Aaj key KAALAM 15 June, 2009

[arshad_lahore]

Standing on our own feet



In the national interest

Monday, June 15, 2009
Kamal Siddiqi

The writer is editor reporting, The News

How difficult is it for a nation to stand on its own feet? We have examples around us in the form of India, China and Iranall three our immediate neighbours. Economic strength has given them the courage and confidence to take a stand when it comes to their national interest. In Pakistan, the opposite seems to be the case.

We have a history of being led by dictators that are propped by American aid. It is somewhat ironic that American governments have been happy to bankroll our military leaders but were reluctant to help out our emerging democrats. And history tells us that it is our military strongmen that have bent more willingly when pressured from the outside.

Why is it that we as Pakistanis look at foreign help as some sort of recipe that is the cure for all our ills? This week, American legislators will give thumbs-up to yet another aid programme for Pakistan. Do we need this package? Granted that we are once again finding ourselves in an economic mess, but is there no other way we can pull ourselves out of it? Also, will we be told of the strings attached to this?

We are told that this aid package is different. Firstly, it is being given to a government with democratic credentials. Secondly, its thrust will not be military aid but to help Pakistan help itself economically and on the human development front.

Pakistan is a nightmare when it comes to basic services like education, health, water and sanitation. For decades international financial institutions, the UN and friendly governments have been trying to help us improve the quality of life of the average Pakistani. But the difference, barring some exceptions, has been marginal. Largely to blame are we ourselves our government and our corrupt leaders and bureaucrats.

With the aid package sealed this month, our government is happy to show that this is the beginning of an economic revival. Some say with a sigh that Pakistan is possibly one of the few countries in the world which celebrate when they are burdened with more debt.

There are others who argue that the American help that we will be receiving comes at a price. If past precedents are anything to go by, this may well be true. Every time we are burdened with a new aid package, it comes with the same set of promises. Our leaders promise not to steal the money, the Americans promise not to leave us in midstream.

What is it in President Obamas package that the Pakistani government thinks will change the current state of affairs in the country? Already, most Pakistanis are saying that the Swat operation is being fought at the behest of the Americans. Some say that is why the Americans are giving us more money.

There is some truth in this. President Zardari has said that he does not have the money to bring the economic revival that is needed as a follow-up to the war in Swat and the other regions affected by militancy. We are told by President Zardari and others that unless the military action is followed by an economic one, the war against the militancy and extremism will remain a lost cause.

We are told that one of the reasons for the rise in the popularity of the Taliban was the economic deprivation in the areas of Swat and in other parts of the NWFP. A high unemployment rate, coupled with easy access to arms and ammunition, is usually a lethal combination.

But will we have the economic revolution in place once the Taliban depart and the Pakistani government establishes its writ? If we are to see the capability of the Pakistan government in terms of setting up economic opportunities, it has a poor record card by any standard. It also has a poor record when it comes to implementing foreign funded programmes. Possibly that is why the Americans are setting up an office in Islamabad to monitor spending and allocations. But who will monitor the Americans, who are equally wasteful on aid projects.

Then again, what role with the Americans play in all this? More important, why should the Americans keep on bankrolling us, especially when they insist on their formulas, irrespective of the fact that local wisdom suggests otherwise. Will we have the capacity to say no?

Where are we in all this? In all honesty, this is our mess. We should be cleaning it. By increasing American involvement in our internal affairs, we are inviting more trouble. We cannot continue to live on handouts. More important, the solutions to our problems lie within, not in Washington.

So far, the democratically elected government has disappointed on many fronts. But to give it credit, Shaukat Tarin and his team have saved us from the economic crisis that was once on the verge of happening. But we are barely keeping our head above the water. And this is a worry that is shared by the rest of the world.

As a first step, we are missing direction. There is no game plan in place that determines how we move ahead. Our government is working on a day-to-day basis when the people want to see the larger picture. People want to know what the government is doing to fight inflation. Both food and fuel prices have come down internationally, but this has not been reflected in the local markets. Some wonder whether the government can stand up to the mafias that exploit supply chains in Pakistan.

We also want to know what the government plans to do after the Swat operation. How will the refugee crisis be tackled in the coming months? What plans does the government have in terms of rehabilitation of the refugees and the economic revival of the area? People need to be given something to look forward to. This is not happening. What is the government doing about the political fallout of its war against the militancy?

As things stand, the war for the hearts and minds of Pakistanis is yet to be won. Most Pakistanis are still not convinced on the operation being wages in the tribal areas. Why is the government still unable to present its case clearly? Why is there not enough debate on this in our media?

On the economic front too, the government does not have the larger picture. What is our plan for exports? How do we plan to raise taxes in the next five years? What do we intend to do with our privatisation program? Why are we doling out more jobs in government service when we should be working on the private sector?

There are times when the people want to see the government take charge. Like it has done in Swat, although some say that this came too late and at great human cost. One would like to ask the president what he is doing about law and order. Crime and violence in our cities is increasing significantly. People have lost faith in the policing system and are questioning the efficacy of our judicial system.

The president and the present leadership should become more sympathetic to the plight of the common man. It is not a time to make foreign trips but to reassure the people that the country is moving towards a brighter future. So far, for most Pakistanis there seems to be no light at the end of the tunnel. Pakistan has become the sick man of South Asia. The government needs to take a more serious view of governance and chart a course for the future. And in this it should keep the countrys interests paramount, not only those who keep bankrolling our future.

