巴基斯坦前总理：我们有能力重建经济

巴基斯坦与IMF的分歧至少有一部分与税收有关，巴基斯坦的征税力度出了名的薄弱。外界很担心巴基斯坦能否汇集政治意愿，实行严厉的改革，部分原因在于政治阶层中只顾一己私利的精英群体，正是他们把这个国家带到了破产的边缘。

    我不赞同这种观点。巴基斯坦是个越有1.8亿人口的大国，但它的运转很正常。除了让我们付出沉重代价的安全问题，它还面临着很多其他的挑战，比如治理、透明度和管理问题。尽管如此，这个国家仍正在正常运转。显然它可以做得更好，但它还不至于停滞不前。生活还在继续。

    显然，巴基斯坦面临着财政上的挑战，税改一直是个问题。没错，巴基斯坦的依法纳税度低，但必须考虑税收的政治影响，而不只是仅仅考虑经济影响。税收体系已存在很长时间。当然，必须改革目前的税收体系；正由于此，销售税和关税等间接税已经出现了相当幅度的增长。所得税也在增长，但主要来自大公司的利润。

    关键问题是我们如何实现经济增长？必须先把蛋糕做大，才能提高税收。从一个干瘪的柠檬里是榨不出柠檬汁来的。

现在我们再把目光转向阿富汗。美国对阿富汗的转型计划越来越趋向于实际，奥巴马政府似乎决意要结束这一切。你对此怎么看？

    我认为这才是正确的做法。海外驻军会产生不良后果，越早撤军越好。但撤军策略须周密筹划。

    我们需要一个类似马歇尔计划那样的大规模重建方案。方案必须要有世界银行（The World Bank）、亚洲开发银行（Asian Development Bank）、主权银行和一大批国家共同参与。最近，土耳其、巴基斯坦和阿富汗等国在伊斯坦布尔举行的会谈非常成功。人们需要看到未来，相信明天会比昨天更好。阿富汗人民必须靠自身的努力，好好利用这个机会。美国和塔利班的对话是件好事——所有利益相关方都必须参与进来。我相信如果有充足的资金，就能化不利为有利，我对此持谨慎乐观的态度。

    美巴关系复杂总体来说是阿富汗复杂形势的折射，但同时也是因为巴基斯坦的核大国地位。

    我相信美巴关系对两国而言都存在机会。但我认为美国目前追求的巴基斯坦政策是接触和遏制并举。我们既是朋友，也是对手。这是美巴关系的内在冲突。双方存在信任赤字，一旦涉及到核事务，就会出现根本性问题。

    既然印度已经被接纳为核供应国集团（Nuclear Suppliers Group，一个防止核扩散的多边集团）集团，巴基斯坦也早该获得成员资格。美国必须做出决定：我们到底是属于这个阵营的一员，还是相反？这是一个大好机会，但却错失了。纳入核供应国集团意味着更多的责任和义务。接触会变得更加正式，为所有关键方提供一个论坛，让大家能够坐下来讨论问题，解决问题。我们已经是一个核大国，这一点没有讨价还价的余地。否认这一点对谁都没有好处。目前纠正这一点还为时未晚。它将有利于整个南亚的政治氛围。如果一直把人拒之门外，形势可能突然向着相反的方向发展。

The disagreement with the IMF is at least in part related to tax collection, which has been notoriously weak in Pakistan. There is a lot of concern whether Pakistan can muster the political will to make tough reforms, partly because of self-serving elites among the political class that have brought the country to the point of being nearly a failed state.

    No, I think that's not true. The country is large -- roughly 180 million people -- and it's functioning. It has many challenges -- governance issues, transparency and management issues -- on top of the security issues that have cost us dearly. But the country is functioning. Obviously it could function better, but it's not come to a grinding halt. Life is going on.

    Clearly, the country is facing a challenging situation financially, and tax reform has been an issue. It's true there is low tax compliance, but you have to look at the political impact -- not just the economic impact -- of taxes. The tax system has been around for a long time. Trade-offs have to be made; indirect taxes -- sales tax and customs duties -- have grown because of that, quite handsomely. Income tax is also up, but that is mostly out of big corporations' profits.

    The key question is: How do we get growth? The pie has to get bigger for you to collect more taxes. You can't squeeze the lemon if there's no juice in it.

Moving on to Afghanistan, the U.S. is being more realistic about its transformative agenda and the Obama administration seems to be determined to wind things down. How do you see this playing out?

    I think this is the right way to go. The presence of foreign troops generates ill effects and the sooner they are gone, the better. But the exit strategy has to be very carefully choreographed.

    We need a Marshall Plan-like approach, a massive program for reconstruction. The World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, the sovereign banks, and many individual countries, have to be involved. There was a very successful meeting recently of Turkey, Pakistan, Afghanistan and others in Istanbul. People need to see a future, that tomorrow will be better than yesterday. The people of Afghanistan will have to work hard themselves to leverage this opportunity. It's a good thing that the U.S. and the Taliban are talking -- all stakeholders have to be included. I'm cautiously optimistic that adversity can be changed into an opportunity if it is funded well.

    U.S.-Pakistan relations are generally refracted through the prism of Afghanistan but also through the fact that Pakistan is a nuclear power.

    I think certainly the relationship is opportunistic on both sides. But I think the U.S. is pursuing a policy of both engagement and containment of Pakistan at the same time. We are both a friend and an adversary. Therein lies the conflict in the relationship. There is a trust deficit and when it comes to the nuclear issue there is a fundamental problem.

    When India was drawn into the Nuclear Suppliers Group (a multilateral anti-proliferation organization) Pakistan should have been included too. The United States has to decide: are we in the tent or outside? That was a major missed opportunity. Inclusion in the NSG comes with a lot of responsibility and obligations. Engagement becomes more formalized, providing a forum for all key players to be around the table to discuss and solve issues. We are a nuclear power – there is no such thing as a halfway house here - and to deny it doesn't help anybody. It's not too late to rectify this. It would help the whole atmosphere in South Asia. If you keep people out of the tent, things can suddenly move the other way.