Aaj key KAALAM 09 June, 2009

[arshad_lahore]

Turning a new page?



Tuesday, June 09, 2009
Dr Maleeha Lodhi

The writer is a former envoy to the US and the UK, and a former editor of The News.

In his much heralded address to the world's 1.5 billion Muslims, President Barak Obama made a compelling case for a new beginning in long strained relations between the west and the Islamic world. In a masterly tour de force, cast in language seldom used by his predecessors, President Obama's speech hit many of the right notes and set a welcome tone of respect in an effort to redefine the relationship.

Cynics cast the speech as little more than a public relations exercise that "repackaged" unchanged US policies. While the speech may not have broken new policy ground and was purposively short on specifics, this rejectionist view minimizes the import of President Obama's effort at a rapprochement with the Muslim world and the possibilities this opens up.

President Obama himself acknowledged that one speech could not wipe away years of mistrust. But the vision he set out of charting a cooperative course on shared challenges marks a sharp departure from the with-us-or against-us paradigm of his predecessor. In seeking to build coalitions of consent, the president is also adapting to a globalized and interdependent world in which US power has been diminishing.

The Cairo speech marked President Obama's latest and most significant outreach to the Muslim world. After his inaugural address in which he called for a new way forward based on "mutual respect and mutual interests", he pressed this theme in an interview to the Saudi-owned Al Arabiya TV network, a videotaped message to the Iranian people on Nauroze, and his speech to the Turkish Parliament.

These public diplomacy initiatives, capped by the Cairo address, have several interrelated objectives, which include: a) to repair the image and standing of the US among Muslims that was especially battered during the Bush years; b) to create the atmosphere and space to restart the Middle East peace process; c) engage vigorously in the battle of ideas to drain support in the Muslim world for violent extremism; and d) to challenge Muslim communities to rethink some of their positions on issues ranging from religious freedom to Israel.

These objectives also reflect a national security imperative for the US: to defuse and neutralize the threat from violent extremism and reverse the rising tide of anti-Americanism in the Muslim world which feeds extremism.

That President Obama refrained from using the word terrorism in his speech represented an effort to break from the overarching template of US engagement with the Islamic world in the post 9/11 years. This aims at signalling that Washington's ties with Muslim countries will not be defined by this single prism even though, as President Obama declared in his speech, the US would "relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat" to its security. And he reiterated what he told the Turkish Parliament: that America is not and never will be, "at war with Islam".

He listed seven issue areas which the US and the Muslim world had to confront jointly: violent extremism, the Arab-Israeli dispute, the nuclear issue and Iran, democracy, religious freedom, women's rights and economic opportunity.

The Cairo speech represents the most forthright public appraisal ever undertaken by a Western leader of the reasons why relations between the US and the Muslim world have plummeted to their lowest ever point a fact attested to by opinion polls conducted over the years. In his review of this troubled legacy, he mentioned colonialism, the proxy relationships of the cold war era, the wars of "choice" and "necessity" in Iraq and Afghanistan, the measures America took after 9/11 which were "contrary to its ideals" (Guantanamo), Palestine and the tensions generated by modernity and globalization.

In weaving into his speech a nuanced recognition of Muslim grievances President Obama demonstrated both a grasp of history and an ability to understand the Muslim narrative.

Disappointingly the speech did not show similar understanding and empathy for South and South West Asia. The history review made no mention of the US contribution albeit unwitting to the toxic mix of problems bequeathed to the region by the long campaign waged against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Acknowledgement of the US role in waging this war of unintended consequences would have helped to remove the burden of history and signal to people in Pakistan that Washington was willing to accept its share of responsibility for the turmoil in the region.

The one-speech-cannot-address-everything argument doesn't hold ground on this count because explaining how and why violent extremism came to afflict this region is much too important to have been ignored in an address that tried to be fair to history.

The speech was also silent on Kashmir. An opportunity to win hearts and minds in Pakistan the world's second largest Muslim nation was missed by this omission. Calling for a peaceful settlement of a dispute that has locked South Asia in a cycle of conflict and mistrust and fed into the longstanding Muslim perception that US policy is not in favour of equitable solutions to Muslim issues, would have cost him little.

Mention of the issue would have been consistent with Obama's own assertions before his election that a Kashmir solution was essential for regional peace. And it would have raised his moral stature among Pakistanis and Kashmiris at a time of renewed turmoil in the Valley.

The centrepiece of his speech was the PalestinianIsraeli dispute, the issue that galvanizes Muslims everywhere and that has long come to symbolize their sense of historical grievance and injustice. Decades of uneven-handed policies that placed the security of Israel above any concern for justice for the Palestinian people and international law, alienated Muslims from the west. It is here that President Obama departed decisively from the past in signalling his determination to promote a settlement in as even-handed a manner as can be expected from an American President.

Although he did not lay out a detailed plan for Middle East peace, he set out the parameters for one. In his tone and language including "occupation" and "daily humiliations" of the Palestinian people he went further than any previous American President in aligning with the Muslim narrative. While describing his country's bond with Israel as "unbreakable", he delivered the sharpest public rebuke ever to Tel Aviv for its policy of settlements on the occupied West Bank.

Whether or not this marks an end to Washington's unqualified support for Israel, it does pitch the US as a neutral broker for the first time. By endorsing a two-state solution, President Obama sought to lay the ground to launch a vigorous round of diplomacy.

The litmus test of his promised change in relations with the Muslim world will be his ability to press Israel to accept a two-state solution consistent with the 2002 Saudi-framed Arab Peace Initiative. In coming months President Obama can be expected to engage in a battle of wills with the hard line Israeli leadership at a time when opinion polls in Israel show that the majority of people support a freeze on settlements.