 

[arshad_lahore]

The cost of war



Monday, June 15, 2009
Talat Masood

US think tanks, Congressional committees and State Department officials keep reminding us of the $12 billion of assistance that has been provided to Pakistan since 2001. Nearly 68 percent of this amount was reimbursement of costs incurred by Pakistan military in counterterrorism operations in FATA. And over $3 billion were provided for economic assistance and development. There is no doubt that deciding to join the war on terror led to substantial flow of US and international assistance from individual countries and donor agencies and did contribute for a while in bringing about macroeconomic stability and increased growth rates. But Pakistan soon realised that its fiscal and monetary policies that were heavily reliant on foreign assistance were not able to sustain growth.

What is however seldom realised internationally or by domestic audience that the cost of war that Pakistan had to bear and continues to bear is many times more that the aid that it has received so far. Institute of Public Policy of Beacon House National University in its recent annual report has come out with a comprehensive study of the state of economy in which the economic cost of the war on terror has been estimated since 2004-05 to be $31.4 billion, far in excess of the assistance of $1.7 billion annually.

With expanding insurgency in tribal belt and increasing acts of terrorism in Pakistan the direct and indirect costs are growing exponentially. In 2008 alone nearly 2,500 people lost their lives and about 5,000 suffered serious injuries. There has been massive damage to property running into billions of rupees. In addition the number of militants killed by our security forces during military operations also runs very high. And property damaged has been great. The costs have been increasing as the intensity and expanse of terrorist activity and insurgency is expanding.

The indirect costs include drop in investment, inability to proceed with development work, loss of production time, increase in employment and high cost of supporting displaced persons. As risk has increased so have insurance and other overheads costs.

Pakistan has suffered from flight of capital, closure of business and industrial activity and stock market has taken a deep down turn. Then there are opportunity costs as well. Pakistans fight against insurgents has political fallout and the nation is suffering psychologically. Political and social costs have been even higher. This conflict has ruptured the society and given rise to a deep polarisation between ethnic groups, widened the chasm between liberals and conservatives and between the religious and secular groups. It has pitched one religious sect against another and has also introduced an element of class warfare. This insurgency has also exposed the hypocritical side of the Islamic state as it could not effectively neutralise the militants at the ideological and ethical level and had to seek support of the military. This was despite the fact that the militants were presenting the most warped and distorted interpretation of Islam.

Clearly, the insurgency has challenged the invincibility of the armed forces. Although the armys learning curve has been fairly good and it showing far better results in Swat and Malakand division under the guidance and leadership of General Kayani as compared to its performance during the Musharraf period. We have once again learnt that quality of commanders and soldiers is even more important as we fight in the valleys or do urban combat in Swat and other places. Recent experience has shown that political ownership is the key for mobilising public support in fighting insurgencies.

This insurgency has introduced new weapons and systems. The use of drones by US has been a force multiplier and given a new dimension in fighting insurgencies but has also brought in moral and political dilemmas. On the militants side the extensive use of FM broadcasts both as a command and a propaganda weapon has been a unique feature.

Despite the huge cost of war the results until recently were not very encouraging. It is since the Swat operation has started that there has been a qualitative change in the military operations and the militants are on the run.

The question on the mind of every one today is what is it we want to achieve in the end. Indeed we are fighting this war for our survival and our future and as much for the stability and security of the region and in a larger context for the globe. The overarching mission of our military apart from establishing the writ of the state in all those areas of tribal belt and Malakand division is the preservation of the constitution, democracy and our value system. The sacrifices our soldiers and officers and civilians are making are an investment to ensure a better future for our country for which we should be deeply indebted to them.

In fact Pakistan is a Force Maguire for the entire world and as it happens in Force Maguire regular commitments are replaced with extraordinary measures. This is the reason why the global community must come forward and facilitate.

In parallel, Pakistan should aim at increasing industrial and agricultural production and improve overall efficiency in governance and financial management to meet this extra burden. Seeking financial assistance from allies and international donor agencies to tide over immediate and short term contingency may be acceptable. But leaders who make it a habit and culture of seeking outside financial assistance lose respect and credibility both at home and abroad and find it difficult to motivate their people to fight the militants. What is more vital is to place the country on a war footing and a war economy and be as self reliant as possible.

 

[arshad_lahore]

The cynics and the deluded



Monday, June 15, 2009
Asad Zaman

How to get decent, kind and humane people to participate in exploiting the poor? This has always been the central problem facing those who have waged the war against the poor across the centuries. The current global economic crisis is a replication of an event which has frequently occurred in the past: too much exploitation breaks the backs of the poor, on which the whole system rests.

Although history identifies numerous similar events on a smaller scale, the French Revolution was significant in changing the course of history in Europe. Desperation of the excessively exploited poor led to the overthrow of the established aristocracy and the formation of a peoples government. In this favourable atmosphere, slogans of Liberty, Fraternity and Equality, and progressive ideas of Enlightenment thinkers like Godwin and Condorcet led to substantial popular support for social programmemes to improve the lives of the poor. This was a major threat to the wealthy and the powerful. Malthus executed one of the most brilliant manoeuvres in this war by publishing his Essay on Population. Working entirely from his imagination, without any support from facts or statistics, he argued that the main reason for poverty, vice, and misery was the high population growth rate of the poor. Schemes to help the poor would be counterproductive because giving the poor more food would only lead them to reproduce faster, creating even more poor.

