Aaj key KAALAM 17 June, 2009

[arshad_lahore]

Advice from Disneyland



Hit and run

Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Shakir Husain

The Shaukat Tarin/Hina Rabbani Khar budget for 2009-10 is no different from any other Pakistani budget presented in the last two decades. There is nothing in there which will tangibly do anything for the 180 million wretched Pakistanis who find it difficult to make ends meet. Pakistani budgets are like Pakistani movies where viewers can decipher the entire plot without even watching the movie because the entire industry is a clich. Our budgets are no different. What makes this budget special for me is just how many drugs our financial team seems to be doing it's almost like they've swapped places with the Bulgarian Women's weight lifting team. Rewind to Shaukat Tarin's explanation of the carbon tax which is being levied on all petroleum products where he advised his compatriots to start using the public transportation system. Ahem, adviser, just what 'system' are you talking about? Flanked by lota state minister for finance and economic affairs who served in the same capacity in the last government from a PML-Q ticket and who could do nothing more than bat her pretty eyes. Neither has sat in a bus nor would they want to; yet they have the gall to tell everyone else to do so. To add injury to the insult both use cars and petrol provided for by the Pakistani taxpayer.

Like all budgets the Finance Ministry has vowed to 'expand' the tax base without quite laying out what their plan to do is. Agriculture and agricultural income remains virtually untaxed because most of our elected representatives are 'farmers'. Ms Khar's father and uncle are 'land-lards' and obviously there is no conflict of interest there. To make things worse Ms Khar has never had a 'real' job in her life other than what has been passed down to her by her father and uncle. During the last elections, Ms Khar was interviewed by a foreign journalist who was puzzled by the fact that she was not canvassing in her constituency to which she replied that it was not done and the male members of her family were doing the needful. Adviser Tareen is far more accomplished given his age and the fact that he is a successful banker with a track record. But being a successful commercial banker and running the Finance Ministry of a country with 180 million people is not quite the same thing. Nor does he have the political legitimacy to really change the economic direction of the country.

The problem with policy-making in Pakistan is that the folks making the policy have very little in common with the 'common man' that they claim to represent. Sure, there are pressures from international donors and agencies but a good financial team is able to find enough elbow room to deliver something to the poor of the country. But the poor of the country or even the middle class do not figure anywhere on the radar for the folks in Islamabad. Huge amounts have been allocated for the agricultural sector which might look good on paper but most of it will benefit the large landlords sitting in parliament rather than the haris who should be getting relief. As the saying goes, "jis ki lathi us ki bhens". In this case the bhens being the treasury of Pakistan. The prime minister was gracious and pleased the people of Pakistan to no end when he stated that from here on Prime Minister House would serve 'simple dishes'. Going out to the majority of the people of this country who manage only one square meal this can only be described as a cruel joke. But the hits keep coming. If representatives of the 'Friends of Pakistan' were to come to the National Assembly session on the budget they would have thought they were in an alternative reality and questioned why Pakistan needed any assistance. They would have based this on the cars which our representatives drove to the session escorted by jeeploads of armed escorts. Mere farmers as per their National Tax Numbers yet driving cars which real farmers haven't even dreamt of. Pious men in cars which are clearly beyond what their tax returns show that is if they file any at all.

The beauty of budgets like the one presented is that the people presenting will shuttle off to conferences and meetings soon after it and all will be forgotten. Till next year and the next. One day Hina Rabbani Khar will be a full-fledged finance minister without having lifted a finger or having had a real job; and that is the tragedy of Pakistan. Despite having capable people who have the brains and the capability to craft budgets which can change the destiny of millions of Pakistanis, we are stuck with mediocrity until the near foreseeable future. Until we get ministers who are willing to put their money where their mouths are with advice and start using the public transport system themselves, educating their children in Pakistan, use the same health care facilities as the rest of the country things will not change. In the meantime we can all pretend that Islamabad is being run by the Loony Tunes and it's not really their fault.



The writer lives in Karachi.

 

[arshad_lahore]

Opportunities lost



Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Masood Sharif Khan Khattak

Pakistan's acquisition of military nuclear technology was a gigantic step in the right direction whereas the failure to develop nuclear power generation simultaneously was an equally gigantic neglect. Especially so when the base for this had been laid as far back as 1971 when KANUPP was made operational. Thereafter, efforts at developing nuclear power generation ought to have moved parallel to the military-oriented nuclear programme, but this did not happen. Chashma Unit 1 got operational in 2000 and Chashma 2 will get on the national electricity grid in 2011. By then they will not be able to account for even two percent of the nation's electricity requirement.

Canada would never have facilitated the commissioning of KANUPP at Karachi if the world had not let it do so. Furthermore, during Shaheed Zulfikar Ali Bhutto's tenure as prime minister, France had agreed to set up nuclear power plants in Pakistan. That this French offer did not materialise was because of our adverse political situation, with Zia-ul-Haq military coup removing Mr Bhutto from power.

