Many assume that there is someone in Pakistan attending to policy issues etc and policy- making: that there are people dedicated to this process which comes from a coordinated effort. If this assumption was correct, being surprised, disappointed, or even outraged by the results would be entirely justifiable. But I find that this basic assumption is flawed. There is in fact very weak governance in Pakistan. In this situation policy-making will be exactly what we are seeing. There is no moral energy or commitment underpinning governance. The mental energy that there is, is focused primarily on staying in power. And power is seen primarily as a tool for self-enrichment and self-perpetuation.

This was probably always true, but to a degree. But in the last few years the following has happened.

  1. The last pretense of governance for public and national good has been shed.
  2. ALL centers of power are now in the money game together. This was true even earlier, but the naked money-grab was moderated by some minimal concern for the country, and also that the army and the politicians were in OPPOSITION to each other i.e while both of them wanted power and lucre, they were not seen to be on the same side. Today the old game goes on, but the two main forces are playing it in COOPERATION with each other.

This change is huge, and alters all power equations which were earlier taken for granted. Had this change been FOR the country and the people of Pakistan, it would have been called a revolution. But in its present motivation and manifestation, it may only be called the last sellout.

Apart from the above, there is another element in our mix of policy-making that just does not seem to square with reality.

The central assumption of all policy-making has to be that those making the policies are doing so for the higher good of their countries. If these people are incompetent, they will make and pursue the wrong policies. If they are halfway competent but not practical, they will perhaps make the correct policies, but which cannot be implemented. But for either of these two cases, a certain minimal level of dedication to a cause higher than personal interest must be presupposed.

And here lies the problem. From the track record of ALL the people at the helm , who are making policy in Pakistan, it is abundantly clear that they are moved more by personal interest than that of their country, and the latter may only weigh in when the two of them are in confluence.

ALL these people are involved in cases of mega corruption. This involves huge flows of money. These flows of money are easily traceable. Many of these flows can only be channeled through money-laundering. The U.S must have records of this activity. For decades now, the U.S intelligence has had such records pertaining to leaders of various countries, so as to be able to blackmail them in time of need. And in our case, the U.S has these records gratuitously and happily given to them, as our “leaders” are anyhow either American puppets, or in the very least, American-leaning. How then can our army and our government pursue policies which are in the interests of Pakistan but which clash with American interests?

This just does not measure up. This has happened in the past in other countries and we have seen the results–think Noriega, Jaime Roldos, or Omar Torrijos; or think Castro and Chavez–the first three are examples from among the many leaders that the U.S “disappeared”, and the last two from among those whom they have been trying to bring down, but have consistently missed.

Does it really appeal to you that Zardari, Gillani, and Kiyani have it in them to keep daring the U.S by following pro-Pakistan policies opposed to U.S interests, knowing full well that the U.S must have all the dirt on them, when money laundering happens to be an international financial crime?

This just does not measure up–and the only way it could, would be if the U.S is either too incompetent, or has become too forgiving; or it is too fearful, because the Zardari trio has secrets which could create problems for the U.S.

It is therefore my conclusion that our trio is accomplishing for the U.S, exactly what the U.S wants.

Pakistan seems to be on course to a controlled destruction, being ably guided by our leadership, which must remain in place to achieve this. The anti-U.S policies of our government seem to be a credibility-cover which coincides with the anti-U.S sentiment of the people of Pakistan. After all, except for this, where else do the government and people of Pakistan stand on the same platform!!