The speech dealt with Afghanistan and Pakistan in a rather sketchy way. Whether or not this was a function of an address directed more to the Arab heartland than beyond, the impression it conveyed was of the lack of a strategic framework for Afghanistan.

While President Obama justified the 2001 military intervention in Afghanistan as a war of necessity, he rationalized the continued deployment of American troops there as aimed at preventing "violent extremists from killing Americans". Until the US is assured of its security its commitment to stay in Afghanistan "will not weaken", despite the costs. But he held out the assurance that the US did not seek a permanent military presence in that country, which will be welcomed in Pakistan and beyond.

President Obama reiterated that military power alone was not the answer to problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan. But the strategy he has rolled out so far remains at odds with this, placing too much reliance on military escalation, as signified by the troop surge in Afghanistan and intensified Drone attacks in Pakistan.

President Obama's eloquent call to "re-imagine" the world in which the US and the Muslim world partner to confront common challenges on the basis of shared values holds much promise. Whether his speech will turn a new page in a turbulent relationship will depend on what concrete policy actions will follow. It will also depend on how Muslim leaders take up the political and intellectual challenge and engage the US to chart a new and hopeful course.

 

[arshad_lahore]

Obama reaches out



Tuesday, June 09, 2009
Mir Jamilur Rahman

It was a splendid performance. President Obama's speech at Cairo University was a great example of eloquence and fluency which is now rarely witnessed in politicians. It was the manner he articulated his argument that won him the presidency of the richest and the most powerful country in the world. It was a singular achievement considering that Obama had to fight twice as hard as a white man. While delivering a speech he sounds so sincere and appears so focused that everyone in the audience thinks that he is speaking on his behalf and considers him a messiah who will resolve world problems in a jiffy.

Pakistanis were overwhelmed by his charisma and overjoyed despite the fact that Obama had not uttered a word about the fate of Kashmir, a lingering dispute between two nuclear powers. He did not give the slightest indication when foreign troops would vacate Afghanistan. Nor did he give a hint when drones would stop killing innocent people. Yet, his Pakistani detractors could not find enough adjectives in praise of his speech. Imran Khan described it as an outstanding speech while some other leaders have termed it a landmark. The critics who never got tired of blaming America for all the ills Pakistan is facing today are now trying to outdo each other in eulogising America in aesthetic words. Amazing, what a change an eloquent speech could bring in the thinking of our political analysts.

Mr Obama talked about the holocaust in which millions of Jews were killed by the Nazi Germany. He felt perturbed that many in the Middle East and elsewhere deny the Holocaust. To be certain, Palestinians have also suffered terribly because of the Holocaust. Although Palestinians in no way had contributed to the Holocaust, their country has been robbed and gifted to Jews. The Holocaust was not the first attempt by Europeans to eliminate the Jews. The Jews have been the victims of pogroms, either spontaneous or premeditated, since ancient time. Nearly every European country at one time or the other has killed Jews, destroyed their homes, businesses and synagogues, thus forcing them to exile. In the US they found a safe haven and religious freedom backed by the US constitution. Consequently, the number of Jews living in Israel and the US is nearly the same, 5.6 million in Israel and 5.3 million in the US. It might have been better for world peace and religious harmony if the US had donated one of its 50 states to the Jews instead of making the Palestinians strangers in their own land.

Muslims love to hear the Holy Quran and Obama did not disappoint them. He referred to the Quran three times to strengthen his argument. Pakistanis were elated that the US president was asking Muslims to follow Quran's teachings. But Obama should also practise what he preaches. He reminded Cairo University students of Quran's teachings that whoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind. Did America only kill the guilty when it invaded Iraq on false pretexts? Do the missiles fired by the drones only hit the guilty and spare the innocent? America went into Iraq to search for WMD. It did not find any even after killing and wounding a million Iraqis, most of them civilians. America at least owes an apology to Iraqis for destroying innocent lives. In Oct 2001 American forces landed in Afghanistan and occupied it. The aim of the invasion was to find Osama bin Laden and put him on trial for terrorism. Osama remains elusive but innocent Afghans are being killed on a regular basis. President Obama has not distanced himself from the two wars, which he describes as 'war of choice' for Iraq and 'war of necessity' for Afghanistan. It means that President Bush had the 'choice' of avoiding the invasion of Iraq and save innumerable lives. The invasion of Afghanistan was triggered by 9/11 which had directly threatened the security of the US thus making it necessary to uproot the perpetrators of 9/11.

It was ironical that President Obama chose Cairo to give a lesson on the virtues of democracy. President Hosni Mubarak was not amused because he would soon be completing 30 years of uninterrupted presidency.

President Obama was at pains to bring home the fact that American military prowess has made it possible for Muslims of Bosnia and Kosovo to live independently and with dignity. Mr Obama ought to remember that good deeds are buried; it is the bad deeds which people remember. However, Muslims will recall all the good deeds America has done if Mr Obama matches his sermon with practical steps.



The writer is a freelance columnist.

 

[arshad_lahore]

Fiscal policy imperatives



Tuesday, June 09, 2009
Dr Ashfaque H Khan

After successfully reducing macroeconomic imbalances in the current fiscal year, the government appears to have lost patience and decided to pursue an aggressive expansionary fiscal policy in the 2009-10 fiscal year. The National Economic Council (NEC) has already approved the highest-ever Public Sector Development Programme (PSDP) amounting to Rs621 billion for the next fiscal year up from the revised estimates of Rs363 billion for 2008-09, thus representing a hefty increase of over 71 percent. With massive increase in the PSDP, the budget deficit is likely to be in the range of 5.0 to 5.3 percent of the GDP in the next fiscal year. In rupee term, the budget deficit is expected to be in the range of Rs740-780 billion.

