FuturePakistan.com

March 6 (Bloomberg) — Berkshire Hathaway Inc. Chairman Warren Buffett beat out Bill Gates for the top spot on Forbes magazine’s annual list of billionaires worldwide, ending a 13- year reign for Microsoft Corp.’s co-founder.

Buffett’s wealth increased $10 billion to about $62 billion in the 12 months through Feb. 11, mostly from a gain in his company’s shares, Forbes said in a statement released yesterday.

“He is the iconoclastic investor of his generation,” said Ken Murray, who runs Blue Planet Investment Management in Edinburgh, which oversees about $250 million in financial stocks. He doesn’t hold Berkshire. “The fantastic amount of wealth he has accumulated puts him up there with Carnegie and Morgan.”

The fortune of Gates, 52, rose $2 billion to $58 billion. The Microsoft chairman fell to third on the list behind Mexican telecommunications mogul Carlos Slim, 68, who has an estimated net worth of $60 billion.

Forbes’s list shows wealth expanding in emerging markets around the globe, with Russia overtaking Germany as the second- richest country in terms of billionaires, and 70 percent of newcomers from Russia, India, China and the U.S. In 2006, half of the top 20 billionaires came from the U.S. This year there were only four Americans.

Buffett, 77, is the biggest holder of Berkshire Hathaway’s stock with about 32 percent of the Class A shares as of July and 18 percent of the Class B shares as of Dec. 31, according to Bloomberg data.

4,700 Percent

The company’s Class A shares rose 28 percent in the 12 months ended Feb. 11. They now sell for $139,000 each, the most expensive on the New York Stock Exchange. The S&P 500 declined 6.9 percent in the period.

Berkshire shares rose 4,700 percent in the 20 years through the end of 2007, six times more than the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index, dividends included.

“Warren Buffett is a great example of an extremely smart investor who has stayed loyal to his valuation discipline,” said Simon Carter, who manages $3 billion at Aegon Asset Management in Edinburgh. “By taking advantage of the markets’ preoccupation with short-term issues during downturns, he has systematically reinvested his cash at very attractive rates of return over his entire career.” Aegon doesn’t disclose its investment holdings.

A year ago, in his annual letter to investors, Buffett said his method was to “be fearful when others are greedy, and be greedy when others are fearful.”

Greed and Fear

Berkshire Hathaway has a market value of $215 billion, ranking it 10th among the 500 largest companies by that measure, according to Bloomberg data.

Buffett built Omaha, Nebraska-based Berkshire Hathaway during the past four decades by investing premiums from insurers such as Geico Corp., National Indemnity Co. and General Reinsurance Corp. Buffett filed his first tax return at age 13, claiming a $35 deduction for the bicycle he used to deliver newspapers, Forbes said.

Gates in November donated $695 million worth of his Microsoft stake to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Shares of Microsoft, the world’s largest software maker, of which Gates owned 9.2 percent as of November, declined 2.7 percent during the period covered by the list.

Microsoft has a market value of $262 billion, ranking it seventh among the 500 largest companies. With dividends reinvested, the shares have gained 36 percent in the last five years, trailing the 76 percent increase in the S&P 500.

Slim, Mittal, the Ambanis

In 2006, Buffett earmarked more than 12 million Berkshire shares, worth $37 billion at the time, to charity, including the Gates Foundation, according to the Chronicle of Philanthropy. Steel magnate Andrew Carnegie, one of the richest men of the 19th century, gave much of his wealth to charity.

Slim, the son of Lebanese immigrants to Mexico, amassed his fortune building Latin America’s largest telecommunication carriers, according to Forbes.

Indian steel entrepreneur Lakshmi Mittal was fourth, and one of four Indians in the top 10, the magazine said. Estranged brothers Mukesh and Anil Ambani, whose father founded the Reliance Group of companies, were fifth and sixth, and Kushal Pal Singh, who heads property developer DLF Ltd., moved up 54 spots to eighth with $30 billion.