Hope was again revived in February 1989, three months into Shaheed Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto's first government when President Francois Mitterrand of France flew into Islamabad to hold a joint press conference with her in order to announce a renewal of the French offer made to her father regarding the nuclear power plants. President Mitterrand did this despite international pressures not to go into such a venture with Pakistan. This was another opportunity lost. By the middle of 1989 it had become clear that Ms Bhutto's government was not going to be allowed to last. The first blow was dealt to her government on Oct 23, 1989, when a conspiratorially generated vote of no-confidence was tabled against her. That she survived that vote is history to which I am a witness as one of her closest confidantes of that time. However, all that political turmoil in Pakistan put the French nuclear power plants offer on hold once again.

Had nuclear power generation been pursued and acquired in the 70s and 80s Pakistan would today have had a far better economy and the industry would have been booming with lots of foreign investment coming in and millions of jobs would have thus been generated. This one action may well have spared Pakistan the horrible situation that we are now going through because of absolute unemployment. Progress, employment and commercial activity always fill up spaces that are otherwise likely to be exploited by negative forces. Pakistan left too much open space for exploitation and is now, as a result, reeling in pain and agony.

The Pakistan of our dreams has not emerged because of many more missed opportunities in other fields of national life too, the prime one being in the field of law and order and its political handling. In May 1974, Balochistan's insurgency was defeated by the Army. But after over 35 years of having resolved that crisis that province has not really mattered to the political elite of Pakistan and Balochistan. Because the military success of 1974 was not politically consolidated through a general uplift of the province we once again face a turbulent situation there. In 1995-96, after years of lawlessness in Karachi, the absolute writ of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan was re-established. Yet, in 2009, this great city is again in the grip of lawlessness. The current situation in the NWFP is the worst that can happen to any country. The very roots of the federation have been jolted. Military operations are in full swing. It is to be seen whether we create yet another missed opportunity after the Army has, hopefully, restored the writ of the State of Pakistan.

Forward planning, foresight, anticipation, brainstorming, talent over cronyism, political and bureaucratic reforms, quality over numbers, technology over old-fashioned attitudes, open and fair job and business opportunities, justice and fair play, revival of the Pakistani spirit, bringing about a young and dynamic leadership to replace the elderly minds that are still stuck in the 70s are aspects that will ensure that we do not miss present day opportunities and those that come up in the foreseeable future. But will we do all this?



The writer is a former director-general of the Intelligence Bureau and former vice-president of the PPP Parliamentarians.

 

[arshad_lahore]

The tendency to go to extremes
By Mahir Ali
Wednesday, 17 Jun, 2009

After this months elections, two of Britains representatives to the European Parliament in Brussels will be members of a white supremacist organisation that had previously experienced electoral success only at the local council level.
A few days after this regrettable result emerged, an elderly white supremacist walked into a Holocaust museum on the other side of the Atlantic and shot dead a security guard. There is no evidence of a causal relationship between the two events, but there is at least a casual connection.

It emerged last week that James von Brumm, the 88-year-old who claimed an innocent life at the US Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, had attended meetings of the American Friends of the British National Party, a body set up to collect funds for the BNP from American donors. Whether or not he contributed to the BNPs coffers, his empathy with British fascism is not particularly surprising.

After von Brumm was shot and wounded by other guards at the museum, a search of his car yielded a handwritten note that read: The Holocaust is a lie. Obama was created by Jews. Obama does what his Jew owners tell him to do. Jews captured Americas money. Jews control the mass media. The BNP, in its quest for electability, lately began to couch its propaganda in terms that stopped short of overt racism, but its leader, Nick Griffin, received a suspended two-year prison sentence in 1998 for incitement to racial hatred after publishing a Holocaust-denialist tract.

Griffin, who is one of the BNPs new members of the European Parliament, has also been quoted as claiming that British Asians were colonisers rather than immigrants, and he once defended a BNP leaflet that declared non-white Britons should be described as racial foreigners. The party has in the past supported the involuntary repatriation of immigrants and the sterilisation of non-white women, and Griffin has described Islam as a vicious faith.

Griffin will be accompanied to Brussels by Andrew Brons, who was once responsible for the election manifesto of an overtly Nazi group known as the National Front a document that, back in 1983, called for global apartheid, saying that the alternative, multiracialism, envisages an extinction of the white man. He also put his name to anti-Semitic articles and was closely associated with one of the Fronts leading Holocaust deniers.

The BNP does not use the word apartheid, but support for a system along the lines of what was once considered the norm in South Africa is implicit in its racist platforms. It is therefore not altogether surprising to discover that Griffins leading advisers include a veteran of the South African far right: Arthur Kemp, who is in charge of Excalibur, the merchandising wing of the BNP, was arrested back in the 1990s in connection with the assassination of the exemplary African National Congress leader Chris Hani, which was clearly intended to derail the post-apartheid transition. Kemp wasnt charged, but it turned out he had indeed drawn up a list of potential targets. Hani was number three on the list. At number one was Nelson Mandela.

The octogenarian terrorist who slew a Holocaust museum guard in Washington is evidently among those Americans who have been driven over the edge by Barack Obamas election. There is thus far no good reason to question the assumption that an African-American presidency will broadly help to diminish racism in parts of the US where it remains a dominant factor. At the same time, it was inevitable that the phenomenon would infuriate white supremacists of the Ku Klux Klan variety and these tend to be groups that have historically made little distinction between non-whites and Jews.

