Haq's Musings

A Chinese View of Crisis in Pakistan

2008-10-11T09:49:00.000-07:00

As the world news media, commentators, pundits and bloggers obsess with the US election's impact on Afghanistan and Pakistan and anticipated South Asia policy changes, it seems that the view from China, Pakistan's most reliable ally, has not gotten much attention. It should be noted that former President Musharraf's approval ratings in China remained high in spite of Pakistanis' rejection of him in the recent elections. Here's a piece by Rao Bo of China View that discusses Pakistan's current situation:

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan—Pakistan seems to be poised for a showdown with the militants as President Asif Ali Zardari has reiterated his resolve to eliminate terrorists.

Pakistan’s security forces have been pounding militants’ hideouts, triggering a backfire from militants. But a new wave of the old threat of terrorism has gripped the country and suggested that Pakistan is far from ready for a showdown with militants.

A suicide bomber rammed an explosive car into the headquarters of the Anti-Terrorist Squad of police in Islamabad amid unprecedented security measures taken by the administration for the ongoing joint session of parliament.

The two houses of the parliament started a joint in-camera session in a bid to review the current law and order situation and evolve a national consensus on its strategy to fight terrorism on Wednesday.

However, local media reports suggested that all opposition groups in the parliament have expressed dissatisfaction with the briefing on security situation and the quality of answers to their questions. The session was suspended and is expected to resume next Monday, with a consensus nowhere in sight.

Security has been put on the highest alert in the capital Islamabad recently, which has nearly become a deserted city with little traffic on roads.

The security measures are justified by the surge of terrorist attacks. At least 11 bombing attacks have taken place across the country since Zardari was sworn in as president on Sept. 9, leaving more than 100 people dead.

Despite condolences and condemnation, Zardari appeared to have ignored the consequences of the attacks.

The anti-America sentiment prevails among the people of Pakistan and Zardari is well aware of it. Talking to a U.S. media recently, Zardari said that it was difficult to become a friend of the Untied States.

Standing by the United States on the issue of war on terror, the Pakistan People’s Party-led government will have to shoulder responsibility for the worsening security situation, which will inevitably undermine people’s confidence and trust on the party.

In addition, it is undeniable that the poor law and order situation in the country has shattered investors’ confidence, exacerbating its economic crisis characterized by widening trade deficit, shrinking foreign reserve and depreciating Pakistani currency.

Zardari has rejected compromise with militants and vowed to eradicate terrorism, without giving details about his strategy.

Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gillani has clarified on many occasions that it is the last choice to use force in fighting terrorism. However, Pakistan is left with no other choices as its ally frequently conducts cross-border attacks in its tribal region.

Pakistan’s security forces launched a major offensive in Swat valley, a stronghold of pro-Taliban militants last October. The military claimed at the end of 2007 that it had controlled the area that was cleared of militants.

Nonetheless, attacks still occur in Swat frequently, a sign that the militants are still there.

The Pakistani government has made it clear that it has been combating terrorists on its own interest and the terrorist attacks will not deter its resolve to eradicate terrorism. But the question is: Can it afford the showdown?

This report was edited by Wang Yan

Obama's Point Man on South Asia

2008-10-10T17:00:00.000-07:00

Lately, Senator Barack H. Obama has been taking a tough, even hostile stance toward Pakistan. He is threatening to send US ground troops into FATA if there is "actionable intelligence" to end "terrorists' safe haven" inside Pakistan. His opponent, Senator John McCain has said Obama "doesn't understand" the situation in FATA and chided him for being naive and "talking loudly" about Pakistan. Many Obama supporters dismiss Obama's tough talk as merely designed to assert his commander-in-chief credentials to appease his critics.

Is Obama's tough talk just an act? Or is it based on considered advice from the experts of the liberal think tanks to whom Democrats generally outsource policy? While there is a small chance that Obama does not really mean what he says, it is also a fact that foreign policy experts such as Bruce Reidel are advising Obama on South Asia policy.