All of the quantitative elements of Malthusian arguments have proven to be false. For example, Malthus argued that Britain could not sustain a population of 20 million, but 150 years later the population was more than triple Malthus ceiling. Also, Nobel prizewinner Amartya Sen has shown that supplies of food per capita have been increasing slightly for centuries, and contrary to popular belief, famines are not caused by food shortages. Nonetheless, the governing classes seized upon Malthusian arguments without bothering to verify them. Initiatives for social programmes to help the poor were curtailed or dropped. Since better conditions for the poor would only help increase their numbers, repressive legislation was passed which worsened the conditions of the poor in England. The blame for poverty was put on the vices of the poor, and Malthusianism led to the institution of workhouses for the poor, which were meant to be humiliating and degrading, so as to motivate people to not become poor. The sexes were strictly separated to curb the otherwise inevitable over-breeding, the cause of poverty, according to Malthus.

The current global financial crisis bears an eerie resemblance to the Great Depression of 1929. Then, as now, financial chicanery was used to transfer wealth from workers and producers to wealthy parasites via interest, stocks and other financial gimmicks. The system collapsed because the producers of wealth worked harder and harder to get less and less, while the wealthy got richer without doing any productive work. While causing tremendous misery to large numbers of people, the Great Depression was an ideological triumph for the poor. No one could deny the clear and incontrovertible failure of free markets and capitalism to provide jobs and foods to all. Keynesian economics provided a theoretical basis for government interventions to provide employment and social welfare programmes. Anti-poor strategists could (and did) argue that helping the poor would only make them worse off, and a large government role in welfare programmes would lead to oppressive dictatorships later on; no one was listening. The stagflation caused by the oil crisis of the 1970s was contrary to Keynesian doctrines and provided the opening for a successful counterattack. The anti-poor theorists explained that Keynes was wrong, and government interventions to help the poor in the short run always ended up hurting them even more in the long run. Again, without a shred of evidence for these theories, Reagan and Thatcher rose to power and implemented them in the USA and the UK. The centrepiece of these Chicago School stories was the idea that giving wealth to the rich would increase investment and lead to rapid growth. Impoverishing the poor would lead to lower wages and also increase productivity. Welfare programmes were dismantled, and tax cuts and other breaks for the rich were enacted. These neoclassical ideologists have dominated policymaking to this day, leading to situation reported in the USDA report, Household Food Security in the United States, 2004: 38.2 million Americans live in households that suffer directly from hunger and food insecurity, including nearly 14 million children. That figure is up from 31 million Americans in 1999.

Maos revolution, which brought communism to China, proved to be a boon to the rural poor all over the world. The CIA was called to the carpet for its failure to anticipate and frustrate this anti-capitalist phenomenon. They explained that this revolution was based in rural areas, while the CIA had presence only in the urban areas. Some readers will remember the extensive Village Aid programme in Pakistan. Similar programmes were launched all over the world to gather information, and generally prevent unrest and revolutions in rural areas. As a by-product, money was pumped into the really needy rural areas. These programmes were dismantled when it became clear that, unlike Russia, China did not plan to export its revolution.

The influence of neoclassical ideologists was felt in Pakistan in the 1960s when a group of expert economists from Harvard designed policies for growth at the Planning Commission. Brainwashed by training in neoclassical economics, the compassionate Mahbubul Haq went along with the idea that exploiting the poor was necessary for rapid growth, in the belief that short-term sacrifice was needed for long-term welfare. He wrote: It is well to recognise that economic growth is a brutal, sordid process. There are no shortcuts to it. The essence of it lies in making the labourer produce more than he is allowed to consume for his immediate needs, and to reinvest the surplus thus obtained. Much to his credit, he renounced his earlier views when he saw the bad effects of these neoclassical policies. Wealth became concentrated (the 22 families) and did not trickle down. He wrote that we were told to take care of our GNP as that would take care of poverty let us reverse this and take care of poverty, as this will take care of our GNP. Unfortunately, this remained a pipedream. The anti-poor faction has remained in power in Pakistan, and persuaded Musharraf to make the same mistake that Mahbubul Haq had renounced over forty years earlier. In his biography In the Line of Fire Musharraf writes that he faced a choice between increasing social welfare programmes to help the poor, or working in higher GNP growth, which would alleviate poverty; he chose the second alternative. The current government is preparing to make the same mistake all over again.

Extensive experience with growth projects all over the world led Mahbubul Haq to the insight that our people are our greatest treasure. If we invest in them, and provide them with lives with dignity, economic security, and justice, they will create progress on all fronts. Our people are our most powerful agents of change, and strategies based on injustice and exploitation will always fail, as has been repeatedly experienced. Mahbubul Haq expressed this insight as follows: after many decades of development, we are rediscovering the obviousthat people are both the means and the end of economic development. As the battle against the poor has been waged in the course of the centuries, this central insight has often been rediscovered, and just as often buried under anti-poor propaganda.

A crucial insight for those who would fight for the poor is the following. The cynics who deliberately oppress the poor for personal gain are few; much more damage is caused by sincere people deluded by anti-poor propaganda into believing that it is to the benefit of the poor to exploit them. This propaganda has often taken the following lines: Helping the poor raises wages, reduces production and hurts the poor in the long run. Helping the rich increases investments, productivity and is the best way to help the poor in the long run. Sincere and compassionate people are fooled into believing that balancing the budget, privatisation, debt relief or other agendas take priority over the problems of helping the poor lead better lives. Convincing these people to learn from historical experience (instead of repeating it) that we must prioritise human beings over all other things, is a key to achieving success. The current global financial crisis makes it critical not only to spread the message, but also for everyone to personally participate in trying to help those whom we can. We cannot afford to wait for the government or foreigners to come to our rescue.