Ikea founder Ingvar Kamprad was seventh with $31 billion, making him the list’s top European, while Russia’s richest man, Oleg Deripaska, was ninth with $28 billion. Retired German supermarket mogul Karl Albrecht was 10th with $27 billion.

Yang Huiyan, Zuckerberg

There are 1,125 billionaires on the list from 54 countries and one principality, or 179 more members than a year ago, with a total net worth of $4.4 trillion, the magazine said. The average worth of a list member is $3.9 billion, or about $250 million more than last year. The top 20 members are worth at least $20.8 billion each, an increase of $3.3 billion.

The list also demonstrated the growing wealth of younger billionaires, with 50 members younger than 40, 68 percent of whom were self-made.

The average age dropped to 61, helped by Russia, where the average of billionaires is 46, and China, where the average is 48, the magazine said. China’s richest person is 26-year-old Yang Huiyan. She is the owner of property company Country Garden Holdings Co., listed at 125 with $7.4 billion.

The youngest member on the list was Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, 23, at 785 with $1.5 billion, the youngest self-made billionaire ever to make a Forbes list.

The world’s richest woman, France’s Liliane Bettencourt, the daughter of the founder of the L’Oreal SA cosmetics company, was 17th, with $22 billion. The average net worth of women on the list was $3.7 billion.

To contact the reporter on this story: Chris Dolmetsch in New York at cdolmetsch@bloomberg.net

The Antioxidant Vitamin - Vitamin C - by Gary Null, Ph.D.

Note: The information on this website is not a substitute for
diagnosis and treatment by a qualified, licensed professional.

In the 65 years since its discovery, vitamin C has come to be known as a “wonder worker.” It’s easy to see why: In addition to its role in collagen formation and other life-sustaining functions, vitamin C serves as a key immune system nutrient and a potent free-radical fighter. This double-duty nutrient has been shown to prevent many illnesses, from everyday ailments such as the common cold to devastating diseases such as cancer.

In the scientific world, the water-soluble vitamin C is known as ascorbic acid (meaning “without scurvy,” the disease caused by a vitamin C deficiency). We depend on ascorbic acid for many aspects of our biochemical functioning; yet human beings are among only a handful of animal species that cannot produce their own supply of vitamin C. Like these other animals, including primates and guinea pigs, we have no choice but to obtain this nutrient in our diet. Considering the many benefits vitamin C may provide, that mandate is deceptively simple.

How Does Vitamin C Function in the Body?

Much like the immune system itself, which operates at a cellular level, the hardworking vitamin C reaches every cell of the body. The concentration of vitamin C in both blood serum and tissues is quite high.¹ In fact, this nutrient plays a major role in the manufacture and defense of our connective tissue, the elaborate matrix that holds the body together. It serves as a primary ingredient of collagen, a glue-like substance that binds cells together to form tissues.

Vitamin C helps some of our most important body systems. First and foremost, it helps the immune system to fight off foreign invaders and tumor cells. Vitamin C also supports the cardiovascular system by facilitating fat metabolism and protecting tissues from free radical damage, and it assists the nervous system by converting certain amino acids into neurotransmitters.

The skin, teeth and bones also benefit from vitamin C’s collagen-forming and invader-resisting properties; this vitamin contributes to the maintenance of healthy bones, the prevention of periodontal disease and the healing of wounds. It even serves as a natural aspirin, of sorts, by combating inflammation and pain, according to Formula For Life. It accomplishes this task by inhibiting the secretion of the prostaglandins that contribute to such symptoms.²

What Biochemical Processes Require Vitamin C?

Collagen metabolism. Most of us know collagen as the much-promoted ingredient in our facial moisturizers and hand lotions. But the use of collagen in beauty and skin products only hints at the importance of this protein. The very structure of the body - the skin, bones, teeth, blood vessels, cartilage, tendons and ligaments - depends on collagen. And the integrity of collagen, in tum, depends on vitamin C.