Not all of the groups on the far-right fringes of US politics are necessarily white-supremacist, but at least in some cases there is a bizarre phenomenon whereby political support for Israel exists side by side with anti-Jewish prejudice, the idea being that aggressive policies on the part of the Jewish state will facilitate Armageddon.

Another intriguing contradiction in the same general context is that Islamist fanatics with anti-Semitic and Holocaust-denialist tendencies share many of their prejudices with extremists of other confessional persuasions, but the likelihood of them making common cause is gratifyingly small. One can never be too sure, though; after all, the Bush administration was prone to lining up with conservative Muslim states, including Iran and Saudi Arabia, at international conferences on what are euphemistically known as womens health issues.

However, the historically anti-Semitic far right in Europe nowadays tends to be vehemently Islamophobic as well. Britain is by no means the only country where the European Union elections yielded gratifying results for elements that have few qualms about flirting with fascist tendencies, with their electoral support frequently based on visceral opposition to immigration although in former Eastern Bloc countries such as Hungary, it has been fed by appalling attitudes towards the Romany minority (its easy to forget that the Nazis spectrum of hatred encompassed Gypsies as much as Jews).

Notwithstanding the tendency, demonstrated by the BNP, of global connections between white supremacists, it remains to be seen whether the extremists voted in across Europe this month can sufficiently overcome their nationalistic predilections to form a bloc in Brussels. There can be little doubt, however, that their success does not reflect kindly on the supposed social democrats at whose expense they have done so well.

To a large extent, this is because European social democracy in recent decades has had trouble distinguishing itself from conservatism and Christian-democracy. Perhaps nowhere is this more true than in Britain, where the price is now being paid for the success of Tony Blairs project of reinventing the Labour Party in the image of the Conservatives. The betrayal of the working class paid electoral dividends in the short term, but the result is that voters no longer know what the party stands for.

Although the BNPs good fortune was not based on an increase in its support, the protest vote presages a Labour wipeout at next years British elections. And the sleaze factor epitomised by the recent expenses scandal is a symptom rather than a primary cause of Labours misfortunes amid the present economic woes. Gordon Brown appears to have survived a revolt within Labours Blairist ranks, but the electorate will likely be unforgiving, or at best apathetic.

In the US, the extreme rights excesses hint at its desperation. In Britain and the rest of Europe, the neo-fascist resurgence is in large part a consequence of social democracys suicidal tendencies. And it suggests that, however unpalatable the status quo, the future may well be considerably worse.

 

[arshad_lahore]

Living in a pressure cooker
By Irfan Husain
Wednesday, 17 Jun, 2009

In the aftermath of the local council and European Parliament elections in Britain recently, there was considerable disquiet over the success of the racist British National Party in winning two seats to the European Parliament. It was not so much the number of seats it won that caused concern, but the fact that the BNP got nearly a million votes, just a fraction above six per cent of the total votes cast. For years, this party has been campaigning against immigration, and has been stridently racist, although of late, it has toned down its more noxious rhetoric somewhat.

Unfortunately, the BNPs success in Britain is not an isolated phenomenon. Extreme-right, anti-immigration parties have improved their position in much of Europe. While centre-right parties won the largest number of seats (264) in the 736-seat European Parliament where representation is allocated to member countries on the basis of their populations, the share of socialist parties has come down to 161. But even the centre-right parties are now taking a stronger position on the perceived need to restrict immigration.

It is true that often, local council and EU elections are not an accurate barometer to gauge the national mood. Often, voters use them to register their dissatisfaction with the mainstream parties. In Britain, a large number of Labour supporters simply stayed at home, allowing the BNP to win its two seats, thereby giving it a platform to air its unpleasant views. And yet there is no gainsaying the fact that across Europe, there is a swing to the right. This trend has been reinforced by the economic crunch where many voters feel that conservative parties are better equipped to deal with the crisis. But above and beyond the current economic downturn, sustained immigration over the years has taken its toll on the liberal attitudes that prevailed for much of the second half of the last century.

This rising tide of prejudice is not limited to non-white immigrants. As jobs disappear into the black hole caused by the financial crisis, more and more East European workers head home. The ones who stay are often subjected to hostility by locals who fear for their jobs and their benefits.

There are many myths, often propagated by the right-wing media, surrounding migration. For instance, one survey found that a startling number of Brits think that half the population consists of migrants. The actual figure is under 10 per cent. There are currently around 200 million migrants in various countries according to the Migration Policy Institute. Incidentally, the term migrant worker is applied to those who have been working outside their countries for over a year. Out of these 200 million, some 60 per cent consist of people from the developed world who are working in another developed country. Unsurprisingly, the United States has the highest number of immigrants with 35 million. These figures ignore the vast internal migration that is happening right now. In China alone, for example, some 100 million people have moved from their homes in search for work. In Pakistan, we are all too familiar with this phenomenon: Karachi has the biggest concentration of Pashtuns found anywhere. Approximately three million have moved to the port city over the years, and have been a key factor in the construction boom we have witnessed there. They also dominate public transport, and it is hard to visualise a thriving Karachi without the presence of these hard-working people.

