Why no serious effort to strenghten ties with Russia?

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
41

hhahhah. you da funny man.

Seriously, so many Pakistani socialists are trying their level best to turn a relatively prosperous Pakistan into a socialist jannat aka beggar nation of N. Korea (Non Korea).

Just remember:
N. Korea stands for Non Korea
S. Korea stands for Sahih Korea (the real Korea).

And if anyone doesn't know the difference between Non Korea and sahih Korea they need a shrink and real fast.

FYI. Even a basic comparison between two very similar people from Non Korea and S. Korea shows that you do whatever, but do not and I repeat do not copy Non Koreans.

Because he who copies Non Koreans invariably ends up doing the following:

  1. bombs his own nuclear facilities (destruction of cooling tower)
  2. Begs for food.
  3. Starves his millions
  4. Begs for oil
  5. freezes his common man to death due to shortage of fuel

and on and on and on.

And your other socialist jannat Cuba. hhahhah again. less said the better. Just see the democratic change from badda castro to chota rahul castro. And people run from the country in small dinghies from this heaven on earth.

Thank god for our memon industrialists and Sindhi-Punjabi farmers that so far we have resisted the urge to go full "monty" socialists.

But you guys keep it up and surely we will be one day socialist jannat. Oh wait we combine the Islamic Jannat concept of Afghanistan and socialist jannat of Non Korea and we'll get the "best of both worlds". hahahha (but sadly).

p.s. wish we had more "Aqal walas" and less of the opposite kind.

42

That was utter . Nationalizing key industries and then handing them off to select people was no way good for the country. You know why our banking sector is so messed up? Because of Bhutto. He nationalized all our banks and concept of banking defaulting can trace its roots from here.

The economic policies of Bhutto destroyed our growth. Put us back 10 years at minimum and following from that nobody has attempted to correct the situation. Whats worse is that people use pathetic excuses that it was a period of socialist uprising.

I am sorry just because others were doing it doesn't make it sane. If others are burning down houses and committing genocide, is it just okay if we follow the trend?

43

So you are saying North Korea is in a mess because they chose Russia as a friend/ally? Is that it?

GS and your real life offline!
44

A country is known by the company it keeps.

Do you want to be in the company of Non Korea?

45

@Burqaposhx:

Thank you for making it very clear to us that you have absolutely no idea of what international politics is about.

46

With Pakistan being friend of US for more than what 50 years? Where are we? Now don't tell me its all because of our stupid politicians/mullahs etc, lets talk about company.

47

That's a good point.

China and India have earned $billions more during 20 years friendship with USA compared to puny sums Pakistan got from 60 years of US friendship.

Even Sahih Korea has left Pakistan in the dust when it comes to getting benefits from the USA.

Still for a country of 175 million, we are doing much better compared to many in the developing world.

That doesn't mean we should abandon USA and join hands with Russia. It simply means we need to learn from Chinese and S. Koreans in the art of trade relationships.

48

I don't think we need to "abandon" anyone at all, if there is anyone to abandon at all thats terrorist groups. We should strengthen our ties wherever there is a chance for Pakistani products, getting help in training our people, getting help in infrastructure development etc (doesn't have to be "money").

BRIDAL PICS.
BRIDAL PICS.
BRIDAL PICS.
49

These are again very subjective and discriminatory remarks far from any truth. If for argument sake if it is accepted that nationalized policy was a failure, then denationalization of industries were much failure. In ZAB’s time the natiolized institutions remained for only five years, Zia-ul-Haq denationalized all the industries and banks. If 30 years turn around could not result in any tangible benefits to masses why blame ZAB for his five years of nationalization?

Coming back to economic reforms by ZAB, perhaps there is no comparison with any ruler dictator or otherwise what development achieved in during his tenure. Here are the excerpts from a report to support my argument. Read and enjoy.