It is important to point out that in the current fiscal year the government pursued tight fiscal and monetary policies with a view to reducing macroeconomic imbalances. Such a policy stance was necessary to address the challenges of high budget and current- account deficits. These policies have paid handsome dividend as the fiscal deficit is likely to decline to 4.3 percent of the GDP from 7.4 percent last year and account deficit to around 5.0 percent of the GDP from as high as 8.4 percent. Inflationary pressure has also eased somewhat. These have been the major achievements of the current fiscal year for which the government must be commended.

As we move towards the new fiscal year, the government appears to have lost patience and decided to undertake an expansionary fiscal policy. This is not the right time to pursue an expansionary policy because the underlying weaknesses in some key macro aggregates such as fiscal and current-account deficits and inflation still persist. The government should not be complacent about the successes and must avoid taking the expansionary route. This is the message of the SBP's third quarterly report as well.

It is well-known that high budget deficit is the "mother of economic problems" as it gives birth to a variety of economic issues. A budget deficit in the range of Rs740 to 780 billion will be construed in the market as the government's becoming a desperate borrower, and as such the market will exploit it. If the bulk of this deficit is financed from external sources it will lead to the accumulation of the external debt and when multiplied by the exchange rate it will add to the public debt which is already growing at a rapid pace. It appears that the government is banking on the pledged sources of external financing to bridge revenue expenditure gap. Banking on uncertain external inflows to undertake expansionary fiscal policy is a highly risky job. Any shortfall in external financing will have to be met through domestic borrowing. Borrowing from domestic sources (banking and non-banking) to such a large extent will put tremendous pressures on the interest rate, which will prevent the State Bank from even thinking of easing the monetary policy. As such, the high interest rate environment will continue to persist with investment and growth stagnating. If we assume that external sources of financing are fairly certain (on the basis of which the government is increasing expenditure in 2009-10), it will give rise to another type of risk. What will happen if these magnitudes of external resources are not available in the future? Can any government cut down development or other components of spending if external resources are not available in this magnitude going forward? These are valid questions and must be taken into account before enlargement of the base of each component of expenditure.

It is presumed that the government has decided to pursue an expansionary fiscal policy to revive economic growth, create employment opportunities and reduce poverty. Is this a viable policy in the face of a current-account deficit of over five percent of GDP? Should we pursue an expansionary fiscal policy in the midst of rising oil prices? Crude prices have already reached a seven-month high at $68 a barrel and the Goldman Sachs has recently predicted the price to touch $85 per barrel by the end of December. An expansionary fiscal policy will increase aggregate demand, which will translate into higher imports, including higher imports of oil. With rising oil prices it will further widen the current-account deficit and will surely enhance macroeconomic imbalances. The purpose of reviving economic activity, creating job opportunities and reducing poverty will certainly be frustrated by the rise in macroeconomic imbalances.

It will simply contribute to the widening of the already high current-account deficit and will give rise to macroeconomic instability which will be inimical to economic growth. It will certainly raise the country's debt burden, and most of the budgetary resources will be consumed by interest payments alone. Within the past two years (2007-08 and 2008-09), the interest payment has surged from Rs336 billion to Rs676 billion -- an increase of 101 percent. The interest payment is projected to rise to over Rs750 billion in 2009-10, which will consume 53 percent of the projected FBR's tax revenue. The government should have continued with tight fiscal and monetary policies for one more year. It could have consolidated the gains in 2009-10 before embarking on an expansionary fiscal policy route. Enough resources would have been available for spending in the remaining three budgets of this government. The government appears to have become impatient and the IMF has also forgotten its own lesson of a sound fiscal position, which vital for achieving macroeconomic stability and increasingly recognised as being critical for sustained economic growth and poverty reduction.



The author is dean and professor at the NUST Business School, Islamabad.

 

[arshad_lahore]

Tebbit's Taliban test

Tuesday, June 09, 2009

Norman Tebbit, the conservative English politician, inadvertently caused controversy when he suggested the Tebbit, or "Cricket" Test. He thought one could gauge an immigrant population's loyalty by checking which side they supported in a game of cricket between England and the British immigrant's country of origin. Under Tebbit's simple check, if England is playing against Pakistan and British Pakistanis root for the Pakistan team then they are not true to their adopted country.

It is a ridiculous assertion that one can tell if a citizen is a potential traitor simply if he or she doesn't support the home team. There is some value in it only as far as maybe using it as a suggestion of the degree of comfortable assimilation.

But I guess we need a small Tebbit "Taliban" test. In a country at war with the murderous hordes of the Taliban where there are numerous apologists for them. A Tebbit result won't be accurate, but would be indicative.

See, most of the hardliners who are asked fundamental questions obfuscate by bringing up other issues. It was a shameful performance of the new amir of the Jamaat-e-Islami Syed Munawar Hasan when asked on television what he thought of the video of the girl being flogged in Swat. Rather than answer the question he went on a rant about the drone attacks and the lack of media interest in it. There were many others who wouldn't condemn the flogging because they made elaborate theories of how the video was supposedly faked.