In some countries, especially in the Gulf, migrant workers outnumber the locals by a wide margin. In Qatar, for instance, there are four migrants for every local. Today, 70 per cent of all countries have at least 10 per cent of their population consisting of people born elsewhere. But this phenomenon is not new: between 1870 and 1915, millions left their homes to seek better lives elsewhere. Indeed, human history can be seen as a succession of waves of people moving from one place to another in search of better hunting, pasture, or as a result of famines and sheer population pressure.

Today, as a century of improvements in health care and crop yields have pushed up populations in most of the developing world, more and more people are desperate to migrate. Add to the rising numbers the problems caused by poor governance, water shortages, unemployment and physical insecurity, and you have the recipe for an era of mass movement.

The rising numbers in most of the Third World are in sharp contrast to the continuous fall in the population of many developed countries. In Japan and several West European nations, the population is ageing, while in some it is actually declining. In a rational world, one would think that these countries would welcome migrant workers to their shores. The United States is one country that has done just this, and has benefited as a result. However, smaller, more traditional countries fear an influx of foreigners who do not share the cultural values of the host population. Often, their immigrant population does not integrate easily, causing local resentments, and exacerbating latent racial prejudices. This is happening in much of Europe, with Muslim, non-white migrants being singled out.

The cause of this group has not been helped by the rising Islamism symbolised by Al Qaeda and its offshoots. In the post 9/11 world, it no longer takes much to ignite anti-Muslim sentiment. And to be fair, the words and actions of young Muslim hotheads and their violent mentors do not make assimilation any easier.

As more and more countries close their doors to desperate would-be migrants, how will over-populated countries like Pakistan cope? Clearly, our faltering economy cannot generate the millions of jobs needed every year to gainfully employ those joining the labour market. As it is, many turn to crime, drugs or militancy. But thus far, there is the escape valve of legal and illegal migration. What happens if it is completely closed? In a pressure cooker, if the steam is not allowed to vent, there is an explosion.

The reality is that while many developing countries have taken effective steps to reduce their population growth rates, dysfunctional countries like Pakistan have tried to push the problem under the carpet. But now, the bulge is too large to conceal.

Increasingly, the developed world is reluctant to take the excess population of the Third World. Sooner or later, the escape valve will be turned off, and we will have to cope with the explosive force in the pressure cooker.

 

[arshad_lahore]