Making sense of Pakistan and its economy

You have heard for the last 5 years at least, stories of economic miracles. Why is it
that this miracle has begun to evaporate overnight? What kind of miracle can it be
that is not sustainable? When General Musharraf made his speech on 2nd or 3rd
November 2007, one of the things he cited as a reason for taking this extreme action
was that the economy was going down. This was the first time anyone from the
government side had admitted that the economy was going down. Otherwise when we
were saying that the economy is not doing well we got very angry responses. So now
we see that there are so many problems with the economy; there is a wheat crisis and
flour is simply not available. It was in the newspaper a few days ago that oil stocks are
down to less than a week. Why? What happened? Why are oil stocks down? There are
other crises. Power of course is not there, we are all living with power shortages and
power breakdowns, exports are stagnant and some categories of textile exports have
actually declined. Our inflation is out of control and even the rich are feeling its
pinch. So why has this happened all of a sudden? Where has the miracle gone? Where
was the miracle?

I want to talk to you further about this, place all of this in a context, because you may
pick the wheat crisis, you may pick the sugar crisis, you may pick the foreign
exchange crisis, or power crisis and look at it individually, but it is good to put all this
in a certain framework, and see whether there is a common denominator to all that is
happening.

In 1977 Pakistan ceased to be a development state. From 1977 till today, Pakistan
is a national security state, where national security is the main objective of the
state. Development is no longer the main objective of the state and ‘national’ is
being increasingly defined narrowly from the perspective of the military.

Then came the 1970s. The 1970s represents the big push. Although the 1970s are very maligned but completely wrongfully. In fact, I consider the 1970s to be the golden period of Pakistan’s economic development and I’ll tell you why. Economic development has to be measured by how you are creating economic assets. If you look at yourselves and your own lives, a lot of you have completed your studies and working, what do you do? You create an asset from which you can derive an income in future years. The investment that has been made in yourself in terms of your education will give you salary or an income for the rest of the years. The house that you build for your own living, you’re actually earning rent, you’re not paying rent which means you’re saving that rent, so that’s an earning. In economics we call it imputed rent. – So economic development has to be measured by the extent of asset creation that takes place. It is this creation of assets that gives you a flow of income in the years to come.

But the 1970s saw an even higher push. For the first time in 1970s, capital goods
industries were introduced, very large projects were introduced, and the basis for
future growth was created. The steel mill was set up for example. If any of you are
ever interested, you can read the feasibility reports of the steel mill, you’ll actually see
why it was created. The plan for the steel mill was to create an engineering hub in
Dhabeji and Gharo. They are small towns near Karachi, as you go towards Thatta.
That steel would be produced here and this steel would become the basis of the
engineering industry that would be set up there. It didn’t happen, but that was the
objective. So, in the 70’s we saw the steel mill come up. We saw Port Qasim created
as an alternative port to Karachi. We had the Indus Highway constructed. A heavy
mechanical complex and heavy electrical complex, both in Taxila, were created.
These were complexes that could manufacture machinery.

The rate of growth of development expenditure, between 1972 and 1977 was 21
percent per annum. So every year the budget went up by 21% and the GDP
growth rate at that time was about 5 percent; which means that development
expenditure was 4 times the GDP growth rate; which means that the surpluses
that were being generated by the economy was being ploughed back into the
economy to maintain the infrastructure and to expand it. This reflected the
commitment of the state to development. This is what the development state is.

But the more significant thing about the 1980s, during the Zia regime, is that,
compared to the rate of development expenditure of 21% in the 1970s, in the 1980’s it
dropped to 2.7%. Whic means that the surpluses that were being generated in the
economy _ because of the output that came out of investment in the 1970s, because of
the steel mill, because of remittances, because of foreign aid, even by printing money
or loans _ was not being ploughed back into the economy. We were not reinvesting.

50

Feela bro!

Your argument is very clever and shows your debating skills. However debating in favor of socialism will get you nowhere. The whole world knows now that socialism has been an utter failure.

Free market is not getting a good report card lately. But if one looks at longer term trends, modern free market has survived for 200 years and it has come out way ahead. No wonder two biggest socialist countries China and India have ditched their past policies and moved on.

As far as Russians are concerned, if not for oil, their economic-lives would be lower than Somalians.

Coming back to Pakistan, Bhutto killed the goose and took the few remaining golden eggs out. That's the only reason his period may look OK.

ZAB is not the only one to blame though. His socialist cronies, and future aulads of socialists all conspired to kill Pakistan's economic golden goose.

However the goose is dead now. It is really hard to find Pakistani businessmen are willing to commit to long term projects that span 25-50 years out.

The trauma of lynching (economically) of 22 families will remain with Pakistan for decades (if not centuries) to come. Our industrial class was very young so it could not survive the socialist axe.