While Imran Khan may have written an impressive and eloquent defence of his position in his article "Where I stand", statistically only five per cent is spent condemning the Taliban, 48 per cent is spent chastising the players in the government for not allowing the peace deal to go through. Smoke and mirrors. Imran Khan's stance makes little sense especially since he pursues the MQM citing the rule of law and then makes fluid his position to allow the Taliban their Nizam-e-Adl through extrajudicial means, effectively justifying their methods.

The MQM says the right things and then does the shameful by urging restrictions of those tragically made homeless. The PML-N does the same. The PPP goes even further by passing a resolution in the assemblies under public threat by the Taliban, despite their stance against them.

The question here really is, to paraphrase Norman Tebitt, is just whose team are these people really supporting? Pakistan's or the Taliban's? And why are they providing the Taliban excuses, especially when Muslim Khan of the Taliban believes that his Sharia allows for people to have their throats slit like animals?

So the loyalty or truth test for the amir of the Jamaat-e-Islami would be, "If we are certain that the video is not doctored and the girl is innocent, does the Taliban have a right to flog her?" Just because the amir is eager to see flogging as a punishment he allows someone else's daughter to become a victim to unsanctioned and imperfect justice. Islam is not about flogging, and one cannot condone what is wrong to see their revivalist dreams come true.

Imran Khan's Tebbit question would be, "Should murderers be punished or handed out territory and peace deals?" The MQM's question would be a slight variant of the original that spawned this test "Do you support the Pakistani team only if all the players are Mohajirs?"

The PPP should be asked, "Is your government in the business of the supremacy of the constitution, or the ascendency of self-preservation?" And to all of those who believe in strategic depth by supporting the Taliban for eventual use in unconventional guerrilla warfare against India, the question would be, "Does strategic depth mean digging yourself into a deep hole that undermines you domestically forever?"

The nation, and people like Shahid Masood, need to realise this is our fourth war. The others we fought against India, and we must remember that India has far more true Muslims who have never harmed anyone as a percentage than the Taliban have. It's time to support the troops and the beleaguered people of the Swat region, not to fan egos who have bet their ill-thought-out Islamic ideals on vicious groups.



The writer is a Rhodes scholar and former academic

 

[arshad_lahore]

Obama's overture to the Muslim world
By Javid Husain | Published: June 9, 2009
President Obama's speech to the Muslim world from Cairo was an important initiative to present a softer image of the United States with a view to defusing tensions, removing mistrust and building up bridges of understanding on major issues confronting the Muslims. It was in a marked contrast with the high-handed approach and the cowboy foreign policy which had been pursued by the Bush administration under the influence of the neocons in dealing with the Muslim world.
Whereas the Bush administration relied primarily on the threat or use of force in the pursuit of its foreign policy objectives, President Obama's emphasis is on dialogue and negotiations. Whereas the Bush era was marked by a confrontational approach towards the Muslim world as evidenced by its handling of Iraq and Iran, Obama has indicated his preference for cooperation and partnership. Whereas the architects of the Bush foreign policy were influenced by the theory of clash of civilizations, Obama has expressed support for interfaith dialogue and the principles of justice, progress, tolerance, equality and human dignity that the US and Islam share. Whereas the Bush administration put forward the doctrine of unilateral pre-emptive intervention and sought global domination, Obama in recognition of our common humanity has called for the sharing of challenges facing mankind.
Obama's declaration that the US does not want to keep its troops in Afghanistan and does not seek military bases there would be welcomed generally, particularly because the presence of the American troops in Afghanistan instead of encouraging peace in the country on the basis of national reconciliation is feeding the raging armed conflict there and is fast turning into a source of instability in that war-torn land. Obama does acknowledge that military power alone is not going to solve the problems in Afghanistan but what is missing is the reference to any new political initiative to restore peace and stability in that country.