Musharraf's diatribe
By Ghulam Asghar Khan | Published: June 17, 2009
Bertrand Russell says: "Most of the greatest evils man has inflicted upon man have come through people feeling quite certain about something which, in fact, was false." Perhaps, Pakistan had the misfortune of being ruled by four military dictators one after the other, who had inflicted all kinds of evils on the citizens of Pakistan for almost four decades, because of their false certainties.
In the galaxy of these 'Four-Star' generals, Musharraf fits more to what Lord Russell had said in his wisdom. He took power by deposing the popularly elected Prime Minister of Pakistan by affecting a coup d'etat on October 12, 1999. After posing as the chief executive for some time, he formally appointed himself as the President of Pakistan in 2001 on the barrel of a gun sans public support.
The seeds for such a disastrous mayhem were first sown by Musharraf in 2001. Prior to 9/11, there was no insurgency in Pakistan's tribal belt worth the salt. The tribesmen were at peace just like the rest of the country. There were no suicidal bombings and no military operations in the Federally Administered Tribal Area (FATA) and their semi-autonomous status was respected by the state. In reality this is a carnage ignited by US strategic interests in the region. By aligning with US and its War on Terror, Musharraf actually declared a war on his own people and the Afghan who were fighting against the US occupation. Without active Pakistani military support, the US and its NATO allies could never have gained such a strong foothold in Afghanistan. Moreover, Musharraf allowed Washington to establish military bases together with many FBI and CIA networks all over the country to operate surreptitiously against the better interests of Pakistan. The result had been the countless kidnappings of Pakistani citizens who were either sent to the Guantanamo concentration camp, or to the overseas gulags established in many countries by the CIA. How many of them were dissipated, no one knows because no such record was available for such renditions. Lately, much uproar is going on all over the country over Dr Aafia Siddiqui's disappearance, who along with her three children was picked up from Karachi in 2003 without any judicial process whatsoever.
Washington is in a position to undertake and even carryout a subversive destabilising campaign inside Pakistan using the various resources it has now in the country. The fact is that Pakistan's sovereignty was mortgaged to Washington in return for a few billion dollars, which Musharraf and his ruling elite enjoyed every year. The economic mayhem that Musharraf junta left behind, presented a further opportunity to Washington to arm-twist Islamabad into complying with its strategy in the region. The economic situation has become so dire that the present rulers in Pakistan have been begging around for money from country to country during the last few months. Pakistan has once again been pushed into the Jaws of "Western Loan Shark," the IMF that has devoured many poor countries in the third world. The danger to Pakistan is not of a Taliban revolution, but rather of creeping destabilisation and terrorism so cleverly fabricated by the CIA.
It was Musharraf who cultivated and nurtured Taliban, terror outfits and fundamentalists to stay in power by posing as Bush's buddy in Islamabad. For the long eight years in power, he was the "Don Quixote" who left Pakistan in absolute turmoil and claimed with hostile eloquence that he had transformed Pakistan into a safe haven. The question is, safer for whom? Cicero says: "If the truth is self-evident, eloquence would be unnecessary." But as the fate would have it, he is not in power now. Even now, if he was the president, Pakistan would still be as unsafe. You can only grow terrorism, but you can never have control over it by sitting over the barrel of a gun.
It was there both Bush and his eloquent buddy (Musharraf) erred. Bush's carrot-and-stick policy failed because Musharraf was only concerned with carrot at the cost of punishment to the people of Pakistan. What a patriotic self-styled messiah, who preferred to live in a high-priced posh bungalow in London, instead of sharing the torture with his "very dear citizens." He was a master jugular who hoodwinked the people, the military and above all his surrogate master in the White House.
The trouble with Musharraf is that he has not been able to come out of power-stupor and has a lurking hope that he might as well stage a come back as a reincarnation of Gustav Jung's "wise old man." During his sponsored visit to Washington in the recent past, he refused to rule out a return to public life showing his readiness to offer his services if 'his country remains in trouble', conveniently forgetting that he is the root cause of the dilemma this poor country is facing. But, he had the fancy to say that the ban on his participation in politics would end in November and that he was not running for office in six months. He pretended that he was enjoying life speaking on the so-called lecture circuit, which was more in self-praise rather than political philosophy. Even that hoax has backfired because his sponsors couldn't possibly get the captive audience, which used to be arranged by state agencies during his dictatorship days.
Musharraf's lecture plan backfired when the Indian prime minister showed his reluctance to host his visit to India where the loquacious general was seen as an obstacle to India-Pakistan ties. Musharraf's efforts to cut a high profile through his photo-sessions with the Indian president, the prime minister and the Congress Chief Sonia Gandhi were politely rebuffed. He intended to make some public appearances to project himself as a messenger of peace, but the Indian government wary of Musharraf's penchant to play the media and stir controversies, cold-shouldered him. There was apprehension that he would dish out his stale and unimaginative proposals on Kashmir to revive the good for nothing back-channel exchanges made during his dictatorship. Aware of Musharraf's unpopularity in Pakistan, Delhi ensured that his visit remained within certain bonds. Even Pakistan's Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi has said that during Musharraf's rule, the foreign office was kept in dark regarding Musharraf's 'out of the box' proposals to resolve the Kashmir issue.
Back home, Musharraf is facing many charges that would take a lifetime to come out of these unscathed. From kidnapping to murder and trading hundreds of alleged terrorists for millions of dollars are some of the major accusations levelled against his government by the International Human Rights Watchdog, Amnesty International and the families of thousands of missing Pakistanis. A case of kidnapping has already been registered against him by the police under the orders of the district and sessions judge, Abbotabad, on the complaint of one Siddiqur Rehman, whose son disappeared 5 years back in a similar fashion without leaving any clue. Nawab Akbar Bugti's brutal murder in a military operation that couldn't have been carried out without his consent is another big case that would confront him the moment he lands in Pakistan.
The Public Accounts Committee of the National Assembly is already chasing Musharraf and his merrymaker friends for a big Pakistan Railway land scam in Lahore, and a power theft case about his farm at Islamabad. The question; will he stage a comeback, or would live in exile like the Shah of Iran and Philippine's Marcos for the rest of his life?
The writer is a freelance columnist.

 

[arshad_lahore]

