Saturday, 29 April 2023

Saudi-Iran Peace: Prospects for Pakistan and the region

In a world where people are unfortunately no longer used to receiving good news, the renewal of diplomatic relations and the establishment of peace between the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Islamic Republic of Iran, after years of animosity and proxy wars, is a welcome and extraordinary development on both regional and global level. The significance of this achievement cannot be overstated. The entire Muslim world has awaited this momentous event since the Iranian Revolution, and it has been made possible by the People's Republic of China, an outcome that no individual could have foreseen. The implications of the Saudi-Iranian peace accord are manifold, with potentially positive changes for multilateral relationships, as well as geopolitical and geoeconomic contexts, particularly in the case of Pakistan.













Role of China as world leader

The unexpected and noteworthy progress in the relations between Saudi Arabia and Iran was made feasible due to China's arbitration. While influential nations have historically engaged in power politics and pursued the strategy of fragmentation, China, in contrast, acted differently. By facilitating the historic peace accord, China emerged as a global power that prioritized promoting peace and amicable relations over the practice of divide and rule. China conveyed a message to the world that peace and cordiality, rather than conflict, are advantageous for all parties involved. While some may speculate about China's expansionist intentions behind the arbitration, overall, this is a commendable stride towards positive development.

Prospects for Pakistan

The potential for a Saudi-Iran peace accord is of significant importance for Pakistan, given its amicable relations with both nations. Pakistan's oil dependency primarily lies with Gulf countries, particularly Saudi Arabia, resulting in exorbitant transportation costs and high consumer prices. Moreover, the country's electricity production, up to 70%, is reliant on oil, leading to its availability at steep prices for consumers. Consequently, this has fueled Pakistan's economic crisis, with 90% of government subsidies utilized to repay the power sector's circular debt owed to independent power producers. Despite the fact that purchasing oil from Iran could be more affordable, Pakistan has been unable to secure such a deal owing to Saudi Arabia's historic antagonistic relations with Iran. The recent détente in relations between the two nations, however, provides hope that Saudi Arabia would withstand the pressure, and would not take a hardline on Pakistan purchasing oil from Iran, thus paving the way for completion of the Pakistan-Iran Pipeline and importation of Iranian oil. The acquisition of oil from Iran could alleviate, if not completely resolve, Pakistan's economic challenges.

Furthermore, the Sunni-Shia schism that has characterized the Saudi-Iran rift has spilled over into Pakistan also. With diverse communities comprising Sunnis, Shias, and other sects, the escalation of conflicts between Saudi Arabia and Iran has resulted in Sunni-Shia riots, sectarianism, and religious disharmony in Pakistan. With the new improved relations between the two nations, it is expected that tensions between the Sunnis and Shias in Pakistan will ease, enabling these groups to coexist harmoniously.

End of proxy wars in Middle East

The decades-long hostility between Saudi Arabia and Iran has not only resulted in their own suffering but also caused the loss of millions of innocent lives, homes, children, and loved ones in their proxy wars. Despite their rivalry lasting over four decades, the two nations have never engaged in an actual battlefield confrontation. Instead, they have fought on the battlegrounds of Yemen, where Iran supports the Houthi rebels, and the Yemeni forces have the support of the Saudi government. Unfortunately, the Yemeni people have borne the brunt of this proxy war, suffering significant losses in terms of lives and properties, while Saudi Arabia and Iran have experienced minimal losses. This is just one example of how countries such as Syria, Qatar, Lebanon, Libya, Sudan, and others have been adversely affected by the proxy wars between these two nations. However, thanks to China's efforts to foster a cordial diplomatic relationship between Saudi Arabia and Iran, these wars may finally come to an end, providing much-needed relief to the unfortunate citizens caught in the crossfire.

 How Israel sees Saudi-Iran peace?

While the international community may view the potential reconciliation between Saudi Arabia and Iran in a favorable light, the same may not hold true for Israel. Israel has historically taken a pro-Saudi Arabia stance while simultaneously opposing Iran, citing their support for Hamas and Hezbollah against Israel. Israel has accused Iran in the past of providing weapons and strategic assistance to Hamas via the Mediterranean in the West Bank. The resumption of diplomatic ties between Saudi Arabia and Iran may not align with Israel's national interests, as they are apprehensive about Iran's increasing regional influence. Iran is a significant regional power and has always opposed Israel's presence in Palestine. Israel may perceive Iran's growing influence as a potential threat to its interests, particularly as they believe that Iran's support for Hamas and Hezbollah could result in increased resistance to Israel's expansion in the region.