Riedel says that there will be a renewed focus on Afghanistan and Pakistan under an Obama presidency. “Obama is determined to put a lot more resources into the war in Afghanistan — and it’s overlapped into Pakistan — than either a McCain presidency would or the Bush administration did.” He adds that Obama sees Afghanistan and Pakistan as “the central front of the war against al Qaeda and the war against extremism.” Translation: The war in Afghanistan will escalate and expand into Pakistan.

Who is Bruce Reidel? What are his credentials? How does he view US role and policy in South Asia? Bruce Riedel is a Senior Fellow in foreign policy at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy of the Brookings Institution. He served with the Central Intelligence Agency for 29 years and retired in 2006. Riedel served as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Near East Affairs on the National Security Council (1997-2002), Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Near East and South Asian Affairs (1995-97), and National Intelligence Officer for Near East and South Asian Affairs at the National Intelligence Council (1993-95). His areas of expertise include counter-terrorism, Arab-Israeli issues, Persian Gulf security and India and Pakistan.

Riedel says Obama will take a tougher line with Pakistan, and make military aid conditional upon Pakistan’s performance in combating the Taliban and al Qaeda. But he disagrees with the view, prevalent in Pakistan, that Obama dislikes that country. Instead, he says that Obama is a strong critic of the “Musharraf-centric Pakistan policy” pursued by the Bush Administration. He believes that Obama is likely to be supportive of the present PPP-led government, unless it were to engage the Taliban, a move which would prove extremely unpopular in the United States.

On India policy, Reidel says, “The Democrats are much more likely to want to revisit the nuclear proliferation implications [of the nuclear deal]". He adds, "That would complicate the relationship with New Delhi.”

“There’s talk of a strategic partnership with India. The Obama campaign buys into that,” says Riedel. “As president, he will place the same priority on India as Bush did, and Clinton did before him.”

In his speech to the Democratic National Convention, Obama pledged to halt tax sops to companies that ship jobs overseas. If Obama sticks to this promise, it will mean trouble ahead for India's IT industry. India's software and services exports stood at about $40 billion during the financial year 2008, a growth of 29%, with US as its largest market. Can Obama really curb outsourcing? It seems unlikely.

In an interview with Fox News' Bill O'Reilly, Riedel's candidate Obama seemed to agree with the narrative of the Indian lobby when he accused Pakistan of "preparing for war with India".

In a recent article, Riedel wrote that “fear of India is the driving force” behind Pakistan's pursuit of relationships with Islamic fundamentalism and Islamic terrorism". He added, “The conflict with India affects all aspects of Pakistan's worldview and its self-image.”

"Coming to grips with Pakistan's obsession with India and Kashmir is critical to killing the monster," and the "time may be ripe in 2009 to move," Reidel writes, hinting at the likely policy of the new administration that is likely to be in office next year.

Answering a question about Pakistan and the war on terror at a meeting of Council on Foreign Relation, Reidel said, "Pakistan is an extremely dangerous and unstable country. We need to tread carefully. We need to get the Pakistanis to see this as their war. And that's going to require some major new initiatives on the American side. Commando raids and Predator strikes are not a long term solution to this problem".

If history is any guide, it can be fairly safely predicted that the a Democratic administration will pursue a punitive policy toward Pakistan while tilting heavily toward India, much more so than the Bush administration. Given the caution sounded by Bruce Reidel about Pakistan, the hope is that better sense will prevail in the potential Obama administration on policy toward Pakistan. However, if "President" Obama does follow through on his tough talk on Pakistan, there will be an expanded regional war involving Afghanistan and Pakistan leading to massive destabilization of the entire region and extremely dangerous consequence for the world.

Related Links:

Reidel Interview at Council on Foreign Relations

Sunil Adam on Obama's Kashmir Policy

Who is Bruce Reidel?

Is US Headed Toward Dangerous Regional War?

