, both parties get hurt. Who cares about the balance then? Growth has slowed down in the US more than it has in Europe, right? So who is doing worse right now?

CM, I didn’t know that the BMW needs EU's approval to open manufacturing plants in Pakistan, and for that matter any inflow of European FDI into Pakistan? GM, or Microsoft for example, could care less what the US Govt wants, and would pour FDI where there is demand for their products and/or where the labor is skilled and cheap. Nike doesn’t set up plants in Thailand or China because the US wants it to. Pakistan needs FDI to develop its indigenous sector (sporting good, surgical instruments, steel reprocessing, etc.) and not a plant manufacturing high-end cars. In any event, Pakistan's best bet is to stay neutral and attract FDI from whatever source it could get, even if it means trading with Israel. EU has a very stringent quota system for importing the kind of products that Pakistan manufactures/produces, US is the same way (e.g., cotton) but FDI is not going to flow in if the right balance of political stability and skilled labor is not present.

CM, growth in GDP is a useless indicator to judge the strength of an economy. It is what is 'sustainable' that matters. In the US, the FEDs caps on how much to grow.

I was joking with you about 7 BMWs in Pakistan. There are at least a dozen. Cheer up, and don’t be so uptight.

Pakistan Zindabad.

Aww poor baby wanting to close the discussion?

Neither company requires govt intervention. However if the govt provided an incentive structure in conjunction with the GOP, you would have firms setting up in Pakistan. Companies need incentives to move to pakistan due to our facted up situation. The incentives are compensation, and of course if their own governments compensate them as well where benefit is far more than the risk, you got people investing.

With regard to the EU, you are incorrect. Right now India is taking the EU to the WTO because it is smarting from the additional benefits pakistan has gotten. Most of the quota or restrictions have altogether disappeared.

As for cars, care to discuss the example of BMW and Merc production in South Africa which has no car industry?

You want to continue go ahead...otherwise you can act really busy at work.

CM, BMW also has a plant in North Carolina, and Mercedes now owns Chrysler. So, what exactly is your point? GM owns Rolls Royce, and VW owns Skoda. Are you telling me that setting up a BMW assembly in Pakistan will create a million jobs? There's nothing wrong in dreaming. Pakistan will be the last stop on the shopping list of any major auto maker. Suzuki is meeting the demand as it is.

In the US, it is the corporations that dictate how they are regulated and not the other way around.

CM,please don't drag India into this. I like you. I really..really like you. Comparing India and Pak is like comparing Brazil and Surinam. There is no comparison dear child.

South Africa has a higher industrilized base and a more process driven manufacturing capability than Pakistan. There is no comparison there either.

SOuth asia will not become an automotive manufacturing hub anytime soon. If plants are set up, they will be more geared towards producing for the local market rather than for export.

Where Pakistan can make a difference, is in the Automotive parts sector. India is quickly becoming the hub for automotive parts manufacturing, for companies like Merc, Toyoa, BMW etc. I think there is an opportunity there because the cos of prodution is way too high in the west.