Conclusion

To sum up, the revival of diplomatic relations and establishment of peace between Saudi Arabia and Iran is a historic achievement that has the potential to bring positive changes not only in the region but also globally. The role of China in brokering this landmark peace deal highlights its role as an emerging world leader, and the importance of peaceful coexistence among nations. The prospects for Pakistan are significant as it could potentially solve its economic crisis and alleviate sectarian tensions. Moreover, the end of proxy wars could bring much-needed relief to the citizens of countries that have suffered due to the rivalry between Saudi Arabia and Iran. However, it remains to be seen how Israel will react to this development, as it has always held an anti-Iran stance. Overall, the Saudi-Iran peace deal is a step towards a more peaceful and prosperous world, and it is a welcome development that should be celebrated by all those who value peace and stability.



Friday, 28 April 2023

Why the IMF is not giving loan to Pakistan?

Over the last six months, the government of Pakistan has exerted considerable effort to secure an agreement with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to acquire a loan worth $1.2 billion. As part of the negotiations, the IMF has mandated various measures, including the elimination of subsidies and an increase in oil and power prices, which the government has dutifully implemented. Additionally, the IMF has demanded sovereign guarantees from other nations, which Pakistan has also provided. Despite these earnest efforts, the IMF has yet to finalize the loan agreement, leaving Pakistan's financial situation in a state of panic. The pertinent query that arises is: notwithstanding the government's compliance in augmenting inflation, phasing out subsidies, hiking oil and power prices, and providing sovereign guarantees, why is the IMF reluctant to grant the loan to Pakistan?

Several factors may be contributing to the IMF's reluctance to grant the loan to Pakistan. One possible reason is that the IMF claims the previous loan agreement made with the government of Imran Khan was violated when his tenure was put to an end by a vote of no confidence in April last year and replaced by the PDM alliance headed by PM Shahbaz Sharif. Consequently, the IMF may be hesitant to consider Pakistan's loan request keeping in view the past track record of loan agreement.

Secondly, the IMF is closely monitoring of the country's political landscape. The IMF is well aware that the current government's tenure is set to end in August, and general elections are scheduled for October or November. The Fund may be uncertain whether the current ruling government will remain in power, given the current popularity of Imran Khan. As a former prime minister and a possible candidate for PM in the upcoming election, Khan has a history of trust deficit with the IMF due to his government's violation of the previous loan agreement. This could also be a contributing factor to the IMF's reluctance to release the loan.

The denial of the loan request on seemingly trivial grounds may not be the only hindrance to concluding the agreement. There exists a significant factor impeding progress, wherein the International Monetary Fund (IMF) may be opposed to the completion of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) project, and instead urging the country to push back on it. In a report published by the IMF in September of the previous year, it was stated that China constitutes 30% of Pakistan's foreign debt, and the country should request China to restructure the debt instead of going to the Fund. Subsequently, some members of the Pakistani media echoed the sentiment, opining that China should assist Pakistan. It was observed that China extended a $2 billion loan to Pakistan in response to the report's publication.




Although the International Monetary Fund (IMF) claims to maintain impartiality and depoliticization when interacting with all governments, regardless of their international stature, its actions may suggest otherwise. For instance, Ukraine, which currently faces a conflict with Russia, recently secured a $15.6 billion Extended Fund Facility (EFF) agreement from the IMF. However, it remains unclear whether Ukraine will overcome the ongoing conflict and would be able to repay the loan. On the other hand, Pakistan, which is not involved in any war, presents a more stable and secure position in terms of loan repayment, while it keeps on imploring for only $1.2 billion. This observation leads to the conclusion that the IMF may exhibit political bias, with the United States as the most prominent influencer as having the most contribution towards it.

The actions of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) suggest that the United States, which holds a significant influence in the organization, does not desire the success of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). This is due to the ongoing Cold War between China and the US, and the US's reluctance to allow China to connect with other countries through the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), of which CPEC is a landmark project. If CPEC proves successful, it could motivate other countries in Europe, Africa, and the Middle East to become part of the BRI, which is not in line with US interests. Additionally, the US expects China to bear the burden if Pakistan's economy defaults, rather than the US itself. Hence, the recent IMF report on Pakistan's economic situation appeared at a critical juncture, implying that the US is using the IMF as a means of pressuring Pakistan to discontinue the CPEC project and halt Chinese investment. However, the current government remains resolute in its commitment to the continue the project, recognizing it as the sole means of reviving the country's economy.