Read the rest of this entry »

Pakistan is a very important country, not only in the subcontinent, but also in the world at large. It is the second largest Islamic country, with a population of 149 million. Its geo-strategic location places Pakistan on the crossroads of three important regions of the world, providing links to Central Asia, the Middle East, and Indian Ocean regions. Its proximity to Afghanistan and its nuclear weapon status increases its importance for the international community. The war against terrorism has further enhanced Pakistan’s significance.

There are many debates among contemporary analysts about the future of Pakistan. Some have projected it as a stabilizing force in the region, while others see it as a destabilizing country or even a failed state. The people who are disappointed with Pakistan argue that the present state of its politics, economy, and society as a whole indicate that the nation will not be able to survive in the future. To them, the political instability, feeble economy, and rising tide of Islamic militancy are major threats to the future of Pakistan.

People who are optimistic about the future of Pakistan argue that the country is moving forward toward a strong democracy, economic recovery, control of extremism, and national integration of its diverse population. They are of the view that democracy was restored in the country by elections in 2002. The economy is showing improvement after the structural reforms undertaken by the military government. They see the ban on extremist organizations by the Musharraf government as effectively controlling the rising trend of militancy. This analysis of Pakistani society will help in assessing the future of the country. I will examine three aspects of Pakistan in order to analyze the future: its politics; economy; and civil society—the most important factors for measuring the strength of any nation in the world.

Emerging from a History of Political Uncertainty?
Pakistan has always struggled with democracy since its independence in 1947. During a checkered fifty-six years of political life, there have been many changes in the government, ranging from democracy to dictatorships. The people of Pakistan have seen dismissals of democratically elected governments and the abrogation of the constitution. This has been a persistent problem, especially in the post-1988 period after democracy was restored in the country following eleven years of martial law under General Zia-ul-Haq. Pakistan has undergone these political crises because of two factors, both related to an ongoing tug-of-war between politicians and the military over ultimate control of the government. On the one hand, politicians have always blamed the military for its extra-constitutional role in politics. On the other hand, the military has blamed politicians for their misgovernance and corruption, justifying their martial rule as a means to rectify the situation. It must be noted here that most of the civilian governments in Pakistan were dismissed on charges of corruption.

There have also been confrontations between successive presidents and prime ministers over control of the government. The constitution of the country was amended many times, sometimes by the prime minister and at other times by the president, in order to shift the spectrum of power towards themselves. The most infamous example is the controversial 8th amendment introduced by General Zia-ul-Haq in 1985. When Zia-ul-Haq assumed power as military dictator, he amended the constitution of 1973, which declares Pakistan a parliamentary democracy in which the president would only be a titular head of state. But Zia-ul-Haq tried to establish his authority over the prime minister through the amendment. Nawaz Sharif discarded the 8th amendment when he was elected prime minister in 1997. He introduced the 13th amendment, through which he divested the president of his powers to arbitrarily dismiss the prime minister. Then, after the dismissal of Nawaz Sharif’s government in October 1999, the military government of General Musharraf again amended the constitution under the Legal Framework Order (LFO), restoring the power of the president to dismiss the prime minister. The army’s role in politics was further embedded under the LFO with the establishment of the National Security Council (NSC), the highest decision making body in the country. The NSC is headed by the president, with the prime minister and the three armed services chiefs as members. The NSC is supposed to make the most important internal and external decisions in the country during times of peace and war.

General Musahrraf retained power as the president under the controversial referendum held in July 2002. Parliamentary elections followed in October 2002, in which a democratic government under the Pakistan Muslim League Quaid-i-Azam (PML-Q) was established. After the elections, the opposition—comprised of the Pakistan People’s Party Parliamentarians (PPPP), Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) and Muthida Mujalis-a-Amal (MMA)—gave stiff resistance to General Musharraf, charging that he had assumed power for himself. Finally, on December 29, 2003, the parliament resolved the constitutional issue with the passage of the 17th amendment in the constitution. Under the amendment, the parliament has validated all the actions taken by General Musharraf since October 1999 and has elected him as president until 2008. The 17th amendment has, once again, made the president powerful vis-à-vis the prime minister, giving the former the powers to dismiss the parliament and prime minister arbitrarily.