The writer teaches economics at the International Islamic University of Islamabad.

 

[arshad_lahore]

Well trained



Monday, June 15, 2009
Chris Cork

In-service training is common enough, but good in-service training less so. Even rarer is training that actually equips those being trained to do something they had not been able to do before the minute they leave the room they were trained in. Three mornings in the company of the community training team of the Bahawalpur 1122 service last week alongside other teachers I sometimes work with, was a revelation. They have been operational in the city for a little over two years and I was already aware of their reputation for doing a good job but was unaware that they had a mission to train and educate the communities they were set up to serve.

The community team has visited private schools and colleges within the Punjab group of institutions, numerous NGOs, the government social welfare departments across the province as well as private businesses that have an eye to corporate social responsibility. They deliver a three-day base-line first aid course, and anybody who attends will come away equipped with a set of simple skills and enough basic knowledge to perhaps sustain a life until the arrival of the professional lifesavers. They can help schools and colleges to develop emergency plans what to do in the event of fire, how best to evacuate the premises, installation of smoke alarms and the identification and labeling of fire exits. Three years ago none of this existed, and so far Punjab is the only province to roll out the service.

I watched the two fire and rescue stations being built one of them close to my own home. Years of living in Pakistan had bred a deep scepticism within me as to the ability of any government institution to deliver on a promise. Did I think that 1122 was going to be anything other than a vehicle for some politicians ego? The usual mish-mash of half-baked ideas and unfinished projects? Yesguilty as charged, and I was wrong. 1122 is a major step forward in terms of the federal and provincial governments provision of services to the people. In Bahawalpur they have an average response time of 5.42 minutes. In the last year they have attended 3,849 road traffic accidents and 269 fires. Emergency services do not get much better than that anywhere.

What has emerged in a relatively short time is an integrated emergency service that is well-equipped for the job and staffed by men and a handful of women who are trained to a standard as good as anywhere in the developed world. (I can say that with some certainty as for many years I have been involved in emergency and disaster planning I know when I am looking at quality.) This did not happen with the waving of a magic wand. Years of thought and planning will have gone into the operation, as well as very large sums of money services like this do not come cheap. Failed states do not do things like this.

During a break on the first morning I chatted to Zaffar Iqbal, an emergency officer and the man doing most of the talking that day. He was a man clearly proud of his job and rightly so. He oozed enthusiasm from every pore. Articulate and a natural communicator he had a sense of presence about him that said this was a good man to have around in a crisis. He said there were 243 men and two women employed in the service locally. They would like more women. Finding them is not easy in a conservative area, but increasing the number - particularly of female paramedics - would broaden the service considerably. He talked of his own training four months and its rigours, and of the way in which the public has begun to understand and use the service. Hoax calls have dropped considerably. He described the process of familarisation that the drivers of the ambulances and fire-tenders went through, the use of GPS and of Google Earth to navigate the maze of alleys that much of the city is made up of. What he was describing a sophisticated first-world service that used new technologies as they would be used in London or Rome or New York. And Bahawalpur.

The writer is a British social worker settled in Pakistan.

 

[arshad_lahore]

The enigma that is drone
Published: June 15, 2009
HAROON RASHID
Pakistan has asked the United States for drone technology so that it can fly pilot-less planes itself for carrying out strikes on suspected Al Qaeda and Taliban hideouts in the country's rugged mountainous region bordering Afghanistan. Our democratic government has been from day one at its wits' end trying to deal with drone attacks on Pakistani soil. On one hand, it continues to pull the wool over the public's eyes by denying its involvement in such attacks, and on the other hand its senior functionaries have made a habit of issuing tactless statements on this sensitive issue.
More often than not embarrassing comments from the officials on high leave people reeling from shock. The latest in a series of indiscreet public utterances on drone attacks by the top authorities is a point raised recently by our prime minister. Talking to reporters at a stone-laying ceremony in Lahore, he put his foot in when he said: "If drone attacks are necessary, the United States should provide us with the drone technology so that we can carry out these attacks ourselves."
Is the prime minister not suggesting that it's for the US to decide what course of action Pakistan must take in its own soil and against its own people. Also, implicit in his statement was admittance of a common perception that Pakistan is fighting an American war, although the authorities here have said umpteen times that the country is fighting its own war against the Taliban and Al Qeada sympathizers.
Besides, so conflicting are official statements that one does not know whether to laugh or cry. Referring to US special envoy Richard Holbrooke's recent visit and his rebuttal of suggestions that Pakistani authorities had taken up the drone issue during meetings with him, Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani said Mr Hoolbrooke was told loud and clear that drone attacks were counter productive to Pakistani strategy to the war on terror.
On the contrary, Defence Minister Ahmed Mukhtar was unaware of what the prime minister and the US envoy discussed during their meeting. He said the issue had already been taken up with the US officials and therefore it was not necessary to discuss it every time officials from the two countries meet.There have been attempts on both sides not to unravel the truth about drone attacks, although rumour has it for a long time now that US drones that carry out missiles strikes are based in Pakistan. US Senator Dianne Feinstein, who is chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, is said to have told a hearing attended by the director of National Intelligence that that the unmanned US air force drones operating in Pakistan are flown from an airbase inside the country. Last November, the Washington Post reported that Pakistan and the US had reached a tacit understanding on drone attacks. The newspaper said both countries made a deal in September 2008, according to which Pakistan allowed US to carry out drone strikes inside its territory. The deal allows the US government not to publicly acknowledge the attacks while Pakistan's government continues to raise a hue and cry over the politically sensitive air strikes just to fool its own people. There are also unconfirmed reports on the basis of images captured from Google Earth that US forces fly unmanned drones from the Shamsi airbase in Balochistan. The base is located about 50 kilometers from the Pakistan-Afghanistan border that allows US forces to launch drone attacks instantly whenever they are asked to.
According to Pakistani authorities, from January 14, 2006 to May 16, 2009, 65 US drone strikes in Pakistan killed 743 people, of which 14 were Al-Qaeda militants and the rest 'innocent civilians'. In contrast, top US officials consider these strikes very successful and maintain that these strikes have dealt a fatal blow to senior Al-Qaeda leadership.
Given the sophistication of drone technology and the fact that US won't dare put India's back up, the odds are against Pakistan getting the drone technology. On the face of it, drone attacks will remain contentious between the governments of the two countries. No prizes for guessing whether actually they are.