To sum up, the IMF is postponing the provision of a relief package to Pakistan primarily because the US desires Pakistan to scale back the CPEC project, and if not, to limit the project's progress so that if Pakistan suffers any economic falter, the burden should fall on China. Additionally, the US aims to reduce Chinese influence in Pakistan and impede the advancement of the Belt and Road Initiative.

 

Tuesday, 18 April 2023

Resurgence of Terrorism in Pakistan

Ever since the terrorist attacks on World Trade Center on 9/11, and Pakistan's alliance with the United States in the the subsequent War on Terror, this country experienced a surge in terrorist activities. It tragically lost innocent children of the Army Public School, witnessed destruction of schools, and gruesome slaughter of individuals in places like Swat, Waziristan, Bajaur, and Tribal areas. During this whole time, the masses grew accustomed to news headlines featuring bomb blasts, suicide bombers, and mass casualties. The sacrifices made by our armed and police forces will never be forgotten. However, in recent years, there has been a slight respite following successful military operations carried out by the army in various parts of the country. Nevertheless, we now see that terrorists are attempting to reemerge in various parts of the country. One might question the reasons behind the resurgence of terrorism in Pakistan.

In order to comprehend this inquiry, one must possess an understanding of the economic conditions prevailing in Pakistan vis-à-vis its alliance with the United States. The economy of Pakistan is based on conflict, wherein the presence of instability within its vicinity, coupled with its affiliation to the US, enables it to receive perpetual military and financial aid, consequently allowing for smooth economic operations. Similarly, the fight against terrorism domestically, involving the TTP and Haqqani Network, is also supported by the US through provisions of economic and military aid, thus averting potential default scenarios and precluding the need for solicitation of a $1.2 billion loan from the IMF.

Pakistan's participation in the War on Terror, in alliance with the US, was progressing seamlessly, and the country had been receiving substantial economic and military assistance until 2016, when the Trump administration saw the drafting of a new policy for South Asia. During the announcement of this new policy, President Donald Trump explicitly stated that despite having doled out billions of dollars to them (Pakistan), yet they were still harboring the very terrorists the US had been striving to capture. The irony is that how can one obliterate a source that has been a means of sustenance for them? Trump's astuteness in realizing Pakistan's duplicity regarding the alliance was noteworthy, and consequently, the flow of US aid came to a halt. Subsequently, in a mere seven years, the country's economic conditions have deteriorated to such an extent that it is currently on the verge of default. The government is now imploring the IMF to provide a loan of 1.2 billion dollars to revive the economy.

Pakistan is scheduled to repay nearly $22 billion in foreign debt and interest over the next 10 months in order to avoid default, as per data from the State Bank of Pakistan. However, the government has not formulated a concrete strategy to fulfill this obligation, and instead appears to be reliant on beseeching the IMF for support. The nation lacks any distinctive export or remittance resources to buttress its reserves.

At this point, the readers may have gleaned from the preceding discourse that, left with no viable alternative to sustain their war-driven economy and repay import credit bills, some shadowy actors have devised an innovative scheme to rekindle terrorism within their borders. This would ostensibly provide them with a pretext to engage in anti-terrorist operations within the country, knowing that the US has traditionally been a staunch supporter of war against terrorism. As a result, the US would once again start sending financial and military assistance, but that would eventually help rebound the economy. There appears to be no motive behind the resurrection of terrorism other than to restore the previously halted influx of dollars, which occurred during the tenure of Donald Trump. These terrorist organisations are the strategic assets that come to action at a time of need, just as a scenario has erupted for the government. The Foreign Minister, Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, has repeatedly implored the United States to support Pakistan in its fight against terrorism in several of his addresses.

