C-Pak and USA’s Afghan Policy (2)

India has become very important tool in USA’s foreign policy. As has been stated in part (1) of this article, containment of China is no longer an objective of US’s Afghan policy. The USA knows they cannot contain China’s economic expansion and China’s political expansion which goes along-with economic expansion. The nuclear age does not allow US to contain China militarily as well.  However US can use its military power to have its share in the world’s economic development due to Chinese economic expansion. This consideration provides rationale of importance of India in US’s foreign policy in the region; US sees India’s military power, particularly naval power, as desirable addition to the US’s military capability. In return US is ready to accept India’s enhanced influence in the region, particularly in Afghanistan and South Asia. In this perspective, Pakistan should not expect any concession from India regarding Kashmir Dispute. On the contrary, it is combined strategy of US and India to destabilize Pakistan through Afghanistan; this destabilization policy aims at weakening of Pakistan’s role and central position in C-Pak project; it is where convergence of US’s and India’s interests occurs. However it may be appreciated US has accepted the reality of China’s economic rise and as such US would not hamper China’s way to economic progress, though US, like India, would like to curtail Pakistan’s central position in C-Pak project.

In other words, US’s expressed opposition to C-Pak is not US’s basic regional foreign policy consideration, though such opposition may be taken as a tool to achieve some foreign policy objectives; one such objective, as already discussed, is to curtail Pakistan’s centrality in the C-Pak project. Another such objective is to bring Pakistan into terms to settle Kashmir Dispute in India’s favor so that India should remain on US’s side in this international scenario in which India may change the side to become a part of C-Pak and abandon its role of China’s strategic competitor in the region.  It may be noted China also may not oppose US, if any move is initiated by US to settle Kashmir Dispute in India’s favor, because China’s interests, as a blossoming economy, are to have a conflict free neighboring area which is more conducive for propagation of Chinese trade and commercial interests. Pakistan would have to show greater resilience in opposing any such settlement of Kashmir Dispute, which goes against Kashmiri people’s interests.

Another objective behind US’s hostile statement regarding C-Pak may be to bring Pakistan into terms to acquiesce into US’s position and interests in Afghanistan so that US’s friendly coalition regime in Afghanistan may be established, and Pakistan’s friendly Afghan regime may be avoided. As stated earlier, if Pakistan concedes to US’s demands regarding Afghanistan, it would damage Pakistan’s central position of C-Pak and lead to enhancement of India’s political and commercial interests in the region. India is US’s strategic partner and as such India’s enhanced commercial and political influence in the region would be seen as duly sharing of C-Pak benefits between US, India, China and Pakistan; but, as mentioned earlier, this sharing would be at the cost of Pakistan’s commercial interests as well as Pakistan's and other regional Muslim countries’ long term interests regarding establishment of an Islamic block in the region. 

After accepting the fact that China has beaten US in terms of state’s economic strength and after changing its policy of containment of China through Afghanistan occupation, US has cautiously devised regarding Afghanistan such foreign policy objectives which do not run counter to interests of China and Russia. We may appreciate above discussed US’s objectives behind anti-C-Pak statements  do not run counter to interests of China and Russia; that is why China and Russia, so far, have not supported Taliban to the extent where Taliban may be enabled to flush out US’s forces from  Afghanistan, as Taliban had flushed out Russian forces from Afghanistan in the near past. A balanced Afghan regime, having no tilt to Pakistan, is in favor of China, Russia, USA and India because such Afghan regime may be used to propagate, on the one hand, trade and commercial interests between China, Russia and India by forcing Pakistan to open land routes between CAS and India, and, on the other hand, commercial interests of US in Afghanistan.

From the foregoing, we may conclude that Pakistan has to show its utmost strong resolve to protect its strategic and economic interests. The main driver of anti-Pakistan diplomacy is the US; the discussed anti-Pakistan objectives are basically US’s interests. It is US which is taking China and Russia along to implement its policy objectives; China and Russia cannot force Pakistan to acquiesce into US’s interests in Afghanistan. C-Pak project’s importance for China cannot be overemphasized; Russia also can avail the benefits of C-Pak. In this way, C-Pak limits China’s and Russia’s capability to force Pakistan to compromise its strategic and commercial interests. Pakistan does not have to be short-sighted to concede to US’s demand regarding Afghanistan and India (concluded).  

