This is not the first time that our economy had collapsed because of our own wars. But interestingly enough, every time we had fought somebody else’s war, our economy had performed like a tiger and at times, even when wars were fought too far away from our boundaries. The three-year Korean War in the early 1950s is a good example of how a distant war had helped boost our economy. Jute was in great demand during this war and we being one of the world’s largest exporters of the golden fibre made huge windfall gains by meeting this demand. It is another story that the money earned from export of East Pakistan’s jute was spent on West Pakistan, sowing the seeds of mistrust between the two wings very early in the day that finally led to the country’s dismemberment in 1971. Our economy made further gains when we signed two regional defence pacts with the US (Cento and Seato) in the mid-1950s to jointly contain the presumed expansion of Soviet communism and Chinese socialism.
But the three wars that we fought against India — the one in 1965, next in 1971 and the third fought on the Kargil heights in 1999 — had proved to be too costly for our economy. It was mainly the post-1965 war related socio-economic and political crises that had led to the 1971 war which further aggravated the economic environs forcing the residual Pakistan to suffer economic stagnation for the next five years. And by the time the Soviet Union had invaded Afghanistan in late 1979, our economy had almost nosedived. But suddenly, it went spiralling up as we agreed to fight the US war as a frontline state of the free world against the occupying Soviet troops in Afghanistan. For the next nine years, as the war raged on across the Durand Line, Pakistan’s economy grew at the rate of six per cent per annum on an average thanks largely to the almost $100 billion or so unencumbered that came our way from all over the world. When General Zia died in an air crash in 1988, there was nothing on the ground to show where all that money had gone. Next, perhaps, egged on by a false sense of invincibility ensuing from a self-serving notion of our role in the Soviet collapse, we chose this juncture to launch our own two low-intensity wars, one on the side of the Taliban against the Northern Alliance and the other on the side of Indian Kashmiris against the occupying troops.
As if on cue, the US chose the timing to invoke the Pressler Amendment against Pakistan for crossing the nuclear red-line. And Washington soon followed up by turning the country into one of the world’s most sanctioned countries after Libya because of our nuclear tests and the Kargil war. But as soon as former president Pervez Musharraf agreed to join the US-led war against terror in late 2001, our economy began picking up once again showing a six per cent growth rate per annum on an average during the next eight years thanks to the inflow of generous compensatory US dollars only to take a nosedive once again as someone else’s war increasingly became our own by 2010.
Published in The Express Tribune, December 10th, 2014.
Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.
COMMENTS (10)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
It is time that Pakistanis grew a spine and stood on their own two legs, rather than being a rentier state with a mercenary army fighting other peoples wars. It will lead to true progress, rather than fake, pumped up economic figures based on doles from other states.
This article was partially correct, bur very, very slightly. Nobody except for a small minority has ever made a profit out of war. For example in 1066 William and a few robber barons stole the whole of England, and their descendants today still own in excess of 80%. If one looks at modern warfare the governments use a few fudged figures to indicate the economy is doing well, but basically about 5% do OK, and the other 95% have to pay the bill. When the US decided to invade Iraq for the third time the board room of Lockheed Martin opened the champagne bottles, but the infrastructure suffers, taxes inevitably go up, and many areas such as health care deteriorates. Exactly the same thing occurs in Pakistan, which has a huge military budget, and basically has been at war since partition. City facilities leave much to be desired, but the countryside is even worse. Pakistan has state-of-the-art military equipment, but cannot satisfactorily supply water to many of its people. One could go on indefinitely, but I think the point is made. War is never profitable for the majority of people.
There is no denial on the connection and bondage between the two variables. War has an direct impact on the economy of the country. But in case of Pakistan its Geo-strategic importance and its status of nuclear power worth mentioning here. Being front line ally in war against terrorism on the behalf of USA have never been appreciated by the USA. Pakistan for making its economy stabilized can use all resources available to it, it can extend trade options, and remould its economic policies in the favor of the country.
There is a strong connection between war and economy no doubt as we have Soviet example. But in Pakistan case, it is almost anti clock wise. The primary reason is “Pakistan’s Geo strategic Compulsion”. Whatever Pakistan did until today, all are evolved around its geographical security questions. Supposedly if Pakistan is not surrounded by ever historic rival India and war ridden land of Afghanistan, picture would be absolutely reversed. It is the transnational elements which actually threatens Pakistan intra-state security at large and question the security situation.
Basically the author is using constructs to assume/claim that Musharraf's period growth did not exist on its own merit and it fell into these distinct periods that the author spoke about. The interesting thing is that he is bracketing 2002 to 2010 as one booming period of 8 years, when the reality is that 2008 to 2010 was a time of regression and not much different than the economy dullness that exists today. Yes, terrorism did play a role, but don't forget that 2004 onwards, and even as far back as 2002, attacks had become commonplace, though more on foreigners in 2002 (remember the French naval deaths and the Chinese engineers dying, among others). 2007 was as bad a year as any. However, the economy did quite well during that time as well. Draw whatever conclusions you want from that but there is a history of bias against Musharraf from this respected author.
Co basically Pakistani economy has always been dependent on wartime grants from other countries and have no good competitive industry otherwise
It was always clear that Pakistan's "great economic strides" have always been US and western nations dole outs. Even otherwise Pakistan has the practice of lying over economic figures, Most of the times it spikes by a great extent.
So the moral of the story is that you can set your neighbors house on fire and enjoy the show for a while, but your own house will catch fire eventually!
Every columnist from Pakistan takes great pride writing about 'fighting the Soviets' or 'Pakistan brought down the Soviet superpower'. Here too the author has claimed "we agreed to fight the US war as a frontline state of the free world against the occupying Soviet troops in Afghanistan". 'Front line state of the Free World'? Really? The facts are people of Afghanistan fought the Soviets with US supplied weapons. Pakistan acted as a middle man or a transporter of US weapons to Afghan fighters. For this Pakistan demanded, received and pocketed an attractive commission. Honestly, when you look at it this way, much of the shine comes off the fairy tale.
So in a nutshell, you benefitted from other wars e.g Korea, which is natural.
When you went to war yourself, you caused your economy harm, again understandable
When you went to war as someone's proxy, the economy boomed, again obvious.
So in summary, for a strong economy, sell to those at war, don't start local wars and allign with wealthy paymasters.
My advice is Pakistan has a huge young population, this will be an asset or a burden, if you invest in education, Pakistanis will be admired worldwide, if not you will create a swamp where the monied and educated will flee.
Moderator, have been polite and factual, please allow through.
Thanks