Some readers may disagree with this perspective, but there is substantial evidence to support the notion that Pakistan has historically relied on its alliance with the United States for a smooth-running economy. With the exception of the 1970s, during which Pakistan shifted its foreign policy towards the Soviet Union due to being left alone in two major wars with India by the US and, the socialist tendencies of Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, Pakistan has maintained a close alliance with the US. This alliance has allowed Pakistan to remain of strategic importance to the US, with the latter providing both financial and military assistance to Pakistan, primarily to combat communism and to aid them against the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan. As previously discussed, the US has also extended aid to Pakistan in the war on terror. Following the cessation of US financial assistance, some clandestine groups within Pakistan are resorting to terrorism, sacrificing their own citizens and using their own territory to convey the message that they are facing renewed terrorist activity and require US assistance. For instance, over 100 policemen were killed in a bomb blast at Peshawar police line. Militants are now being installed in the hilly areas of Swat. Sources have confirmed that certain obscure forces are pressuring the Gujjar community of the hilly regions of Swat to aid the Taliban in settling in the area and are threatening them with dire consequences if they do not comply.

Nevertheless, the people of Pakistan are now well aware of the devious schemes being employed in the guise of terrorism and will not permit their loved ones to be sacrificed, their homes destroyed, and their land occupied by the so-called turbaned mullahs. Nor will they be swayed by the outbursts of these mullahs. Pakistanis are a peace-loving nation and yearn for tranquility. They have already suffered great losses in terms of lives and property and are unwilling to tolerate any more. Consequently, the decision-makers of this country ought to devise a more pragmatic and sincere means of extricating the country from its economic quagmire, rather than resorting to the bloodshed of innocent Pakistanis.

 

 

Saturday, 15 April 2023

Judiciary parliament Showdown in Pakistan

Pakistan has been afflicted with numerous crises since its inception, and it would not be an overstatement to suggest that the country has been in a perpetual state of crisis. Whether it was the constitutional crisis that ensued prior to the enactment of its first constitution, or the democratic crisis that reared its head during every election or dissolution of assemblies, Pakistan has been embroiled in crises of various kinds. More recently, the nation has experienced a novel form of judicial crisis which bears semblance to the one that unfolded during the Musharraf regime, pitting the then Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhary against General Pervez Musharraf, ultimately leading to the latter's resignation from the incumbent office. Currently the judicial conflict in Pakistan revolves around a dispute between two incumbents: Prime minister Shahbaz Sharif and Chief Justice of the apex court Umar Ata Bandial.

The recent crisis ensued following the announcement by the Election Commission of Pakistan on March 22nd that it would be unable to hold elections in the provincial assemblies of Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. This was attributed to the dire economic situation in the country and a paucity of funds. In response, the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf filed a petition in the Lahore High Court contesting the decision of the ECP. During the course of the proceedings, the Chief Justice of Pakistan, Umar Ata Bandial, took Suo moto notice of the case and invoked Article 184(3) of the Constitution, thereby transferring the case to the apex court for adjudication. The Chief Justice of Pakistan constituted a seven-member bench to preside over the case at hand, which subsequently reduced to three members. The bench concluded that the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) had a mandatory duty to conduct elections within 90 days following the dissolution of the assemblies, irrespective of any other extenuating circumstances. However, Justice Qazi Faez Isa established a distinct three-member bench, which invalidated the invocation of Article 184(3) by the Chief Justice to adjudicate the case, deeming it unconstitutional, and called for a full court to hear the matter. Meanwhile, while these legal proceedings were underway, the ECP declared that elections would take place in October, notwithstanding the Chief Justice's decree. The Chief Justice, however, remained steadfast and ultimately issued a final verdict directing the incumbent government to hold the elections on May 14th. Despite this, the verdict was met with strong opposition from the parliament, which likened it to a judicial murder akin to the assassination of Zulfiqar Bhutto.

Apparently, a division has emerged within the judiciary, akin to political polarization that has engulfed the institution. Out of the fifteen justices comprising the apex court, some have demonstrated a pro-PTI stance, while others appear to be pro-PML(N), especially since the verdict favored the former and went against the latter. This has the potential to tarnish the judiciary's reputation for impartiality. Ideally, the judiciary is expected to remain independent of political influence and to make unbiased decisions. Nevertheless, there is a degree of merit in the decision taken by the CJ. Admittedly, the case was already being heard at Lahore High Court, but the CJ had to intervene via Suo moto since the proceedings were dragging on. Furthermore, the CJ constituted a larger bench of seven members instead of just three, which the judges had refused to hear, arguing that the case should first be heard at the High Court and only appealed to the apex court thereafter. However, the Chief Justice acted within his discretion by continuing with the three-member panel, as a larger bench or full-court hearing could still have been subject to abstentions by the judges. If that had happened and the panel had decided not to hold the elections, it would have amounted to a grave constitutional violation. While many may perceive the CJ to be biased, I believe that he is the guardian of the constitution.