C-Pak and USA’s Afghan Policy (1)

One of the main objectives of USA’s occupation of Afghanistan was to contain Chinese economic and political expansion in the region. In year 2002, prospects of Chinese rise were bright but Chinese rise was not a reality yet. That is why USA’s efforts to contain China and to occupy Afghanistan for the purpose were understandable. But now in year 2017, Chinese economic and political rise is a reality; the USA’s occupation of Afghanistan is no longer a justifiable foreign policy option for containment of China.

In year 2017, China has surpassed US in terms of PPP based GDP which has reached to $23 trillion (approx) as compared to US’s $19 tn (approx). Already in year 2015, China’s total GNP (PPP) stood at $ 17.92 tn as compared to US’s $17.81 tn; China’s total reserves stood at $ 3.9 trillion as compared to US’s $ 434 billion; China’s growth rate at 7.4% as against US’s 2.4%; China’s FDI (inflows) at $ 347.85 b as compared to US’s $ 287.16 b; China’s exports at $ 2.34 trillion against US’s $ 2.34 trillion; China’s government revenue at $ 2.11 tn as compared to US’s $ 2.7 tn; China’s per capita income at more than 7000 $ as compared to US’s 54000$; China’s high technology exports at $ 560 b as compared to US’s $147 b; China’s energy consumption at 3034 Mtoe as compared to US’s 2224 Mtoe; China’s undergraduate enrollment at 24.68 m as against US’s 17.65 m; China’s hospital beds per 1000 were 3.8 and US’s were 2.9; China’s physicians per 1000 were 1.8 and US’s were 2.5.

From the figures given above, we can see China has overall surpassed US in economic strength. Though in terms of per capita income and total government’s revenues, USA is still ahead of China but keeping in view the fact that China’s growth rate is three times of that of US’s, the difference between government’s total revenues would be ended soon and gap between per capita income would also keep on reducing in coming years. With far ahead GDP (PPP) and fairly ahead GNP (PPP) and  nine times more reserves, China has beaten US in terms of state’s economic strength. Keeping in view China’s three times greater growth rate, this gap between economic strength of China and US would go on increasing with every coming year.  

Similarly China has enhanced its political influence in the region and this fact may be proved on the basis of China’s increasing political involvement in regional issues e.g. Afghanistan. China’s resolve to assert its sovereignty on disputed East China Sea, and China’s vigorous foreign policy through SCO, and Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank has caused expansion of China’s political influence in the region and beyond. Chinese strong economic and political presence in Africa is also a parameter of China’s ever increasing political influence.

 From the foregoing we may see that China has already expanded its economic and political strength in the region and beyond, and even has surpassed US in many areas of economic field. If US’s main objective behind Afghanistan invasion was to contain China economically and politically, that objective has already been foiled by China.

Now US’s presence in Afghanistan cannot be justified to the extent of US’s objective of containment of China. However relevance of US’s presence in Afghanistan still exists to forestall the possibility of C-Pak to be converted into basis of likely Islamic block in the region. A nuclear Muslim state like Pakistan which would be closely netted with Iran, Turkey, Afghanistan, CASs and Western Asian Gulf states through C-Pak may play a role to establish an Islamic block in the region. In order to forestall this possibility, US is trying to remove the centrality of Pakistan from C-Pak without damaging China’s economic interests- because US knows they cannot succeed in this plan without China’s support. That is why we see US- China making efforts together to solve Afghan issue. The US- China’s concerted efforts to solve Afghan issue may result in establishing such a regime in Afghanistan which may not allow CAS’s dependence on Pakistan and which may force Pakistan to open land routes between India and CASs so that CAS's likely dependence on Pakistan due to C-Pak may be reduced, and as a result Pakistan’s centrality in C-Pak may be removed. There is every likelihood that China would support opening of trade routes between CAS and India because China is enjoying trade surplus of more than $50 b with India and as such China would not oppose more trade openings to India.