 

[arshad_lahore]

Words need action
By Ayaz Ahmed Pirzada | Published: June 15, 2009
The speech in Cairo of President Barak Hussein Obama was watched with keen interest by over one and a half billion people around the world. Obama's eulogistic comments for Islam and quotations from the Holy Quran were very well taken in the Muslim countries. But back home some commentators and analysts criticized him for sounding like a spokesman of Muslims, apologetic about US policies and on his stance on Palestine.
President Obama did not shy away from pressing Israeli government, insisting that the construction of settlements must stop, the existence of a Palestinian state cannot be denied, and that the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. Most significant was his policy statement on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in which he categorically supported establishment of a two-nation state and strong opposition to Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory.
He however made no mention of the status of Jerusalem but said that it was a holy place for the three Abrahamic religions, Jews, Christians and Muslims, indicating that Israel will have to accept and accommodate this reality. If President Obama is really able to convince Israel to accept a two-state solution, withdraw to 1967 borders and stop building settlements then it would dramatically transform the relationship between the US and the Muslim world.
President Obama's acknowledgement of Hamas being representative of a section of Palestinian people was a major departure from the Bush administration policy of branding them as terrorists. There were clear indications that his administration would be more equitable and retain a balance in its relations between Israel and Palestinians.
Doubts however linger in the minds of many if Obama would be able to implement this new policy on Middle East in view of the hard line attitude adopted by Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu and the strong pro-Israeli lobby that exists in the United States. The Israelis are never amused whenever a balance is exercised while dealing with the Jewish state and Palestine. The Israeli government issued a statement saying that it hoped the speech would mark the "opening of a new era," but the statement made no mention of Obama's demand for a freeze on Jewish settlements or his use of the word "occupation" to refer to Israel's presence in the West Bank. Prime Minister Netanyahu is reported to be preparing for a rebuttal.
Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said in advance of Obama's remarks that "beautiful speeches" cannot change the hard feelings toward the United States. Muslims in the Middle East and North Africa "have witnessed aggressive actions by America" for a long time, he said, and they "hate America from the bottom of their heart." In Lebanon, a Hezbollah official dismissed the speech as a "sermon," while a representative of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt characterized it as "public relations" with little substance"President Obama wants to radically transform this relationship and develop a better understanding with the Muslim world. Having been born to a Muslim father and lived in Muslim countries and the goodwill he enjoys among them he clearly considers himself better equipped to open a new chapter in their relationship.
The speech in Cairo was a deliberate attempt and an initiation of a process of reconciliation. His clear announcement without mincing words that US is not at war with Islam but is fighting the militants who are killing innocent civilians was meant to give clarity to the new policy and to gain confidence of Muslims. President Obama's speech was a good beginning to improve the American image in the Muslim world which had got used to see the American administration during the last several years as a bullying power.
The world saw the USA using brute force and threats to achieve its national objectives punctuated by expressions of 'shock and awe'. Recognizing common humanity is only the beginning of the task. Words alone cannot solve multifarious problems the world is facing. Therefore words have to be matched by deeds. These good intentions will be met if bold actions by the US are taken, fully understanding challenges; otherwise lack of trust between the US and the Muslim world would continue to remain if not further eroded.
The history of tense relations between the Islamic Republic of Iran and USA is as old as the departure from the throne of Shahanshah Reza Shah Pahlavi. The relations reached the lowest ebb when American embassy staff in Tehran was taken hostage for 444 days causing pain and anguish in the USA. Then a failed attempt to rescue hostages by the Carter administration bolstered the Iranians but it caused dismay in the USA.
The development of Iranian nuclear programme is now the main irritant between the country's relations with the West who are not convinced the program is meant for energy requirements of a country which is fabulously rich in oil resources.
In contrast to Bush administration, President Obama has offered talks to Iran without any preconditions to discuss contentious issues. Not only that he is the first US President to admit that his country played a role in the overthrow of Dr.Mohammad Mosaddeq's government in early fifties. The American President conceded the right of any nation - including Iran - should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The Iranian reaction so far has not been categorical.
All in all President Obama's speech in Cairo was well-received by most of his target Muslim audience. According to a columnist the general response sums up the nature of the orator - Mr. Obama's promised "new beginning" between Islam and America sounds great but lacks substance. Greeting the audience with the Arabic "Assalaamu alaykum" ("Peace be upon you") "made people quite emotional," and Mr. Obama quoted verses from the holy Quran "quite expertly, playing his cards quite well. But what is taking place on the ground? The massacre in Afghanistan, Palestine, Iraq and Pakistan is still going on.
Mention of the Kashmir dispute was conspicuously absent. Much of the policy substance of the speech was similar if not identical to George W. Bush administration policies. The novelty was not the message, but the messenger. The bottom line is that the Muslim world is now willing to listen to proposed solutions to the problems Mr. Obama mentioned, and the onus is on the United States to provide them.
Pakistanis did not have to scratch their heads to decipher as to what was for them in the speech. There was none except reiteration of American aid package to Pakistan and bracketing it with Afghanistan in efforts to fight against terrorists. Most of the Pakistanis would have been happy if any reference was made to Kashmir between two nuclear powers.
It has the potential of turning the region into a serious flash point. Even in the absence of mention of Kashmir, President Zardari was so much delighted to hear the speech that he at once sent message felicitations to the US President. No wonder he might have entertained the idea of personally going to Washington to express his profound compliments.