Ahmadinejad's re-election
By Mazhar Qayyum Khan | Published: June 17, 2009
The outside world had been keenly awaiting the result of last Friday's presidential election in Iran to assess the prospects of the winning candidate striking an understanding with President Barack Obama who has brought fresh hope for change in policy in dealing with the country that the US and the West suspect of clandestinely pursuing nuclear ambition. In that context, the outcome - victory for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or his main rival, former Prime Minister Mirhossein Mousavi - was being reckoned as a decisive factor.
In the United States the re-election of President Ahmadinejad, which is being disputed by the Mousavi group, has been viewed from two entirely different perspectives. The hardliners, favouring the imposition of stricter sanctions on Iran without losing any more time on the ground that delay would help it move closer to the goal of producing the bomb, see Ahmadinejad's victory as a welcome sign. His victory makes the issues clear, as under him the Iranian stand on uranium enrichment, perception of Israel and ties with Hezbollah and Hamas have been quite well known and there is little likelihood of a shift. Thus with Ahmadinejad as President, the US and the West would be able to move quickly from the present stage, tightening sanctions or taking whatever other action they deemed necessary if, as expected, Iran sticks to its present stand.
In the view of these observers, Mousavi's election would have left the US in unnecessary suspense about a possible shift in Iranian policies and valuable time would have been lost in reaching a definite conclusion. There would have been the hope that a moderate President might be able to exercise enough influence with the conservative religious lobby to make concessions to the West. Mousavi would like to have an opening with the West and, therefore, would be better for the West to deal with.
On the other hand, some US and Western circles have been upset by the re-election of an aggressive exponent of Iran's national interests, particularly, in continuing to enrich uranium, their principal security concern. As it is, Ahmadinejad romped home easily obtaining 62.63 percent of the votes cast. A record 85 percent of eligible voters went to the polling booths after an intense election campaign lasting several weeks.
Mr Mousavi, the runner-up who ended up with the support of 33.75 percent of voters, has, however, hotly disputed the result, claiming that victory has been stolen from him by the authorities through practising "fraud", not making sufficient number of ballot papers available at certain key polling stations and even preventing his supporters from exercising their right to vote. Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei forwarded his petition against rigging and for a re-run of the election to the Guardian Council, which has expressed its readiness to have a recount done.
According to the indications available, Mousavi and the other two defeated candidates are insisting on election to be held afresh, which is hardly a possibility. Angry supporters of Mousavi came out on the streets, but the police used brutal force to quell the "illegal" outpouring. The result: seven protesters dead and many more injured.
There is little doubt that liberal Mousavi was able to inspire the younger generations that it was time for the country to change the conservative, restrictive approach to life as well as relations with foreign countries. The Iranian polity lacks certain basic democratic credentials, as they are generally understood. The country has regularly held parliamentary and presidential elections but the Guardian Council has the constitutional power to vet the candidates for their suitability to stand. Its veto renders a large number of candidates ineligible, which is a negation of democratic principles. Acts passed by Parliament could simply be thrown out of the window by the Guardian Council. The press does not enjoy much freedom, as is evident from the fact that the authorities did not allow Mousavi's paper, Kalemeh Sabz, to hit the news-stands because it carried his claim of having won the election.
President Ahmadinejad, on the other hand, enjoyed overwhelming support of the rural areas and the poor; for, like them, he lived a simple life. Besides, a huge number of government officials are reported to have voted for him.
The surprise and frustration that some political and media circles in the US expressed at Ahmadinejad's re-election carry some bitter lessons. First, in case they assessed from the election campaign that liberal-minded Mousavi would carry the day, they remain as ignorant of the mood of the people of Iran today as they were when the Shah's regime was tottering on its last legs. The inveterate hostility against Tehran's policies that President Bush and his hawkish team never failed to spew out could not have turned the Iranian people against a leader who stood up against them and, indeed, responded to them in equal measure.
Secondly, in case the US and Western allies thought that Mirhossein Mousavi or, for that matter, another moderate leader could be brought round to roll back the uranium enrichment programme through a negotiated deal, under pressure of sanctions or under threats of military action, they simply failed to realise that the national sentiment would not permit it. The orchestrated opposition to Tehran's cherished peaceful nuclear ambition had hardened the resolve of the Iranian people not to give up their right recognised under international law (the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty).
Thirdly, there is the ground reality of the Iranian constitutional system that leaves it to the supreme leader and the Guardian Council to make decisions about key areas of the country's policies. The President has little role in altering Iran's present stand on uranium enrichment. At best, Mousavi would have stopped referring to the Holocaust and Ahmadinejad's prognosis about Israel's destruction.
However, there is a ray of hope in President Obama's address to the Muslim world when he said that Iran had the "right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty" in case 'access to peaceful nuclear power' somehow could be interpreted to include the right to enrich uranium.

 

[arshad_lahore]

Obama's Cairo address
By Mushfiq Murshed | Published: June 17, 2009
President Obama's speech in Cairo was a courageous statement of his political philosophy which, according to various sources, he had been working on since his campaign. It highlighted a strategy that his administration intends to follow. According to Dr Brezezinski, the speech redefined: "What America means to the world, how America views the world and how Islam and America should view each other."
After 9/11 the Bush administration had pursued a policy built around the formulation of "either you're with us or you're against us." The perception in the Islamic world was that the longstanding grievances of the Muslims were sidelined by the US in its pursuit of Al-Qaeda. This view accentuated the faultlines between the Muslim world and the US, thereby, unifying Islamic moderates and extremists and inadvertently giving the equally simplistic "Clash of Civilisations" philosophy an opportunity to flourish.
President Obama, in his attempt to win the hearts and minds of the Muslim world candidly addressed in his speech the core issues that were impeding the process of harmonising relations between the latter and the US. He dwelt upon the Israeli-Palestinian confrontation, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan. He admitted that each side had something to be apologetic about, i.e., the removal of a democratically elected government in Iran by the US (1953), the war in Iraq being that of choice, Israeli settlements, Palestinian violence, etc., however, the time had come to bury the differences of the past, focus on affinities and move forward.
There has, however, been scepticism and criticism regarding the speech. Some feel that this is mere rhetoric while the overall American agenda to dominate remains the same. Others subscribe to the view that there has been no concrete action to substantiate what the president iterated in Cairo as genuine. And yet others believe that if Obama was being so candid and honest then why was the Kashmir problem not addressed while speaking about Pakistan and the issues of this region? Obama's sincerity can be gauged by the expected fallout to his speech in the US. There were two points, in particular, that were addressed that no American politician, let alone a president, has had the courage to bring up so openly.
First, he publicly advocated the two-state solution for Israel and Palestine: "America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity and a state of their own." While he assured the world that the Israel-US "bond is unbreakable" he proceeded to condemn Israeli settlements in the West Bank which, some analysts went as far as to say, suggested that the role of the US in the region would eventually morph from a staunchly pro-Israeli position to that of a mediator.
Furthermore, regarding Iran, he stated: "Any country - including Iran - should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty."
These two points are worrisome to some of the most influential and hardline lobbyists in Washington. Their degree of influence was recently illustrated in John Newhouse's article, Diplomacy, Inc., where he cites an incident in March when lobbyists derailed the appointment of Charles Freeman as chair of the National Intelligence Council because of his views on US policies on Israel. Some elements of the press in the US began their assault on the speech by picking on President Obama's view that, "no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other." They consider this as the US giving a stamp of approval to the dictators of the region. Despite its unquestionable, honest and forthright affirmation on some of the most serious problems of our times, President Obama's speech will be criticised by the more radical elements in the US as well as the Muslim world.
The sincerity of the speech cannot be denied. It ranged from the US president's personal experiences to universal issues and was a courageous outline of a strategy that he intends to follow. President Obama has attempted to rectify the distortions in the policies pursued by the previous administration and has laid the basis of a more imaginative and constructive foreign policy. However, some commentators have described the address as reminiscent of Wilsonian idealism and maintain that the road ahead in the way of implementation is strewn with problems and pitfalls. The president has set an extremely high benchmark for himself. For instance, seeking "a world in which no nation holds nuclear weapons," though in accordance with the stipulations of the NPT, is, under present circumstances, difficult to achieve.
In essence, the thrust of President Obama's speech in Cairo is founded on the need to craft a just and equitable world order underpinned by durable peace and stability. There is, in fact, no other alternative in this globalised world of interdependence.
The writer is the editor-in-chief of Criterion Quarterly.