From the foregoing one must not infer that Pakistan should start looking to China with distrust. Every country has its own interests; Pakistan’s role should be to reap as much benefits from C-Pak as possible and to poise itself to harvest even those benefits which are not intended to be given to Pakistan. An Economic and Political Islamic block in the region may not be intended result of C-Pak in view of China; but Pakistan and other regional Muslim countries are not bound to go by what is intended by China or US. Pakistan should see US’s brokered peace initiative in Afghanistan in the light of US’s intention to remove Pakistan’s centrality from C-Pak. It is with this perspective that we can understand US’s insistence to get Pakistan fight against the Afghan Taliban; US do not want to see an Afghan regime, even after induction of Taliban, which should favor Pakistan against India. Pakistan should show resilience for induction of its friends in Afghan regime to foil US’s nefarious designs. It is not only peaceful Afghanistan but also a friendly Afghanistan which is in Pakistan’s favor.

The US’s recent hostile statements about C-Pak are no more than a bargaining tool to get Pakistan and China concede to US’s demands in respect of C-Pak. The US, being aware of its declining economic position, may not be ignorant of C-Pak’s importance to accrue economic benefits for the US. Whatever is the result of US’s current policy towards C-Pak –whether US fails or succeeds- there is every likelihood that US would become a part of C-Pak in future (continued).

State and Majority Will of the People (2)

In this part we would see how strong state and non-state institutions may be developed in a Muslim society generally and in Pakistan particularly. In part (1) we have seen that all state and non-state institutions in  Islam have to be in line with  implicit will of the majority Muslims.  No state or non-state institution has right to dictate/ rule the other state or non-state institutions in violation of  majority will of the Muslims, and majority will regarding any state or non-state institution would be determined through whether or not creation of such state or non-state institution was approved by the implicit will of the majority Muslims.  A government- which is only one state institution among many other state or non-state institutions- cannot rule/dictate other state or non-state institutions, in violation of majority implicit will of the Muslims; if government dictates/rules other state or non-state institutions in violation of majority implicit will, such rule would be called ‘Dictatorship’.  If a government acts in violation of majority implicit will of the Muslims, such government would cease to represent the Islamic state and the Islamic state would stand transferred from such government’s hands to hands of majority Muslims because an Islam state is the second name of majority will of the Muslims. In other words, if we want to establish an Islamic state, we would have to ensure that the government – which is itself a state institution- should not dictate/rule other state or non-state institutions in violation of majority implicit will of the Muslims; and if we want to keep the government away from such violation of majority will of the Muslims, we would have to establish strong state and non-state institutions.

We have seen in part (1) that majority will which approves creation of state or non-state institutions is actually implicit majority will of the Muslims/ people. Even if an institution is created by explicit will of the people, each and every individual of a nation does not participate in creation of whole institution. For instance, every single voter may vote for electing a single member of an assembly, but every voter cannot elect every member of the assembly. However all voters, if they approve election of all members of the assembly, may grant their implicit consent for creation of such assembly. In the same way, it is majority Muslims’/peoples’ implicit will which approves creation of all state and non-state institutions though every individual of the approving majority has not participated in the creation of those state or non-state institutions.  In other words, majority will of the people/ Muslims is actually majority implicit will of the Muslims/ people. It may also be appreciated implicit will of the people/ Muslims does not necessarily mean that implicit will is in line with true aspirations of the people/Muslims. I mean it is quite possible that people/Muslims are giving implicit approval for something but that something is not fully in conformity with aspirations of the approving people. For instance we vote for a candidate whom we do not like fully. Actually Implicit Will of the people is what is practically shown by the people impliedly: peoples desires which are not practically manifested are not peoples' implicit will. That is why peoples' implicit will may be formed through force as well.

There is no second opinion that state or non-state institutions survive on the peoples’ active support. In order to enable state or non-state institutions to avail active and fully peoples’ support, such institutions should be in conformity with the peoples’ aspiration so that people/Muslims may protect such institutions from dictatorship of the government, or if state, in case of the government’s violation of majority will of the people, is shifted into hands of the majority people/ Muslims, the people/ Muslims should be willing to restore the state in its original form (and such a process is more likely to be peaceful); otherwise, people may proceed to rebuild the state according to their aspirations, instead of  restoring it  in its original form, and such a process is more likely to be violent. In short, strong institutions in a state or society can be developed only if such institutions are in conformity with aspirations of the people.

