The Raging Forest

Although the persistent interest of most observers has been on the IMF’s ongoing negotiations with Pakistan on the Ninth Review, it is important for us to see things in a wider perspective. As a recent seminar on the economy held by CASS illustrated that there are profound structural factors, as well as massive cyclical headwinds in the global economy, that have contributed to Pakistan’s economic malaise. To fixate on the ongoing meetings is understandable, given that the IMF’s nod will unlock a series of external disbursements, but to look at this contestation as a singular make-or-break event leads us to miss the forest for the trees.

On the global economic front, many countries face adverse fiscal and balance-of-payments challenges. This is attributable to the commodity supercycle, the war in Ukraine, supply chain disruptions, uneven post-COVID recoveries, and perhaps above all: US interest rate policy. The conjunction of all these problems has been termed the ‘polycrisis’, in which countries are mired in multiple crises simultaneously. There is a litany of countries that face acute socioeconomic difficulties, and Pakistan is but one of them, although one that is disproportionately affected by cyclicality due to its existing vulnerabilities.

That is where, on the domestic front, one has to wonder why the country has gone to the IMF 22 times in the past. For those who view the IMF as an ‘emergency ward’, it is troubling to see that Pakistan goes there on a regular basis. It is necessary to confess, therefore, that there are deep structural issues that afflict the country, and they have been padded over for a very long time, in some cases many centuries. But, one can only kick the can down the road so far.

For this reason, a total fixation on the IMF meetings and reports leads us to miss many fires in the forest that we must ourselves put out. For example, the rule of law is not something in the purview of the IMF, nor is judicial performance, nor is political elite infighting. The IMF is not to blame for the shortcomings of the primary and higher education system, the structure of feudal land ownership, the incessant birthrate of the masses, or the inability to prepare for floods.

The list of problems runs very long, and one cannot address these issues by getting a billion here or there. We import too much relative to what we export because we are an unproductive society with a particularly unproductive elite, who drive consumption but fail to create value for the public. Our government, at both the provincial and federal levels, is too large relative to the value it creates, which means that our expenditures far outstrip our revenues. Having a large government would make sense if it contributed substantial public value, but it does not. Parents still pay for private schools, patients still pay for private healthcare, and so forth.

The IMF Ninth Review meeting appears to have been broad-based and substantive, but even it would not be able to comprehensively look at all that needs to be done. There are too many fires in the forest now, and they must be addressed by the people, for the people.

Dr Usman W. Chohan is Advisor (Economic Affairs and National Development) at the Centre for Aerospace & Security Studies (CASS), Islamabad, Pakistan. He can be reached at [email protected].


Share this article

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

Recent Publications

Browse through the list of recent publications.

The US-Israel War on Iran: Objectives, Strategy, and Escalation Management

Zahra Niazi
‘States tend to overestimate themselves or the benefits and swiftness of war, and to underestimate their opponents’ capabilities, intentions, or the costs and duration of war.’ If anything, the 2026 war initiated by the United States and Israel against Iran shall be remembered in the annals of warfare among the most visible manifestations of this dynamic.
The war, immediately preceded by the January mass protests in Iran, did not represent a sudden rupture but rather the continuation of a 47-year-long confrontation and a more intense phase of the June 2025 war.
The US Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, defined the war’s objectives as being laser-focused: to destroy Iran’s missile capabilities and its security infrastructure, while ensuring that it could never develop nuclear weapons. Beyond these stated objectives, among the priorities on the continuum also lay the objective of regime change, with both President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu explicitly calling on the Iranian population to take over the government at the outset of the war.

Read More »

Marka-e-Haq to the Peace Talks: Pakistan’s Middle Power Status

On 7th May 2025, Pakistan’s military forces took the international security community by surprise when it demonstrated operational superiority against its larger belligerent adversary India with its rapid and coordinated response. The Four-Day conflict proved to be a watershed moment for Pakistan, marking its rapid emergence as an important player in the region. In recent years, amidst the ongoing global competition between the United States and China, Islamabad has adopted a position of ’Strategic Balancing,’ where it maintains ties of cooperation with both Beijing and Washington. Deft diplomacy, emphasis on geo-economics, and credible conventional and strategic deterrence have remained the foundational pillars for Pakistan’s ambition as a rising middle power

Read More »

Debunking the S-400 Shield: Lessons from the India-Pakistan Conflict

Air defense has always been a central aspect of warfare. In South Asia, the phenomenon carries immense significance due to compressed reaction times. In this context, one of the most-hyped systems is the Russian-made S-400, touted by New Delhi as a one-stop solution to counter aerial threats from both Pakistan and China.
The 2025 conflict between India and Pakistan marked an important chapter in testing the S-400 technology. The conflict began on May 7, when India attacked what it alleged were terrorist targets in both Pakistani-held Kashmir and Pakistan proper, using drone and missile strikes. The conflict lasted for four days, culminating in a U.S-facilitated ceasefire. However, the brief conflict debunked a lot of the myths regarding the S-400 technology.
First, India claimed that the mobile S-400 would be able to control Pakistan’s airspace. In contrast, Pakistani aircraft continued to operate freely, according to official briefings by the Pakistani military. Although the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) aircraft were in their own airspace, they were still within the air defense range.

Read More »