The ongoing crisis persists as the stalemate between two incumbent offices continues. Prime Minister Shahbaz Sharif and his cabinet are resolute in their decision not to conduct elections under any circumstances, as they view the decision as partial and the case not heard by a full court. In the event that the federal government fails to hold elections within a reasonable time frame, Shahbaz Sharif may face charges under Article 6 for contempt of court and could face a lifelong disqualification. Meanwhile, the parliament has passed the "Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Bill 2023" with the objective of limiting the power of the Chief Justice, particularly with respect to Suo Moto notices. However, a petition has been filed challenging the legality of the bill, asserting that judicial independence is a fundamental principle enshrined in the constitution, and that the proposed bill seeks to undermine this independence. The outcome of this crisis remains to be seen.

The question at hand pertains to the legality of Suo Moto. Justice Qazi Faez Isa is a respected and reputable judge; however, had he not intervened by constituting a separate bench and denouncing the invocation of Article 184(3) as unconstitutional, the current crisis and division among the apex justices would not have emerged. Nonetheless, Pakistan is a country where even the most influential individuals can be coerced into performing extraordinary actions by those with a slightly greater degree of power. Currently, Imran Khan's popularity is at its zenith, and in such a scenario, if elections are conducted, there is little that can prevent his party from whitewashing the PDM nexus, particularly the PML(N). Irrespective of whether the dissolution of the assemblies was due to personal whim or other factors, a predicament emerged, and the assemblies were obligated to be re-elected within 90 days, as clearly stated in the constitution. Amidst all these developments, it is unlikely that Justice Faez Isa's intervention was a coincidence. Some invisible force is either prodding or compelling him to challenge the CJ, and the same may be the case with other judges. Nevertheless, Justice Qazi Isa may not be aware that aiding parliamentarians in passing a bill that regulates the power of the Chief Justice could backfire on him in the future. If he becomes the Chief Justice and seeks to take action against any wrongdoing by parliamentarians, his hands would be tied as, it is uncertain whether the senior most judges, excluding him, are not under the influence of the invisible forces.

In the midst of this triangular conundrum between the judiciary and executive, if the Supreme Court prevails and the federal government acquiesces to conduct the election, it would be a felicitous outcome for all parties except the establishment, who seek to subvert the democratic principles of the nation. The machinations of the establishment entail sowing discord between the two pivotal branches of government in order to maintain their covert dominion over the country. Therefore, the federal government and the ECP must fulfill their constitutional duties as directed by the Supreme Court, lest this crisis degenerates with each passing day. Any failure to comply by the federal government would solely benefit the establishment, leading to potential disqualification of PM Shahbaz Sharif and a diminution of the judiciary's prestige.

 

 

 

 

 

Wednesday, 12 April 2023

Can Pakistan break free from the IMF's shackles?

 Pakistan has been grappling with a protracted economic malaise for the last few years, characterized by a mounting inflation rate that has surged by nearly 50%. The nation's economic backbone is heavily reliant on debt and financial rescues, with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) holding the mantle of the primary creditor. The preceding administration of Pakistan Tehreek Insaaf inked a $6 billion pact with the IMF, spanning three years, but its impact on the country's financial woes remains unclear. Presently, the incumbent government is in discussions with the IMF for a $1.2 billion agreement aimed at stabilizing the economy, with the outcome anticipated imminently. The critical query at the crux of this matter is whether Pakistan can ever extricate itself from the shackles of IMF's influence.

One might ponder why the finance ministers of Pakistan, who have graduated from illustrious institutions such as Harvard, Cambridge, and MIT, are unable to steer the nation's budgetary affairs, whereas an average housewife in Pakistan can capably manage her household finances, despite the constraints of meager earnings. Can the administration not stipulate a revenue target and execute expenditures within the parameters of the budget, much akin to ordinary Pakistani housewives? Is it not feasible to establish a threshold beyond which certain expenses are prioritized over others? The answer to this conundrum is straightforward: third-world countries such as Pakistan are constrained by the Free-Market Economics framework, rendering it challenging for them to govern their international trade, even in the face of massive trade deficits. This model restricts the discretion of governments regarding trade policies, obligating them to align with the directives of the system, thereby placing the economic fate of the country in the hands of a third party. The third party then determines issues such as imposition of tariffs on international trade, commodity prices, taxation, and inflation rates.