 

[arshad_lahore]

Defence spending enhanced
By S.m. Hali | Published: June 17, 2009
Desperate times call for desperate measures! Pakistan is at the moment engaged in a major war against insurgency; its army and air force are combating an invisible enemy, which lurks in the shadows, has intricate knowledge of the precipitous terrain, strikes with impunity and melts away in the crowd, pretending to be an innocent civilian. To make matters worse, the insurgents are being supported by external forces, which are not only providing logistics but state-of-the-art weaponry, communication equipment and above all intelligence inputs, besides training them in guerrilla warfare. The enemy is retaliating to the action by Pakistan's security forces by assaulting high value targets in the civilian area through suicide and car bombs, causing high casualties, creating harassment, trepidation and fear. To fight this many headed hydra, which according to Greek mythology, when one of its heads was cut off, two new heads appeared - one suicide bomber strikes and many more take its place - all of Pakistan's resources have to be employed by its defence planners to engage in what is being called the "war of its survival."
Under these circumstances, Pakistan has had to jack up its defence expenditures from the Rs 296 billion allocated in 2008-09 and the actual spending of Rs 311 billion to Rs 343 billion, which is an increase only by 12 percent over last year. In real terms it is miniscule. According to Minister of State for Finance Hina Rabbani Khar, Pakistan had incurred an economic cost of $35 billion in the war against terror, whereas, US had compensated for the expense by an amount of $10 billion. For the 2008-09 fiscal year, Pakistan had increased defence spending by nearly 7 percent to 296.07 billion rupees ($4.4 billion). In the preceding year Pakistan spent 277.26 billion rupees on defence. Pakistan's defence spending, which was opened for public debate and scrutiny for the first time last year, is not actually India-specific any longer because of the enhanced threat from the insurgents. On the other hand, India's defence expenditure for 2009-10 has been hiked to Rs.1.41 trillion as announced by its acting Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee on February 16, this year. This increase of over 34 percent in India's defence budget is one of the highest in its history of defence spending (the last time the Indian defence budget was increased by over 30 percent was in 1987-88 when allocation was increased by 43.4 percent to Rs 12,512 cores). According to Jane's Intelligence Review, India is likely to spend over $50 billion (about Rs 250,000 crore) on defence acquisitions over the next five years. Among the weapons systems and equipment to be acquired, the big ticket items will include the aircraft carrier INS Vikramaditya (the Admiral Gorshkov), 126 multi-mission, medium-range combat aircraft, six C-130J Hercules transport aircraft for the Special Forces, eight maritime patrol, surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft - possibly the Boeing 737 P-8I, six Scorpene submarines, and a large number of main battle tanks, 155mm towed and self-propelled artillery howitzers, plus equipment for counter-insurgency operations. This does not include the AWACS (airborne warning and control systems and the air-to-air refuelling system, which are already in the pipeline. Most of these are meant to augment its "Cold Start Strategy", which is Pakistan specific. Yet Indian media had a heyday looking at Pakistan's defence outlay critically. Zee News, for example ran the headlines: Pak increases defence spending by 15.3 percent; commenting: "Declassifying its defence allocation for the first time in 44 years, Pakistan on Saturday hiked its military spending by a whopping 15.3 percent....Despite a serious financial crunch being faced by Pakistan and increased expenses on anti-militancy operations, top military officials recently ruled out any cuts in India-specific defence spending." Colonel Rahul K Bhonsle's Op-Ed Pakistan's Defence Budget: Misplaced Priorities is dated yet speaks with venom when he claims: "It is popularly believed that while most states have an army, Pakistan Army has a state." He adds: "Pakistan is spending 4.5 percent of the GDP on defence. For a developing country defence spending over and above 3 percent is considered to impinge on development." Come on Colonel Bhonsle, unless we secure our country from threats to our very existence, we cannot talk of development.
In Dollar terms, the total defence bill for the 2009-10 financial year beginning will be 4.24 billion dollars, 0.47 billion more than the revised budget of 3.77 billion dollars for the outgoing fiscal. The original defence budget for the previous year was 3.65 billion, which was increased to 3.77 billion due to increased spending by the armed forces. The increase came as the ongoing war on terrorism took a heavy toll on Pakistan's economy in 2008-09, creating a serious imbalance of payments in November and forcing the government to approach the International Monetary Fund for a 7.6-billion-dollar loan. Pakistan's growth rate grew by only 1.9 percent during this fiscal year as compared to 4.1 percent last year, the worst in the last 30 years. In the first 10 months of the fiscal year, the inflation rate was 22.3 percent, against 10.3 percent in the same period last year, according to the annual economic survey released last week. Foreign investment declined to 2.2 billion dollars as compared to 3.9 billion dollars last year. Pakistan has suffered massive losses both in terms of stagnation of economic growth and increases in defence spending to fight insurgents.
In addition to the rise in the defence budget, the government allocated 600 million in the budget for the relief and rehabilitation of some 2.5 million people uprooted by ongoing fighting with the insurgents.
Under these circumstances, we should be prepared to tighten our belt to invest in our security rather than cringe and crib because our luxuries are being slashed. As stated in the opening paragraph, desperate times call for desperate measures!
The writer is a political and defence analyst