The on-going war in Afghanistan has several sub-sets. At one plane, it is a war between the US-led coalition forces and Al Qaeda and its violent extremist supporters. This is how Washington would like the world to look at this armed conflict. But, looked at differently, it is also a war being fought by the Pakhtun tribes to regain their dominant position in the political dispensation in Afghanistan, a position which has been denied to them since the overthrow of the government of the Taliban, who were mostly Pakhtun, by the US with the active assistance of the Northern Alliance which drew its support from non-Pakhtun communities in Afghanistan. Another dimension of the conflict is related to the legendary resistance of the Afghan people to the presence of the foreign troops in Afghanistan. It is not without good reason that Afghanistan has acquired the reputation of being the graveyard of empires. The fourth subset of the armed conflict in Afghanistan is related to its cross-border ethnic, tribal and cultural linkages, and to the interests of the various regional powers in that country. The answer to this problem is not to use overwhelming power to bludgeon the Pakhtuns into submission because that would be a recipe for a prolonged conflict with at best uncertain results. The restoration of durable peace and stability in Afghanistan instead requires creative diplomacy on the part of the US to isolate and defeat Al Qaeda and its violent extremist supporters, engage politically the moderate Taliban, the Pakhtun tribes and other communities in Afghanistan to work out a new political dispensation based on national reconciliation in which every community's legitimate aspirations are fulfilled, and invite Afghanistan's neighbours, particularly Pakistan and Iran, and major powers to endorse the power-sharing formula which is agreed upon by the Afghan people. One hopes that this is the real mission of Ambassador Richard Holbrooke because the mere provision of development assistance, necessary as it is, and reliance on brute force will not resolve America's problems in Afghanistan and bring closer the day when the US troops can leave the country with the confidence that it will remain peaceful and stable.
There are other blind spots also in Obama's thought process as reflected in his speech. While calling upon the Palestinians to abandon violence, he seems to ignore the atrocities that Israel has committed against the Palestinians killing innumerable innocent children, women and the aged in the process. Asking the Palestinians to abandon their right to self-defence while they are being subjected to indiscriminate attacks by the Israelis cannot be justified morally or legally. While declaring that "violence is a dead end", he seems to ignore that the US itself has resorted to the use of force both internally, e.g. the American civil war, and externally when it felt threatened as in the case of 9/11. He himself justifies America's resort to the use of force in Afghanistan as long as the threat from violent extremists persists. He cannot preach what the US itself is not prepared to practice. In fact, the right to self-defence is enshrined in international law and the UN Charter. It is morally wrong and legally inadmissible to ask a people to give up their right to self-defence in the face of aggression and persecution.
Obama must understand that Palestine is the single most important issue which has alienated the Muslim world from the US. The blind support which the US has extended to Israel most of the time despite the latter's violation of international law and the UN resolutions, and despite the forcible annexation of the Palestinian territories has caused widespread outrage among the Muslims. If Obama really wishes to develop a relationship of amity and cooperation between the US and the Muslim world, he must actively engage his country in efforts for a just peace between Israel and the Palestinians on the basis of the two-state formula, the total Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories, a just resolution of the Palestinian issue and a mutually satisfactory settlement of the issue of Jerusalem. It is thus not enough to tell Israel to stop new settlements. It must be reminded in unequivocal terms of its legal obligations to dismantle all settlements on the occupied territory.
Obama's decision to discuss the nuclear issue and other problems with Iran without preconditions is a welcome development. But it is interesting that while Obama rightly expects Iran to remain faithful to its obligation under the NPT not to develop nuclear weapons and acknowledges its right to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, his main concern is about avoiding a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. In other words, it appears as if he is acquiescing into Israel's monopoly on nuclear weapons in the region.
The points made by Obama about democracy, religious freedom, women's rights and economic development are by and large unexceptionable. His emphasis on economic development, education, and science and technology is especially noteworthy. It is ironical that the followers of a religion which places so much emphasis on education should be listening to sermons from others on the importance of acquiring education. The responsibility for this sad state of affairs in the Muslim world lies squarely with our decadent leadership. In the case of Pakistan, the situation is particularly disturbing as we have been generally allocating less than two per cent of the GDP to education as against the international norm of at least four per cent of the GDP. No wonder we are turning into a nation of illiterates or semi-literates wallowing in ignorance and bigotry.
In short, Obama's speech carries a refreshingly conciliatory tone with the promise of a new beginning between the US and the Muslim world. While it focuses on many of the issues which have been the source of discord between the US and the Muslims, it lacks new policy initiatives on major issues to rectify the situation. In coming months and years, the Muslim world will watch closely how the Obama administration translates its pious intentions into concrete policy measures.
The writer is a retired ambassador