On the broader political front, the future is cheerless, if not bleak. The components of a strong democracy are still weak in Pakistan. The political parties are not well organized and are still controlled by family, ethnic, regional, and religious politics. Cases of corruption have led to convictions of Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto, the heads of mainstream political parties PML-N and PPPP respectively, who have gone into exile. The PML-Q is considered to be a fragmented part of the Nawaz League and lacks strength in its organization. Regional political parties in Pakistan are also very weak. They have anti-government agendas and incite people based on allegations of exploitation and neglect by Islamabad. The remainder of the political spectrum consists of the Islamic parties, which have shown significant electorate in the recent elections. The MMA received 11 percent of the total votes in the elections held in 2002. These parties draw their support mainly from the North West Frontier Province (NWFP) and some areas of Balochistan. They are not very popular among the educated elite in Pakistan. This is clearly evident from the record of the votes they received in all elections held in Pakistan since 1988. Democracy will remain a cherished, but unrealized, goal in Pakistan unless the political parties are strengthened and democratized in a manner that transcends their present fractionalized composition. Moreover, the judiciary and press will have to play an active role in strengthening democracy in Pakistan. The present state of the judiciary is far from satisfactory and needs reforms, in order to ensure its independence. The press also needs to become an independent voice against injustices in society.

The Quest for Economic Stability
The second factor that will determine the future of the country is the economy. Pakistan has been struggling on the economic front since 1990. It has been unable to achieve macroeconomic stability due to a variety of factors. All of the usual indicators of macroeconomic stability have shown poor performance in the recent past, making the country dependent upon external financial resources. Thus, Pakistan is spending a large amount of its resources for non-development purposes. The nation accumulated most of its debt during the 1990s, compelling the country to allocate a major portion of its budget to debt service. The total external debt of Pakistan (including foreign exchange liabilities) more than doubled from less than $10 billion in 1980 to $20 billion in 1990. It subsequently more than doubled again to $42 billion in May 1998.

The 1990s is considered a “lost decade” in the economic history of Pakistan, because major damage was done to the country’s economic development during this period. The trade balance remained in deficit, with foreign direct investment on the decline in the country as a result of the policies pursued by the government. Institutions of governance failed in delivering goods and services to people, with poverty reaching the alarming level of 32 percent. In response, the military government of General Musharraf introduced major reforms in all sectors of the economy. As a result, the economy has shown recent improvement in all macroeconomic indicators. The trade deficit has been reduced to one billion dollars a year, foreign debt has been reduced to $32 billion and the growth rate of the gross domestic product has improved, touching the historic level of 5 percent per annum. Foreign investment has also shown growth, reaching one billion dollars a year, rising from under $500 million in the recent past. Foreign remittances have also improved, achieving the sum of $350 million per month, a significant improvement from the late 1990s. The current account is in surplus, a distinct improvement from the deficits of the last decade. Inflation remains contained at less than 4 percent.

Pakistan’s economy is still at the take-off stage and faces many challenges, among which are the following:

1. Poverty remains high in Pakistan. At least 32 percent of the total population lives below the poverty line. Although the present government has formulated a poverty alleviation strategy with emphasis on helping the poor, it is still short of tangible results.

2. Another challenge for Pakistan is to contain the high population growth rate of 2.6 percent, which is very high even among its peers in the developing countries. The high population growth rate is not only a burden on the limited economic resources of the country, but is also affecting the per capita income of the people. If Pakistan wants to have better per capita income and alleviate poverty, it has to control the rising trends in population.