Upon perusal of statistical data, it is evident that the current tariffs on international imports in our country stand at a mere 8.64%, in stark contrast to the exorbitant 46% imposed during the 1980s. This drastic decline prompts one to question the underlying factors that led to this phenomenon. The answer lies in the establishment of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in the early 1990s, which prompted advanced capitalist nations to eliminate trade barriers and expand their global reach. Pakistan's accession to the WTO in 1995 and its reliance on loans from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) come with the caveat that it cannot impede the principles of free trade espoused by the organization, thereby rendering it powerless to impose tariffs on imports and granting unrestricted access to foreign goods within its borders. Consequently, Pakistan’s dependence on the IMF for its economy and economic policies has led to the inability to earn any revenue from international trade.

Let us comprehend the operational mechanisms of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), its composition, the key actors that shape its policies, and why Pakistan finds itself in a perplexing situation. Primarily, it is crucial to acknowledge that the IMF is not a democratic entity. Rather, it is funded by governments of developed capitalist countries such as the United States, Japan, Germany, France, and the United Kingdom. The amount of funding provided by a country is directly proportional to the voting power it wields in influencing IMF policies. The IMF's Board of Governors comprises finance ministers of these advanced nations, who predominantly steer the fund's policies. These policies align with their interests, which entail the elimination of tariff barriers, thereby facilitating unrestricted sales of products manufactured in their respective capitalist countries worldwide. Astonishingly, no government holds sway over this framework. In the event that a country plunges into a debt crisis due to excessive importation of products from these capitalist nations, which it cannot repay, the IMF's lending program comes to its rescue with stipulated conditions. This policy mandates that the country cannot interfere with the laissez-faire economy. Consequently, the country becomes enmeshed in a vicious cycle of a debt trap, perpetually trapped in its clutches.

Why is Pakistan unable to break free from the constraints of the IMF? The predicament with the IMF's lending program is that the finances granted by it cannot be allocated towards developmental initiatives. In order to grasp this concept, one must fathom the structure of another financial organization, the World Bank. Similar to the IMF, the World Bank extends loans to its member countries, but with a different framework. The World Bank provides project-oriented finances to countries which, in turn, bolster their productive abilities. One such instance of this is the Tarbela Dam, which was financed by the World Bank. There are several other undertakings supported by this international financial institution in Pakistan. On the contrary, the IMF does not bestow loans for developmental projects. Instead, it disburses funds to cover a country's trade deficit. It is reimbursed for the imported goods and services that have already been purchased, thereby restoring international trade.

Let's talk about our future scenario with the IMF. If the current Pakistani government manages to secure a deal with the international financial institution and receives a whopping $1.2 billion, it may not necessarily mark a significant achievement for the administration. This colossal sum of money is unlikely to pave the way for prosperity in the country, nor will it be spent on public welfare or maintained in foreign reserves for an extended period. Instead, the borrowed amount will be used to pay off the countries from which Pakistan imports products. The funds will only serve to settle a few credit bills and facilitate international trade, but the cash will not linger in the country for long. Inevitably, after a few months, Pakistan will find itself grappling with the same trade deficit predicament, forcing it to seek another billion-dollar bailout from the IMF. This vicious cycle will ensnare Pakistan indefinitely, leaving the country in a perpetual state of financial dependency.

Is there a way to overcome this economic crisis plaguing Pakistan? Can Pakistan successfully rid itself of the influence of predatory lenders who shape the country's economic policies, leading to a burden on the common public in the form of exorbitant taxes and skyrocketing inflation? Indeed, there is a viable solution. Pakistan should impose a total ban on imports, with not a single dollar spent on importing goods. There must be a strict redline ensuring that expenditures do not surpass revenues, thus avoiding any budget deficit. While terminating agreements with independent power plants immediately will have serious repercussions, these agreements should be phased out gradually. Additionally, the public should exert pressure on the IMF, protesting against the inhumane inflation that has caused them immense hardships. If millions take to the streets, the IMF will be compelled to reconsider its austere policies and adopt a more flexible approach. By implementing these measures, Pakistan may hopefully break free from the stranglehold of the International Monetary Fund.


written in collaboration with and kind help from Dr. Taimur Rahman



Saudi-Iran Peace: Prospects for Pakistan and the region

In a world where people are unfortunately no longer used to receiving good news, the renewal of diplomatic relations and the establishment o...