There was a brief glimmer of hope during Nawaz Sharif's first term. Even though he wasn't able to convince the local businessmen but he was successful in foreign (especially Sahih Korean) companies to investments in the long term projects like Motorways etc. However Bhutto's daughter killed that goose too.

Thus your comparison of ZAB and Zia is at best myopic. Economies must be seen in the longer term trends. And in the longer trends, only Westward relationship will guarantee Pakistan's economic survival. Russians are economically unhelpful for Pakistan (to say the least).

Why Do Women Cry
51

I am not debating in favor of socialism or against capitalism. All I said was ZAB's Socialism was much much better than Mush's Capitalism. Common people were happy during ZAB's tenure. Secondly, a number of industrial projects, development infrastructure were initiated. (Read my previous post)

In his tenure Pakistan was truly a development country and now it has reduced to National Security State. Thanks to Mush for that. Anything happens in the world, you talk about 911 to Bombay massacre, it is always Pakistan to be blamed. Why?

Neither absolute capitalism nor socialism is good for the country. A mix of free economy with public service will be ideal for Pakistan. After Mush's turn around during 911 and kissing the $$ of Uncle Sam in war on terror, killing the Kashmir issue, ***Pakistan really does not need army any more. It should be cut down to 25% and ISI should be dismantled.* All these funds be directed to Healthcare, Education, Infrastructure, Energy, Drinking water, Population Control and Public Transport.

52

While what you say ir true to some extent, what also is true is that we need the army and a strong army at that. US and other countries are not going to help us if someone attacks us. The attack could come from India or some other country. There are no permanent friends and foes. Our current friends could be temted if we don'y have means to protect ourselves.
ISI is a different issue. While I do think that ISI officers who do their own thing and are hurting the country should be weeded out, but dismanting the ISI is not a solution. Intelligence act as eyes in case of conflicts and otherwise. The solutions suggested by you are not practical and look more as an act of revenge against the army and ISI. These 2 institutions are the backbone of our country and will remain so for foreseeable future.

Chai Pani and Corruption
53

Re: Why no serious effort to strenghten ties with Russia?

^^ I absolutely agree with Prince about army and ISI. There is a smear campaign against our national security institutions. It is a very well laid out plan. Dismantling these institutions will be suicidal.

No national security agency is perfect, think about RAW, CIA, Mossad, KGB (or its predecessor), BND etc. and tell me which of these has not its faults? National security comes first and I firmly believe that ISI is doing an excellent job!

As for Burqaposhx, I am sorry to say, our friend doesn't seem to know what he is talking about.

Ab yehi munasib hai
54

^^^^

25% army is more than enough to fight with Jehadis and for acting as mercenaries of Uncle Sam who is willing to pay for their food and clothes. We don't need huge army that is pure wastage of money.

As regard aggression by India, well the history shows that it was Pakistan who was the aggressor in previous three wars. Having nukes, India will think zillions times before it will attack Pakistan because it will then be a loose-loose position as a result of millions and millions of deaths, huge damage to infrastructure and polluted environment with radioactivity on both sides.

55

I agree there is no need to dismantle ISI but we do need to clip the wings it has grown on its own. We need to stop any foreign adventurism, they need to stop training any "private entities", no "non-state actors" allowed in the state etc.

56

How many of you Russian supporters are dying to get Russian citizenship (assuming they allow something like that)?

If you don't want to commit your future generations to Russian system, how on earth you want to commit Pakistan's future to Russia?

Funny that most of you are settled in the West and still sing Russian songs. This is called doghla pun.

The best time ever in Pakistan was under Prez. Ayub Khan. Read a bit before spreading false info.

57

Englighten with your wisdom on these two characters with proof. One was kicked out by Yahya Khan on gun point to his head and the other one was kicked out by Uncle Sam who appointed him 9 years ago :)

58

You do really like to mix everything with "you are settled in west", is there more that you can do? Please do try. I am personally against Arabs, do you see me crying Pakistan should cut ties with Arab countries? No, because that will harm many many Pakistanis and Pakistan economically. When we Pakistanis try to look for alliances with other countries it does not mean that we should go there and settle ourselves. I am sure if Pakistani businessmen get opportunity do business with Russians they will definitely go there.