3. Unemployment is also a daunting challenge faced by Pakistan’s economy. The official unemployment rate is around 10 percent, but underemployment is much higher. The government has yet to formulate an effective employment strategy specifically directed at job growth. It must create employment opportunities through better growth and investment policies.

4. Improving existing human development progress in the country is also a daunting task. Education, health, and nutrition facilities are inadequate in the country. Pakistan will have to improve its human development index in order to sustain satisfactory economic growth.

Given this scenario, Pakistan’s economic future will depend upon the interplay of three factors. First, the domestic political situation will be important for the economy. There is no denying the fact that the country has achieved macroeconomic stability in the present scenario, but to sustain it in the long run will be a major challenge. Macroeconomic stability will depend upon the continuity of economic reforms undertaken by the Musharraf government. These reforms have helped the country to cope with financial anarchy. If these reforms fall victim to vested interests in the future, then it will be hard to achieve macroeconomic stability.

Second, the regional political situation is important for the economy of Pakistan. The situation in Afghanistan and relations with India are determining factors for Pakistan’s economic stability because of their impact on its foreign trade and investment. The nation’s economy suffered because of the war against terrorism in Afghanistan, as it created an environment of instability in Pakistan. The same thing happened vis-à-vis India during the Kargil Crisis in 1999 and the December 2001 terrorist attacks on the Indian parliament, which led to the deployment of troops on the international border between India and Pakistan.

Third, improving relations with international financial institutions is vital for the economy of Pakistan. These institutions have helped the country to cope with financial crisis through assistance, encouraging the government to carry out reforms in major sectors of the economy. These institutions must continue to assist Pakistan in the near future in order to fulfill the macroeconomic stabilization program of the government.

Quelling Religious and Ethnic Strife
The third most important factor for the future of Pakistan is its civil society. Pakistan has been struggling to achieve societal integration of its ethnically diverse society since independence. There have been many reasons for that, but two important factors stand out in determining roles for the future of Pakistan. First, the part played by Islamic militant organizations in Pakistan will be crucial, and possibly detrimental, to the future of the country. Pakistan’s vulnerability to extremism and militancy was recently illustrated by twin attacks by Islamic militants within ten days of each other on General Musharraf, from which he narrowly escaped. Because of these rising trends of extremism in Pakistan, some western scholars have depicted extremism as a major threat to Pakistan.

The sectarian problems that feed the terrorism the country has faced in recent years are mainly rooted in Pakistan’s religious fragmentation. There are many religious sects among the Muslims, such as Sunnis, Shias, and Wahabis. Emphasizing differences among themselves over the interpretation of Quran, some of their organizations have become involved in killing of people belonging to other sects. Over time, these organizations strengthened themselves as a result of many factors, but mainly because of Pakistan’s Afghan policy. During the Afghan jihad of the 1980s, these religious organizations were getting both financial and material support from abroad to defeat communism. Once the Russians were out of Afghanistan, the religious organizations started creating problems in Pakistan, based on the strength of their weapons and money.

General Musharraf, in his famous speech on January 12, 2002, banned extremist religious organizations in Pakistan, including Lashkar-e-Toiba, Jaish-e-Mohammad (of Maulana Masood Azhar), Tehrik-i-Jafria Pakistan (led by Sajid Naqvi), Sipah-i-Sahaba Pakistan (formerly led by the late Maulana Azam Tariq), and Tehrik-e-Nifaz-e-Shariat-i-Mohammadi. These organizations were all involved in acts of terrorism and extremism in the country. However, with the passage of time, these organizations started operating under different names. Still, the government has kept a vigilant eye on them, strictly monitoring their activities. Recently, the government has acted again to ban these renamed organizations. The banned groups are: Islami Tehrik-i-Pakistan (formerly Tehrik-i-Jafaria Pakistan), Millat-i-Islamia Pakistan (formerly Sipah-i-Sahaba Pakistan), Khuddam-ul-Islam (formerly Jaish-i-Mohammad), Jamiat-ul-Ansar, Hizb-ul-Tehrir, and Jamaat-ul-Furqan. The government of Pakistan has frozen the bank accounts of these organizations and kept their activities under strict observation.