 

[arshad_lahore]

No values, no ethics?
Published: June 9, 2009
Dr Nauman Niaz
Cricket in Pakistan, presently isn't really a serious concern since there are numerous other highly sensitive issues pertaining to the sovereignty and integrity of the country juxtaposed with incomprehensible inflation and a frail economy.
Nonetheless, quite recently, there was an incident that went completely unnoticed, primairly due to apathy and casualness due to lack of knowledge base. Pakistan Cricket Board released to the print and electronic media that Shoaib Akhtar, their premier fast bowler was being dropped from the Twenty20 World Cup team because of genital warts (Sexually Transmitted Human Papilloma Virus (HPV), Condylomata Acuminata). So easily relayed, so convincingly accepted. It was actually horrific.
Akhtar has been condemned for displaying grandiose sense of self-worth, superficial charm, almost criminal versatility, reckless disregard for his health, and impulse control problems. He has been castigated and objected to for irresponsibility, inability to tolerate boredom, near pathological narcissism, sporadic episodes of pathological lying and shallow effects. Furthermore, he has often been damned for manipulativeness, aggressive or violent tendencies, repeated assualts on others, lack of empathy, lack of remorse, indifference to rationalization, a sense of extreme entitlement. Poor judgement, lack of personal insight and a quartert of other symptoms could portray him as a complete lout. He has irked, almost all the regimes during a fledgelling career. He has more enemies than the wickets he has taken for Pakistan. Nevertheless, he has his rights and they were needed to be respected - and ironically, his own board, the custodians of cricket in the country, breached sanity.
PCB's Operation Department and their heckenyed Medical Panel failed to register values in medical ethics. It is a serious breach, almost an unpardonable civic offence. Six of the values that commonly apply to medical ethics are 1) Autonomy (the patient has the right to refuse or choose his treamtnet, 'aegroti suprema lex'), 2) Beneficence (a practitioner should act in the best interest of the patient Salus Aegroti Suprema Lex), 3) Non-Maleficence (first, do no harm Primum non nocere), 4) Justice, 5) Dignity and 6) Truthfulness and Honesty. Values such as these do not give answers as to how to handle a particular situation, but provide a useful framework for understanding conflicts. When moral values are in conflict, the result may be an ethical dilemma or crisis. I simply do not refer to what happens in Pakistan, since there seems no respect for law and ethos, in England, the General Medical Council provides clear overall modern guidance in the form of its 'Good Medical Practice statement. Other organisations, such as the Medical Protection Society and a number of university departments, are often consulted by doctors practicing in the United Kingdom regarding issues relating to ethics. In Akhtar's case, it looked, as if the doctors responsible for reporting his illness weren't adequately equipped. The panel or a committee that diagnosed his 'sexually transmitted ailment' surely wouldn't have asked the PCB to release it openly in the media? Then who was responsible? Interestingly, even Akhtar himself couldn't figure out what harm had been done to him-further adding to his paranoia.
We need to practice the concept of Non-Maleficence that is embodied by the phrase, 'first, do no harm', or the Latin, Primum Non Nocere. Many consider that should be the main or primary consideration (hence primimum): that is more important not to harm your patient, than to do them good.
Non-maleficence is defined by its cultural context. Every culture has its own cultural collective definitions of 'good' or 'evil'. Their definitions depend on the degree to which the culture sets its cultural values apart from nature. In some cultures the terms 'good' and 'evil' are absent: and it seems in our degenerating society, for these words now lack meaning. Depending on the cultural consensus conditioning (expressed by its religious, political and legal social system) the legal definition of non-maleficence differes. Violation of non-maleficence is the subject of medical malpractice litigation. Regulations thereof differ, over time, per nation and in Pakistan, the situation worsens with people being completely cynical of seeking justice, it may well never arrive.
In Akhtar's case, confidentiality wasn't taken into account by the PCB. It is defined by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) as 'ensuring that information is accessible only to those authorized to have access', and is one of the cornerstones of information security. Confidentiality is one of the designed goals for many cryptosystems, made possible in practice by the techniques of modern cryptography. It presently remains unclear to what extent laws and bylaws referring to privacy are in practice in Pakistan, and they are traditionally redundant. And medical practice in this country seems a case of 'no ethics, no values'.
Wondering still, such brazen breaches of medical ehthos and confidentiality may well not be as gruesome or blood-stained as unhinged militancy, nonetheless they have an equally damning and regressive effects, enough to take one to the grave, unforgiven.
Writer is the Official Historian of Pakistan Cricket

