Paradigm shift in Pakistan?

PERHAPS in addition to criticising Pakistan’s fence-and-mines-plan along the Afghan border, the UN and the Afghan government should have come forward with constructive ideas to choke the alleged flow of insurgents across the border. Since it’s the government in Kabul that points at the incursions as the basis of the biggest threat to its stability, its reaction that rather than the proposed approach, both countries should tackle “terrorists in a real manner” is that much more difficult to understand, especially since it stops short of elaborating on a viable alternative.
It is well-known that Afghanistan is littered with mines owing to the two decades or so of relentless war that ravaged it, so apprehensions about more mines at the borders can be understood. But to question the fence as a possible barrier between tribal populations with strong ties fails to drive the point home. Especially since Kabul blames the same ‘links’ for facilitating insurgents. It seems the Karzai administration is suddenly more concerned about preserving the strong tribal ties than stopping so-called terrorists crossing into Afghanistan — or it would have proposed a more viable solution along with the criticism.
It deserves appreciating that despite the continuous not-doing-enough charge, General Musharraf has perhaps the best record so far of the war-on-terror leaders. His jirga deal with the tribals and stress on a new approach of negotiating with the Taleban show he realises only too well the dangers of sticking with the current military-option-only policy — something that is lost on both the West and Kabul. Should the trend not begin to change now, all parties concerned stand to lose much more than just face stemming from policy-reversal.
It is also important to address accusations regarding the involvement of Pakistan’s security agency ISI in the Afghan scenario, something which both Washington and Kabul should be the last to question. Facts are facts and need voicing at least as many times as criticism that misses them. The void that the Pakistani establishment filled was created by America’s negligent departure from the region and the subsequent Afghan infighting of which the present government set-up was very much part. Cruel as the Taleban were, they did put an end to war and destruction that the present leaders did not care to then and cannot seem to now.
Rather than lean on Pakistan that has had the worst of both worlds — in dealing with Afghan refugees and sacrificing its own personnel for the terror-cause — the international coalition should learn from its experiences in the region. It’s high-time for the West to change gears in Afghanistan. Failing that, they should excuse Islamabad for crying de ja vu in the first place (they’ve seen a superpower fall here before) and we-told-you-so in the second.

A change in strategy

For Chinese automakers, making their brands known around the world has been a long-cherished dream, and this dream is gradually coming true thanks to their unremitting efforts. Nowadays, China is exporting its autos to Central Asia, Southeast Asia, South America and other regions. However, the export volume is still quite small. Notably, exports of Chinese brands to Western markets are almost nil. It’s clear that there is a big gap between China’s local brands and world-class labels. This gap results more from the automakers’ development strategy than from technical factors.
Five decades ago, China began to produce its own auto brands. But since China adopted the policy of reform and opening up in the late 1970s, the industry has turned to the strategy of exchanging access to the domestic market for foreign technologies, that is, linking up with multinational automakers. As a result, China has become a big workshop for Volkswagen, Honda, Toyota, General Motors and Citroen vehicles, which have gradually dominated the Chinese market.
In cooperating with their Chinese counterparts under joint ventures, foreign manufacturers did contribute to the rapid development of the Chinese auto industry and help it to become integrated with the global market, but this cooperation mode has no lack of negative influences. Since advanced technologies are seen proprietary, Chinese enterprises can only learn old technologies that their foreign partners no longer value, which are of little help to their self-development.
It’s clear that the strategy of “market for technology” has failed to provide core technologies for the Chinese auto industry. Moreover, while trying to digest and absorb the outdated technologies provided by their partners, a great many Chinese carmakers have given up independent research and development. The revival of Chinese auto brands started 10 years ago. It is in this period that some local brands, such as Chery, Geely and Byd, have gradually gained popularity among buyers with their compact cars.
Nowadays, the automobile brands produced in China fall into two categories. The first is foreign brands, which are produced by Sino-foreign joint ventures with technologies offered by international automakers. They hold the majority share of China’s auto market. But the local brands, with Chery as a representative, are catching up.
Influenced by the Chinese Government’s emphasis on creativity of the local industries as specified in the country’s 11th Five-Year Plan (2006-10), China’s auto industry is expected to change its old practice of “market for technology.” And while indigenous automakers are becoming increasingly strong, they, including many that previously relied heavily on imported technologies, have begun to strengthen independent research and development.
At the Beijing International Auto Show in November, Chinese local-brand automobiles demonstrated the significant progress they have made in performance, design, safety and user-friendliness. As a late starter, however, China’s auto industry still has much to do and a long way to go before it creates world-class brands. Especially, given the current situation, there is a big question about whether the industry will be able to shake off the strategy of “market for technology” in the near term.

—Beijing Review