This crackdown on extremist religious organizations in Pakistan has reduced sectarian violence in the country. However, there can be no doubt that it will take time to completely marginalize their role in civil society in Pakistan, because these organizations exploit people’s faith in religion. It is quite obvious that the government of Pakistan will need a sustained effort to control these groups, which were strengthened by more than ten years of anti-communist jihad in Afghanistan. At the same time, the government will have to continue strict monitoring of these organizations to keep the society safe from sectarian violence and terrorism. Such a policy will also help Pakistan to improve its image internationally, which has deteriorated following the September 11 terrorist attacks.

The second most important factor for civil society in Pakistan is national integration. Pakistan consists of four provinces, populated by different ethnic groups such as Punjabis, Sindhis, Pashtoons, Mujhars, etc. The provinces have been fighting among themselves over the distribution of financial resources, civil service quotas, and over their share of water and other natural resources. The smaller provinces have always blamed Punjab for the concentration of funds and development of the one province at the cost of others. This has created problems undermining the federation of Pakistan. The present prime minister of Pakistan, Mir Zafar ullah Jamali, is from Balochistan (the largest province of Pakistan according to area), but still there are many reservations raised by other provinces. These differences have affected not only the political environment but also the timely distribution of resources. Pakistanis will have to resolve these ethnic and regional conflicts to ensure a prosperous future.

It can be concluded that Pakistan’s future will depend upon the strength of its democracy, its economy, and its civil society. Political stability will be necessary for a better and more prosperous Pakistan. Given the present situation, Pakistan will have to overcome many challenges in order to strengthen real democracy in the country by strengthening the institutions typically necessary for democracy and political stability. Presently, Pakistan’s economy is in a greatly improved situation and on the path of revival. But for sustained economic strength, there is a need to continue the economic reforms undertaken by the Musharraf government. On the societal front, Pakistan must control the rising trends of militancy in the country. Religious harmony and national integration will be necessary for a bright future for Pakistan.

by Faisal Cheema 

Faisal Cheema is an officer in the Civil Service of Pakistan. In 2001, he completed an M.Phil. degree with a specialization in South Asian arms control in Defence and Strategic Studies from Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad. Cheema has written many articles on South Asian security in various national newspapers of Pakistan. He worked as a research officer at the Islamabad Policy Research Institute, where he published articles on “Forms of Terrorism” and “State Terrorism in Kashmir.” As a Ford Fellow at ACDIS in 2003, he conducted research on “Macroeconomic Stability of Pakistan: The Role of the IMF and World Bank (1997-2003).”

LAHORE, Pakistan — There is no law and certainly no order in my country. What happened this past week has shaken every Pakistani. Benazir Bhutto was no ordinary person. She served as prime minister twice and had returned to Pakistan in an effort to restore our country to the path of democracy. With her assassination I have lost a friend and a partner in democracy.

It is too early to blame anybody for her death. One thing, however, is beyond any doubt: The country is paying a very heavy price for the many unpardonable actions of one man — Pervez Musharraf.

Musharraf alone is responsible for the chaos in Pakistan. Over the past eight years he has assiduously worked at demolishing institutions, subverting the constitution, dismantling the judiciary and gagging the media. Pakistan today is a military state in which a former prime minister can be gunned down in broad daylight. One of my own political rallies was fired upon the day Benazir Bhutto was killed.

These are the darkest days in Pakistan’s history. And such are the wages of dictatorship. There is widespread disillusionment. At all the election rallies I have addressed, people have asked a simple question: Criminals are punished for breaking laws, so why should those who subvert the constitution not be punished? Those who killed Benazir Bhutto are the forces of darkness and authoritarianism. They are the ones who prefer rifles to reason.