 

[arshad_lahore]

Who cares
By Nadeem Syed | Published: June 15, 2009
The City received yet another blow at the hands of terrorists. This time the target was precisely a popular religious scholar Maulana Sarfraz Naeemi who recently had taken up cudgels against the Taliban and was receiving threats from the same quarters. The people were shocked and grieved to find a popular figure falling prey to terrorism. The security environment in the country in general and in the city in particular has sharply deteriorated more recently as the government decided to take on the Taliban.
The main concern of the people here in the city is when this blood-letting will come to an end, if at all. They are dejected and demoralized to find their lives becoming insecure all of a sudden. But who cares. Everybody here who matters in the government is more interested in his own security than that of the ordinary people. In such trying moments people need someone to console with them to lift their spirits a bit. But so far they got none to mitigate their sense of insecurity and someone who could share their concern.
By the way where the entire Punjab government has gone-its Chief Minister, the cabinet ministers, the behemoth we call bureaucracy including Chief Secretary, Home Secretary and then top cops. No one figures any where as the security conditions worsen in the city and people find their lives unprotected and threatened. They find their lives disrupted by these terrorist acts followed by police department's so-called security measures. For them even going to mosques, madrassas and even attending funeral is becoming difficult or even sending their kids to school, let alone leading a normal and routine lives
But then the question springs to mind where the Punjab government is? For sometime we hardly see Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif in picture, discussing with his administrative team the law and order situation at a greater length, as being required by the turn of events, roaring and issuing warnings here and there to keep the policemen on the right track. Once law and order used to be his favourite theme and about which he was not ready to tolerate any slacklessness. Nor we find any message emanating from his side for the public giving some hope and inspiration to them in these bleaker days. Such messages work wonders in such situations when the people are down and out. In case if he is occupied where are entire cabinet team and his loyal and trusted bureaucrats both from the police and civil administration. In better days situation even less grimmer used to invoke very strong response from the government side with Chief Secretary, Home Secretary and police cops holding press conferences to share their thoughts with the press and in the process instill confidence in the people that they are there to take care of their concerns. But nothing of the sort is happening now, even not for the sake of it.
The top cops, IGP and CCPO seemed hopeless creatures on the earth. Their comments before the cameras the day Maulana Naeemi got assassinated were good enough to gauge what these men were up-helpless and clueless. They also seemed disheartened and demoralized which is not a good sign. One wonders how they will lift the morale of the force they are presiding over if they themselves are down. When IGP Tariq Saleem Dogar assumed his new office the overwhelming impression was this that he was the man who would turn the tide and make amends for all the police failings. Now it turned out that much of it was exaggerated. For CCPO the less said the better. A little bit of imagination precautions and greater security measures could have averted the tragedy that struck the city other day.
Maulana Sarfraz Naeemi was the first scholar to declare the suicide bombing as haram while supporting the Swat operation. His devotees claimed that he took this position openly on the request of top police brass. Yet the same police could not protect his life, knowing fully well that he imperiled his life by coming in the open against the extremist elements for securing the cops' lives.
It seems that police top brass the PSP officers are more obsessed with their own security these days when their job is to protect the life and property of the people. The police while leaving the people at the mercy of God are seen fortifying their buildings and offices no matter what it takes in the end and how much inconvenience it caused to the public.
We see the police buildings are being protected with all kinds of barriers and blockades. The roads leading to their offices have closed for public movement. For example Shariah Fatima, the road where the office of CCPO is situated has been closed down for the last 15 days. Nobody knows when the road will be open for public. It would have been much better had the CCPO shared his thoughts with the press as to why it was necessary to close the road and when it would be opened. Probably, he is waiting for the threat he faces to subside before the road is opened for general public.
But as the police bungle and fumble most surprisingly no eyebrows are being raised in the political circles. Perhaps there is nobody to monitor the police performance.