 

[arshad_lahore]

Romanticize peace not war!
By Dr Haider Mehdi | Published: June 9, 2009
Let us be clear on this: the simple and plain truth is that "peace" is cheaper than "war." Peace is also more rational, logical, moral, sociologically pertinent, culturally desirable, essentially civilized and in its essence absolutely humanitarian, compassionate and merciful.
"War," on the other hand, even at the best of its glory, heroism, and its stated noble goals (national honor, dignity, etc.) is ultimately destructive of human spirit, subversive in its consequences, mercilessly obliterates life and is catastrophic in the end. "War" in all its manifestations is vandalism against humanity - it morally and financially bankrupts nations (except those imperialist nations that use war as an instrument of colonization, economic expansion and political-cultural domination). Some 2500 years ago, the ancient Chinese military critic Sun Tzu prophetically observed, "When the army marches ...the (national) treasury is emptied..." (deduction). War creates the arrogance of power.
Indeed, the disagreeable truth is that war creates heroes of the likes of Alexander the Great, Salahuddin Ayubi, Genghis Khan, the Red Baron, Admiral Nelson, Generals Douglas MacArthur and Dwight D. Eisenhower, and General Jagjit Singh Arora to name a few from ancient and more recent times. But without exception, all war heroes have been instrumental in human catastrophes - no matter how madly we admire these heroes as inspirational national protagonists.
The agreeable truth, on the other hand, is that the quest for "peace' gives birth to compassionate, dignified, visionary, knowledgeable, competent and versatile leadership - Abraham Lincoln in the US, Nelson Mandela in South Africa, Gandhi and Jinnah in the Indian subcontinent, De Gaulle in France, Shaikh Zayed Al Nahyan in the UAE, to name a few from modern history. Consider this: Vladimir Lenin, in the post-revolutionary Soviet Union, articulated and granted full independence to Finland (a nation under consecutive occupations) without firing a single shot and exclusively on the basis of a "peace dialogue" at a conference table in the Kremlin.
The questions are: When will there be another Jinnah in this country? When will we have a Nelson Mandela for a national reconciliation of our own? Why does Pakistan have to fight a "war" against its own people? When will this mindless "war," going on for nearly a decade against its own citizens, come to an end? The simple gracious and agreeable truth is that Pakistan does not need "war heroes" and "legendary generals." What we need is visionary, knowledgeable, compassionate leadership, apt and capable of efficient, competent, productive, efficacious and people-oriented political management of this nation: a government "of the people, by the people, for the people." This has not happened in Pakistan for the last six decades. And the present political-military crisis in the country is the direct result of the mishandling of affairs by an entire injudicious political leadership. We live in the worst of times because our national leaders have failed us.
An ascendency to the leadership of a country makes it absolutely imperative to disengage oneself from personal interests and serve the nation selflessly. A nation's repute, pride and dignity are directly related to the political conduct of its leadership. There is a dire need to restore the integrity and honor of political leadership in today's Pakistan. Perhaps we should follow the Far Eastern nations, their people and leaders, emotional attachment to a cultural paradigm of honor where failure in political judgment harmful to the nation's interests is considered an unforgivable transgression beyond human redemption, and the exercise of absolute political and moral prudence is considered a personal responsibility: recently, former South Korean President Roh-Moo, after being questioned over a multi-million dollar corruption case, committed suicide. Let us take stock of what is at stake in Pakistan with the on-going military operation "Rah-i-Rast" (the Righteous Path) in Swat: First and foremost in jeopardy is Pakistan's future survival as one united nation (as we know it now). The threat to our national existence comes from the fact that the entire political leadership of the country is gradually but certainly and completely driven into implementing the Anglo-American strategic counter-insurgency military doctrine in conducting its war in Swat. In fact, our leadership is falling in the Western political-military-media strategic trap skillfully constructed to destabilize this nation further to the point of a political abyss.
Be mindful that a fundamental imperative of the counter-insurgency military doctrine is to inflict massive civilian casualties, both in terms of actual killings and infrastructural destruction as well as razing homes with heavy military bombardments, devastation of cities and large-scale civilian displacement. This is what is exactly happening in today's Pakistan with its heroically-named and symbolic "Rah-i-Rast (the Righteous Path) on-going military operations in the NWFP.
"Pakistan poses an even greater challenge...its very survival was at risk...(it) would be important in rolling back this existential threat, a true threat to Pakistan's very existence," said General David Petraeus, head of the US Central Command.
Reflecting on Gen. Petraeus's warning, Patrick Seale, the eminent commentator, wrote the following in a recent article about the implications of the US military strategy:
"It means, of course, being militarily agile...and killing their (insurgents) leaders when and where possible. But it also means the deliberate use of disproportionate force, even at the cost of massive civilian casualties. The key idea is to make life so intolerably dangerous and harsh that the local population will desert the insurgents, and both will lose the will to fight" (to what the common people and insurgents consider foreign occupation). But this strategy of deliberate construction of civilian calamity is not only immoral, it is also against international laws, humanitarian and UN conventions. But American "exceptionism" is heartless in ignoring these humanitarian issues.
Recent and past history bears witness to the "terrorizing and killing of civilians" as part of the counter-insurgency military doctrine and operational strategic modus operandi. US drone attacks in the NWFP is a point in fact. The purpose of these attacks is psychological warfare as well as offensive military tactics: creating life uncertainty, fear, war phobia, alarm, dread, horror, anxiety, and panic amongst the local population and, as a result, causing massive civilian displacement with the desired consequences of people giving in to foreign occupation and its cultural-economic-political expansion and domination. This is precisely the political-military technique that Israel has been using against the Palestinians in particular and Arabs in general. The recent "Gaza Holocaust" is a vivid example in this context. Another example is that Americans have used Hellfire missiles by pilotless drones in Afghanistan resulting in massive civilian casualties (for which they apologize from time to time - but continue the attacks). Anglo-American war history is full of these murderous instances against Third World people.
Not so ancient history in British Raj India, too, can offer lessons in merciless atrocities against civilians in the context of counter insurgency (the freedom movement was considered as revolutionary insurgency by the British) tactics in the pre-independent Indian subcontinent, should the present Pakistani leadership wish to take note. Recall the Jallianwala Bagh massacre of April 13, 1919. British Brigadier General Dyer opened fire with machine guns against the peaceful unarmed public gathered for a Sikh festival in Amritsar, killing over 1000 people and causing fear and horror amongst the general public all over India. Contrary to the general impression that this was an error in judgment by a single high-ranking military officer, the fact is that the then British administration in Punjab endorsed Dyer's actions -- the Lieutenant-Governor of Punjab, Sir Michael O'Dwyer, sent a telegram to Gen. Dyer stating, "Your action is correct." Dyer had contended that he was "confronted by a revolutionary army." This massacre of civilians was a tactical British move to frighten, panic and demoralize a public that was unarmed and peacefully demanding an end to British rule in India - an early example of the use of the counter-insurgency doctrine.
The present so-called "war on terrorism" is the Anglo-American conception of "Clash of Civilizations" whereby there is conflict against Muslim nations. "The resort to disproportionate force to overwhelm the enemy, and make him despair of ever winning, is an essential aspect of counter-insurgency...terrorizing and killing of civilians is part of the strategy," warned Patrick Seale.
The Pakistani leadership would be well-advised to understand the sudden appointment of Lt. General Stanley A McChrystal as the top US commander in Afghanistan in the context of an escalation of counter-insurgency tactics of the Obama Pak-Afghan military policy.
Pakistan can expect a steep surge in civilian deaths as well as a greater influx of refugees to other parts of the country resulting in socio-economic deprivations, increased crime and eventual destabilization of the society.
Let us be very clear about it: The lethal firepower, threat to civilians, and the strategic objectives of President Obama's counter-insurgency plan for the Pak-Afghan war policy are not going to alter. Consequently, it is for the Pakistani leadership to choose: Peace or a war of national destruction and calamitous human tragedies all over Pakistan!!
It is also for the political leadership of the country to decide: When will Pakistan stop fighting a proxy war for the US and its allies?
How long will Pakistan soldiers and people suffer?
It is our leaders call. I say: Peace not war!
That is the "Rahi-Haq" - the Righteous Path!
The writer is a professor, political analyst and conflict-resolution expert

 

[arshad_lahore]