Bhutto’s Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) and my own Pakistan Muslim League (PML-N) have traditionally been political rivals. We fought each other through elections. We won some. We lost some. That is what democracy is all about. Whoever has the majority rules. Bhutto and I both realized while in exile that rivalry among democrats has made the task of manipulation easier for undemocratic forces. We therefore decided not to allow such nefarious games by the establishment.

I fondly remember meeting with Benazir in February 2005. She was kind enough to visit me in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, where I lived after Musharraf forced me into exile. We realized that we were fighting for the same thing: democracy. She, too, believed in the rule of law and rule of the people. A key point of the Charter of Democracy that we signed in May 2006 was that everyone should respect the mandate of the people and not allow the establishment to play dirty politics and subvert the will of the people. After the Jeddah meeting we regularly consulted each other on issues of national and international importance. On many occasions we tried to synchronize our strategies. We had agreements and disagreements, but we both wanted to pull Pakistan back from the brink of disaster.

And while the PPP may have been our traditional rival, it is a national asset whose leadership has inspired many Pakistanis. Political parties form part of the basis on which the entire edifice of democracy rests. If our country is to move forward, we need an independent judiciary, a sovereign Parliament and strong political parties that are accountable to the people. Without political parties, there will be hopelessness, and authoritarianism will thrive. Dictators fear the power of the people. That is why they pit parties against each other and then try to destroy those parties — to further their own agenda. This is what has happened in Pakistan in recent years.

So, what is the way out of the depths to which Pakistan has been plunged? First, Musharraf should go immediately. He is the primary and principal source of discord. Second, a broad-based national unity government should be immediately installed to heal the wounds of this bruised nation. Third, the constitution should be restored to what it was in 1973. The judiciary should be restored to its condition before Nov. 3 — countering the boneheaded steps Musharraf took under the garb of “emergency” rule. All curbs on the media should be removed. Finally, fair and impartial elections should be held in a friendly and peaceful environment under such a national government so that the people are able to choose their representatives for a Parliament and government that can be trusted to rebuild the country rather than serve the agenda of a dictator.

These are the only steps that will give the country a semblance of stability. If Musharraf rules as he has for the past eight years, then we are doing nothing but waiting for another doomsday.

The world must realize that Musharraf’s policies have neither limited nor curbed terrorism. In fact, terrorism is stronger than ever, with far more sinister aspects, and as long as Musharraf remains, there remains the threat of more terror. The people of Pakistan should not be antagonized any further for the sake of one man. It is time for the international community to join hands in support of democracy and the rule of law in Pakistan. The answer to my country’s problems is a democratic process that promotes justice, peace, harmony and tolerance and hence can play an effective role in promoting moderation. With dictatorship, there is no future.

The writer is head of the Pakistan Muslim League and was twice elected prime minister of Pakistan

Pakistan Economy registers a six to seven percent economic growth with its foreign direct investment escalating day by day. Pakistan , from the time of its independence started with a purely agricultural economy. But soon its industrial wing gathered momentum and soon Pakistan became the role model world over.

It is one among the growing economies of the World. The economic potentiality of the country is better judged only when we mark the positive growth rate of the economy since 1951.

The country has a total surface area of 796.1 thousand sq mi.

The Infant Mortality rate (per 1,000 life births) in the country was 74.3 in the year 2003.
Under 5 mortality rate (per 1,000 children) was 98 in the year 2003.
The adult male literacy rate (% of males ages 15 and above) was 61.7 in the year 2004.
The adult female literacy rate (% of females ages 15 and above) was 35.2 in the year 2004.

The Gross National Income, Atlas method of the country (Current US $) has reached 90.7 billions in the year 2004. The GNI percapita Atlas method (Current US $) in the country was 600.0 in 2004.

The Gross Domestic Product (Current $) in the country was 96.1 billions in the year 2004 with an annual growth rate of 6.4 percent in the same year.

The average annual growth rate of GDP for the country is estimated at 6.5 percent for the period of 2005-09.

The following graph shows the annual average growth rate of the GDP in the economy.