In case of Muslim states, state institutions, though are based on implicit majority will of the people, are not according to religious aspirations of the people. In order to make state or non-state institutions strong ones in an Islamic state/society, such institutions have to be in conformity with religious aspirations of the Muslims.

In the following lines we would discuss how strong state and non-state institutions may be established in a Muslim society generally and in Pakistan particularly.

In economic field the greatest challenge faced by Muslim societies is how to get rid of interest and establish an interest free economy. Amazingly Allah has Himself given a solution of the problem. The following verse tells how interest free economy may be developed. Allah say:

 “Allah diminishes interest and gives increase to charities/ ‘sadaqat’. And Allah does not like every sinning disbeliever” (Al-baqra-276).

This verse tells us that Allah takes away His blessings from ‘interest’ and adds His blessings to ‘sadaqat’; it means interest system can be destroyed by adopting system of ‘sadaqat’ (this interpretation has been taken from Prof. Ahmad Rafique Akhtar and I agree with it).

Therefore the best way to get rid of interest based economy is to establish ‘sadaqat’/ charities based economic system. For the purpose, the government may establish a ‘sadaqat’ bank which should extend interest free loans to the needy people. The sources of funds of the ‘sadaqat’ bank should be peoples’ sadaqat deposited with the bank along-with the government’s contributions. But the problem is people do not trust governments; they would not deposit their sadaqat/ charities with such a bank which is a state institution. This problem may be solved by making the bank a public private partnership.

 Already in the article https://secondriseofislam.blogspot.com/2013/04/institutionalization-of-positive-social.html we have seen that the best performing state institution may be constructed by combining the state institution with a non-state institution. This process is what we call in modern terminology as public private partnership. In the same article we have also seen that state institutions are always vested with legal powers and non-state institutions are those which are not vested with legal powers. One way of making partnership between state and non-state institutions is to vest the non-state institution with duties to oversee the working of the state institution along with providing required input; but confining the legal powers of decision-making to the state institution only. Another form of partnership between state and non-state institution may be to vest the non-state institution with the functional decision making (relating to functions of the institution) whereas leaving the legal powers with the state institution. 

In order to mitigate peoples’ distrust in a state institution, the proposed ‘sadaqat bank’ may be made a public private partnership leaving all functional decision making with the private directors, and leaving legal powers with the official director only to the extent of maintaining accounts according to official parameters and making recovery with the consent of the private directors. The private directors of the bank may be drawn from top philanthropists having work experience in the relevant field. What is more important is the ‘sadaqat bank’ should work more like a social welfare organization and lesser as a state institution. Once established and start working successfully, such bank would have no dearth of funds.
People would like to deposit not only their ‘sadaqat’ but also their zakah funds with this bank and such zakah funds may be disbursed to the specified classes but  for the specified purposes i.e. income generating purposes. The main focus of ‘sadaqat bank’ should be elimination of interest from the economy; for the purpose, the main target of the bank should be to set up petty, small and medium businesses through lending interest free loans. It may be appreciated that, though beneficiaries of zakah are specified, the beneficiaries may be bound to consume the loan funds for income generating purposes/ businesses.

One of the categories for which zakah funds may be utilized is 'fee sabilillah'. For this category of zakah utilization, beneficiaries are not essentially specified; for instance if I fix a tube-well 'fee sabilillah' for people to drink water, the water may be used by the poor as well as the rich people. That means in this case beneficiaries are not specified. Under this 'fee sabilillah' category of utilization of zakah funds, we may disburse zakah funds for elimination of interest- elimination of interest is very much 'sabilillah'. In other words we may utilize zakah funds for elimination of interest by setting up petty, small and medium businesses through lending interest free loans to the poor as well as not poor people.  I think there is no harm in disbursing zakah funds through loans; because Quran and Hadith do not bind to transfer ownership of zakah money to the beneficiary ( particularly we cannot transfer ownership to the beneficiaries in many cases of utilization of zakah funds for 'sabilillah') though ownership may also be transferred in cases where we can do it; but transfer of ownership is not compulsory. However ownership of contributor would be ceased, after he has deposited his sadaqah/zakah with the proposed 'Sadaqah Bank'. The beneficiary of sadaqat other than zakah are not specified; such funds also may be loaned to set up small and medium businesses or to small and medium businesses  already established (continued).