Make Pakistan internally strong
By Dr Mubashir Hasan | Published: June 9, 2009
The main political parties and their leadership is undermining the existence of Pakistan. Over the years, they have failed to understand that the state of Pakistan is unraveling. The administrative structure of state is no longer quite capable of ensuring the performance of the basic duties of the state mainly; the protection of life, property and dignity of the people, dispensation of justice to all the citizens as equals, semblance of equitability in the distribution of wealth and assuring a sense of belonging to Balochs, Pashtuns, Sindhis and Punjabis that the Government at Islamabad is their Government.
The system of administration is highly biased in favour of the rich and influential. Ghundas and thugs and those with political power are in evil conspiracy with the administration of police, judiciary and the tax collector. Money and power is the currency to get all legal and illegal work done in government offices. It takes decades to get cases decided in the courts. Corruption plays a big part in decisions. Outright lies are spoken in recording evidence in the court. No one is ever punished for perjury in Pakistan.
The gulf between the rich and the poor has widened enormously. 98 per cent of population is in a state of despair and frustration and has lost hope. The wealthy 2 per cent, armed with foreign passports and visas with huge wealth stashed abroad are ready to leave the country any time.
The old grievances among the provinces of Sindh, Punjab, Balochistan and NWFP have reached all time high. Cooperation at the federal level has disappeared, complaints and prejudices have taken the place of patriotic fervor. What had begun in the early years of Pakistan as grievances and complaints between East and West Pakistan, between the Bengalis and Punjabis has now been replaced by tensions between Punjabis, Sindhis and Mohajirs and between independence seeking Balochs and Pashtuns. The absence of cooperation between the provinces has snowballed making Pakistan a fragile statePresident Obama was wrong in terming the Government of Pakistan as fragile. How can a government be called fragile when the two main parties in the parliament work in almost total consensus. President Obama should have stated that it was not the government but the state of Pakistan as fragile.
The USA, supposed to be a greatest ally of Pakistan, instead of strengthening the state seems to have adopted a policy of further weakening it. The Pakistan army which has been the bulwark protecting structure of the state, is being weakened by taking upon the task of fighting which amounts to chasing the proverbial wild goose.
It is time that people of Pakistan, the Government and the political parties and leaders realise that utmost attention should be paid to strengthen Pakistan internally. Without being strong internally there could be no achievements in pursuing the best possible of foreign policy and no military successes can bring lasting peace and tranquillity. Pakistan needs a change in its structure of governance. Full provincial autonomy has to be achieved by the provinces. The rights of autonomous people of FATA must be respected. In the new structure of governance, there has to be introduced people's oversight over the performance of police. The system of jury should be introduced for criminal justice. Widest delegation of executive powers is required from top to bottom. What can be decided at the level of Tehsil/Tauloka and Town, must not be in the domain of a district. Similarly, what can be decided at district and provincial level, should not be in the domain of a province and Islamabad. The introduction of new structure of governance will guarantee solidarity, prosperity and integrity of Pakistan.

 

[arshad_lahore]

Can Obama deliver on his vows?
By Mohammad Jamil | Published: June 9, 2009
President Barack Obama presented his vision in his landmark address at Cairo with regard to relations with the Muslim World. He was candid in saying that two states is the only solution of Middle East conflict and US will not turn its back on Palestinians' right for their homeland but at the same time he urged the Palestinians to abandon the violence. Obama's speech has been well received by the Muslims at large who consider it a paradigm shift in the US policy, but the litmus test of his sincerity is the practical demonstration by translating his sentiments into action within a reasonable period of time.
The sceptics, however, are of the opinion that the US needs a symbol to showcase its decency with a view to restoring America's image. They argue that the US economy is in deep recession therefore the US cannot afford to continue war in Iraq and for that matter even in Afghanistan. Anyhow, if President Obama is sincere he should not be influenced by the neocons, corporate capital and Israeli and Indian lobbies, and should work according to his conscience, because to be a respectable world leader it is not enough to be a president of a super power; President Obama should therefore display his political acumen and determination because he has the potential to change the course of history.
Before and after elections, he had given hope to the world that he would help resolve the long-standing issues between the belligerent nations and also review the US policy towards Iran, Cuba and North Korea. One has no reason to disbelieve him. But it is too well known that the Jews have very strong lobbies in US Congress, the Senate, CIA, think tanks and all other organs of the state. This is the reason that during the last six decades a dozen US presidents during their tenures had failed to get the UN Security Council resolutions on establishment of Palestinian state implemented due to Israel's intransigence. Same was the case with Kashmir dispute between India and Pakistan where the former has refused to implement UNSC resolutions and Kashmiris are suffering at the hands of Indian army and agencies for the last six decades.
President Obama during his election campaign and even after saddling into power declared that would nominate US special envoy for Pakistan, Afghanistan and India, but when Holbrooke was nominated, India was excluded from the loop. For Middle East, he had appointed George Mitchell as special US envoy to resolve the Palestinian issue who asseverated that the 2002 Arab peace initiative - under which Arab states would normalise relations with Israel in exchange for full Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza - should be the basis of peace talks. During previous administration, Condoleezza Rice frequented the region to resolve the issue but no headway could be made, as Israel had been pushing for a vaguely worded document while the Palestinians wanted a detailed outline, complete with a timetable for establishing a Palestinian state. It all started on 14th May 1948 when the UN implemented the 1947 Partition Plan and established the state of Israel. With backing of the West, Israel continued usurping the Palestinian land, and balked at UN resolutions that gave the Palestinians the right to have an independent state. In July 2004, after 37 years of 1967 war International Court of Justice in its judgment had declared the occupation of Palestinian lands by Israel as illegal. The question remains whether any country has the right to invade and occupy the other country?
During last 40 years, a number of initiatives for peace have been taken, in the context of Security Council Resolution 242 but none has succeeded. Palestinian problem continues to defy any solution, primarily due to intransigence of Israel, blindly supported and encouraged by US. The Palestinian tragedy has been further compounded with the treachery of Arabs, duplicity and silence of International Community. President Obama should act fast so that he does not hand over the baton to the next president after four years who would again promise to resolve the issue. Anyhow, Muslims throughout the world hopes that he would take urgent measures to ensure justice to the Muslim countries that have suffered death and destruction for the last 60 years. Palestinians and Kashmiris have been waiting for six decades to see that United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolutions are implemented but despite promises made by almost each and every US administration, the issues and dispute remain unresolved. Palestinians and Kashmiris do not want promises but implementation of the UNSC resolutions.