 

[arshad_lahore]

Where are you heading?
By Irfan Asghar | Published: June 17, 2009
Mr Obama, you had taken on the mantle of the President of the United States amid much fanfare and alot of hopes of change. Americans in particular and people across the globe in general, were highly ecstatic and exultant on your entry into the most powerful office on the face of the earth, as they visualised this as the advent of a new era characterised by 'change' which you had promised. But the unsavoury reality is that these hopes seem likely to remain little more than pious or fond hopes.
Mr President, the strikingly obvious reality is that your performance hitherto has been highly staid, bland and not an acclaimed one. This does not mean at all that you do not have the potential. Indubitably, you are a ball of fire and bright-eyed one who wants to shake up the international system for the common good but you are bottling out of doing so. Factually, you are the president of the US but for all practical purposes, you lack control over things as certain other influential quarters are calling the shots. Resultantly, you are portraying yourself as a person who is spineless, shies away from taking bold decisions and is not daring enough to act independently. Please start acting after the fashion of Dr Martin Luther, who had embraced death but did not bow down while pursuing the cause of his dream, and don't pay heed to the counsel of despair.
Mr President, you have noble ambitions and lofty ideals but the depressing feature is that you are not radiating the confidence required to break with the stereotypes and break new ground. If you will continue to do the bidding of the Jewish lobby, CIA and other influential circles and not try to assert yourself, days are not far-off when time will consign you to political oblivion like other mediocre leaders around the world.
Mr President, time is running fast. Now getting down to the brass tacks of the situation; you have failed to accomplish anything commendable both at the domestic and international fronts. The inside scoop is that in the wake of not acting boldly, you are losing your grip over your party. Soon after assuming the office, you vowed to close down Guantanamo Bay within a year but the skinny on this front is that you are having second thoughts now. If this does not amount to yielding to the pressure of CIA and pro-torture lobbies, then what it is? Is this in line with your bright track record of caring for the humanity? If this trend continues, it goes without saying that how history will judge you. It is true that you have taken up the presidency when America is in doldrums internally and writhing with embarrassment externally but leadership lies in changing the things. At the international front, you are not acquitting yourself well and giving the impression that you are given to sloganeering and sheer rhetoric. During your recent address to the Muslim Community in Cairo, you have talked of ushering in a new beginning between the US and Muslim world. Mr President, I ask you to identify the roadmap to accomplish what you have said. And even if you have the roadmap, pro-Israel lobby and anti-Muslim machinery will make it increasingly difficult for you to put that into effect. Please do not tell the world what you can do - 'show it'. You talk of a nuclear free world but this is likely to remain a dream as you seem incapable to budge even an inch from the position taken by the CIA and Pentagon in this regard. You have offered the prospect of a Palestinian state but at the same time, you are utterly unable to convince Israel to take that step. On Iran, you talk of negotiations but the fact is that you are departing from your stance and capitulating to pro-Israel lobby. On the Iraq and Afghanistan, you are pursuing the same Bush-era policies. Many of the most hated policies of the Bush administration continue under your regime but in slightly different forms. Mr President, where is your message of change?
Mr President, act independently and do not give authority to other lobbies to take your decisions. At this time, the only way-out is to go for 'out of the box' solutions and offbeat approach. Please brush aside all sorts of fears and work to materialise your dreams as it is heaps better to agree to the fate like that of Kennedy than to go down in the chronicles of history as a feckless and mediocre president.
The writer is a foreign affairs analyst