 

[arshad_lahore]

Can he do it?
Published: June 15, 2009
DR JAMES ZOGBY
I am just returning from the Middle East, where, in the wake of President Obama's Cairo speech, the victory of the March 14th Coalition in Lebanon, and the return of Senator George Mitchell to the region, some "brave" souls are allowing themselves to feel a bit hopeful. I say "brave" because, while there is widespread admiration for Barack Obama and appreciation for his spoken word, daring to have confidence in any US President or to believe that peace may be possible requires a "leap of faith."
Questions abound. One, in particular, that I was repeatedly asked, was made up of four deceptively simple words - "can he do it?" Each time this question was posed, I listened carefully in order to discern precisely what was being asked.
In every instance, of course, the subject, "he," was Barack Obama. His election raised expectations for many across the region, and these have not been let down by his early actions as President. The two verbs, "can" and "do," suggest questions about the capacity, the commitment and the political will of the President.
The question's object, "it," on the other hand, had a variety of meanings. In some cases, "it," referred to the President's stated goal of achieving a "two state solution." In a few instances, my questioners had taken a step back from the goal, instead, wondering whether the President would have the strength to persist in efforts to stop Israeli settlement construction, or to press the Netanyahu government to negotiate on all of the issues requiring resolution in order to achieve a just peace. For a few, the "it" had a domestic US reference, as in, would the President, once confronted by domestic political pressure, be able to resist or would he submit, fearing harm to his Presidency?
Interestingly enough, very few of the individuals with whom I spoke questioned this President's intentions or his commitment. Obama's honesty is not in doubt. What prompts concern or skepticism is whether or not he has the strength to overcome political constraints in the US and Israel. Another reason the question is asked is the fact that, for many, the "two state" goal, itself, is in doubt. The massive settlement enterprise, Israel's sense of entitlement to keep in place the settlements already built and the infrastructure that sustains them, coupled with the violent fanaticism of the settler movement, all combine to raise doubts as to whether the "two state solution" proposed by the President is even possible. Thus, when they ask, "can he do it," they are not questioning him, they are questioning whether his goal is achievable. And again, there are those who do not doubt the President's commitment, but who fear his attention to Middle East peace may end up being short-lived. Because the goal will be so difficult to achieve, they believe that once other issues assert themselves - e.g. health care, the 2010 elections, or an unexpected crisis - the President will abandon the Middle East in order to not waste precious time and capital in a vain effort to solve the unsolvable.
In each instance, I responded to the variations on a theme raised by, "can he do it?" with the following observations:
? Unlike the last three US Presidents to become engaged in Middle East peacemaking, this President has "wind in his sails." He was elected by a comfortable margin; he maintains a high favorability rating; his party controls both houses of Congress; and his goal of stopping settlements and making rapid progress towards peace has strong public support (including Jewish American support) and the support of major leaders in Congress (including important Jewish American Congressman).
Therefore, as long as the President doesn't suffer an embarrassing defeat or a major scandal, he will continue to be in a strong position to lead on Middle East peace.
? The President knows that pressure on Israel has worked in the past and can work again. Previous Presidents have successfully used pressure to force Israeli concessions. The problem with the efforts of his predecessors has been that they set their goals too low for the political effort they expended. Obama, on the other hand, appears not to simply want a "freeze in settlements" or Israeli attendance at a peace conference, but the achievement, in short order, of a viable "two state solution."
? Will he be distracted by other more pressing goals? Since he has framed the achievement of a "two state solution" as being in the national security interests of the United States (an unprecedented formula), it appears that Obama has no intention of backing down, for to do so would suggest putting US national security interests at risk.
There are, however, two imponderables still standing in the way of a firm "yes" being given in answer to the question, "can he do it?" - and both of these involve questions that Arabs, and Palestinians in particular, must answer.
The first involves the need for the Palestinians to put their political home in order. Should the PA and Hamas forge a national unity government they will strengthen the President's hand, putting still more pressure on the Israeli side to be more accommodating. Should Palestinian national reconciliation not occur it becomes difficult to imagine any forward progress.
The second involves the exact nature of the "it," that is the Palestinian State. There can be no doubt that Netanyahu will, at some point (maybe soon), agree to this goal. But he will do so imposing conditions that make it unrecognizable from legitimate Palestinian aspirations. Palestinians, of course, will not accept this, nor should they. But make no mistake, Palestinians, at some point, will have to define an acceptable end game, one that is both just and achievable. The bottom line is that everyone has a role to play and work to do before the question, "can he do it?" is finally answered.
The writer is President Arab American Institute

 

[arshad_lahore]

Euphemisms mask barbarism
Published: June 15, 2009
IFTEKHAR A. KHAN
The world has come a long way since the days of Viet Nam war, yet the outlook of the imperialist superpower has not changed; what has changed is the lethality of its weapons of destruction. Weapons more efficient to kill human beings now form part of its unlimited stockpiles. Another change is the array of new euphemisms brazenly employed. 'Unacceptable by-products', which during the Viet Nam days meant civilians killed by mistake is no more in vogue; it is replaced by 'collateral damage' - a term more destructive because of advancement in technology. 'Pacification' then did not mean to cajole the local people to win their hearts and minds; it meant to harass them, kill them and their animals, divest them of their belongings, bulldoze their huts to replace with gun emplacements and bunkers. Many were 'pacified' by death; others left their dwellings. Another noteworthy euphemism was 'rectification of boundaries' which did not mean to correct an error, it meant to carve new boundaries to divide the country under pacification. When the invaders succeeded in decimating the resisting populace, the area thus cleared was called a 'sanitised belt'. That story is almost half a century old but the empire marches on.
Last century's commies (communists) have disappeared; Islamists, extremists and terrorists have emerged. Instead of the Vietnamese, Muslims are imperialist power's newfound victims. Victims of 'enhanced interrogation techniques' in Guantanamo, Abu Gharaib and Bagram where many were subjected to most depraved act against innocent captives: rape. Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh's comments during a speech were indeed revolting: "The worst is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking." Hersh said there was "a massive amount of criminal wrongdoing that was covered up at the highest command out there, and higher". He further went on: "Debating about it, ummm... Some of the worst things that happened you don't know about, okay? Videos, um, there are women there. Some of you may have read that they were passing letters out, communications out to their men. This is at Abu Ghraib ... The women were passing messages out saying 'Please come and kill me, because of what's happened' and basically what happened is that those women who were arrested with young boys, children in cases that have been recorded. The boys were sodomized with the cameras rolling. And the worst above all of that is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking that your government has. They are in total terror. It's going to come out." Thousands of photographs and videos of the acts of moral depravity were concealed from public view by the Obama administration. Nor those who allowed and supervised torture and enhanced interrogation techniques were taken to task. What happened? President Obama made a high profile trip to assuage deep wounds of Muslims his empire has inflicted and continues to inflict. He spoke at Cairo University in a reconciliatory tone to placate the Muslim populations. He was applauded for his sweet words. However, ground realities speak to the contrary. He had no credible argument to justify war in Iraq. Only solace he could draw was that Iraqis were rid of Saddam's tyranny, and were now masters of their own will. But at what cost? Why did the President remain remorseless over the loss of lives of more than 1.3 million Iraqi men, women and children? How tyrant Saddam or his people had jeopardised precious American lives to earn such a fate, he did not comment.
An incontrovertible evidence to occupy Afghanistan and Iraq in pursuit of US global agenda much before the 9/11 took place is available. 9/11 was only an excuse to invade Afghanistan while in the case of Iraq no such subterfuge existed. Yet Obama maintained that troops in Iraq would leave by 2012 but would remain in Afghanistan as long as Al-Qaeda and Taliban threat did not abate. Who would determine the threat had indeed abated. And if one trusts Obama's good words, what is the justification of 14 airbases in Iraq and expansion in Afghanistan?
President Obama visited Muslim countries but ignored Iraq and Afghanistan - the two actually bleeding. In Afghanistan, he is despatching more troops and pouring in more investment, at the same time, claiming not to make permanent bases. Yet Bagram detention facility gets $60 million to expand. In fact, Obama's extempore speech is a doublespeak wrapped in euphemisms. He needs to match his words with his administration's actions on the ground. Even Gitmo fate, which he announced amid much fanfare to shut down, hangs in confusion with 94 senators voting against its closure and only four in its favour.
One expects Obama to comprehend what Mark Twain said: "Man is the only animal that deals in that atrocity of atrocities, War. He is the only one that gathers his brethren about him and goes forth in cold blood and calm pulse to exterminate his kind. He is the only animal that for sordid wages will march out... and help to slaughter strangers of his own species who have done him no harm and with whom he has no quarrel....And in the intervals between campaigns he washes the blood off his hands and works for 'the universal brotherhood of man' - with his mouth". Some wisdom there for those who wish to see it. Iraqis have done the US no harm nor have the bearded cave dwellers in Afghanistan. They are only victims of imperial greed and hubris. If President Obama pulls his troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, he would not have to make moving speeches anymore.

 

[arshad_lahore]

White Lies
By Diogenes | Published: June 15, 2009
It seems that President Know-all, after giving his personalised "I need" economics philosophy and "I can deliver" foreign policy, now feels that our diplomatic effort needs a new stamp, his personal stamp. Apparently he believes that he knows how to talk smart, at least better than our suave foreign minister. We hear that after the Halbrooke visit, the FM got a real dressing down by you-know-who, in the presence of the PM. Our guess is that it is now time for "I, my, diplomacy"!
* * * * * * * * * * *
Rumour has it that minister Manzoor Wattoo is likely to draw huge crowds every time he arrives at airports and also when he participates in seminars, conferences and meetings. And this possibly has something to do with a directive circulated by his ministry two weeks earlier. It says "the Minister for Industries and Production has desired that:
1) during his official meetings, conferences, seminars... a reasonable level of presence of officers from corporations, organizations, departments functioning under the administrative control of this ministry should be insured.
2) The minister should be received at the airport in the province of Sindh, NWFP and Balochistan (Punjab is not mentioned) by senior officers of corporations, organizations, departments located in the respective cities.
Now that should make Wattoo Sahib feel like a real "awami" leader, in three provinces at least.
* * * * * * * * * * *
Investigations into master painter Guljee's double murder (triple actually because the maid servant was also killed) could take a new turn altogether. We hear that suddenly an influential person has staked a claim to the Guljee's Nathiagali estate, which consists of two wooden cottages and spreads over nearly 18 kanals of land. This man has never been seen by residents in the 40 years that the Guljees have lived in the Galiat area. But after their murder he surfaced, put a padlock on the gate of their estate and claimed to be their partner in this property. Six employees of the Galliat Develompnet Athority have been suspended on charges of connivance with the land grabber, who has four other such projects to his credit. But curiously enough he has original copies of the Guljee property files. Now where did he get them? Could it be that the Guljee's murder was not a simple murder by domestic servants after all?