2008-10-09T12:04:00.000-07:00

Heeding the lessons of another war
By Maleeha Lodhi and Anatol Lieven
Wednesday, October 1, 2008

Forty years ago, the United States began to mount raids into Cambodia and to undermine the government of King Sihanouk in order to cut Vietcong supply lines.

As a result, America's war with Vietnamese Communism spread into Cambodia, leading to the triumph of the Khmer Rouge and the Cambodian genocide. But these horrors occurred after the U.S. itself had quit Vietnam and after the U.S.-backed regime in South Vietnam had collapsed. Washington's widening of the war benefited neither America nor its local allies.

The U.S. is now making the same mistake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. If continued, ground incursions by U.S. troops across the border into Pakistan in search of the Taliban and Al Qaeda risk drastically undermining the Pakistani state, society and army.

Many Pakistanis are berating their new civilian government and the military for being too supine in their response to the American actions. There have also been public calls for NATO supply lines through Pakistan to be cut, which could cripple the Western military effort in Afghanistan. The latest dreadful terrorist attack in Islamabad illustrates the danger of a wider conflagration and the price Pakistan is paying for its role as a U.S. ally.

The dangers involved in Pakistan are greater even than in Cambodia, where the disasters were contained in one country. The current war has already been driven into the Pakistani heartland. If turmoil increases in Pakistan then the forces of extremism will be strengthened, in the region and the world. Thus the long term implications of "losing" Afghanistan pale into insignificance when set against the risk of "losing" Pakistan.

Nor would undermining Pakistan, whether intentionally or not, in any way help the U.S. and NATO mission in Afghanistan. Pakistan has six times Afghanistan's population and is a nuclear state. The Pashtun population of Pakistan is greater than that of Afghanistan, and provides a large number of Pakistani soldiers. Far from saving Afghanistan, present U.S. strategy toward Pakistan will only risk sinking Afghanistan itself in a whirlpool of regional anarchy.

Instead of this approach, the U.S. and NATO should adopt a radically new strategy for Afghanistan that relies more on soft power. The approach should be based on the recognition that Afghanistan cannot be transformed along Western lines and that the U.S. cannot maintain an open-ended presence in that country without destabilizing the entire region.

Afghanistan must sooner or later be left to the Afghans themselves to run. Local actors should take the lead in carrying out counter-insurgency, as Western forces and an overwhelming reliance on military force are liable only to multiply enemies.

The terrible effects of bombardment on the civilian population have become a potent factor behind the will of many Afghans to resist what they see as an alien military occupation.

The next U.S. administration therefore should announce a return to America's original objective, that of hunting international terrorist networks and preventing them from creating safe havens in Afghanistan. This should in fact be America's only core objective. The attempt of the West to "transform" Afghanistan is already meeting the same fate as the Soviet attempt to do so. It is strengthening the insurgency, by creating the impression of a threat to the Islamic way of life and local tradition.

Instead of continuing with what is in effect a purely Western approach, Washington should initiate serious regional talks on Afghanistan's future.

The United States and the West need to remember that however long their forces stay in Afghanistan, sooner or later they will leave, while Afghanistan's neighbors will always remain. Tragically, their policies have in the past generally been directed against each other, with disastrous results for the people of Afghanistan.

The United States should instead seek to shape a regional concert that will stand some chance of at least containing Afghanistan's problems in the long term. None of this will be easy; but a continuation of present U.S. strategy promises only widening turmoil in the region, or at best war without end.

Source: International Herald Tribune

Maleeha Lodhi is a fellow at Harvard and former Pakistani ambassador to Washington and London. Anatol Lieven is a professor at King's College London and a senior fellow of the New America Foundation.

Related Links:

FATA Face Off Fears

The Battle of Bajaur

US, NATO Fighting to Stalemate?

McCain, Obama Clash on Pakistan, US Economy, Energy Policy

2008-10-07T22:09:00.000-07:00

In a town hall setting, US presidential hopefuls took questions from an audience of over 100 uncommitted likely voters selected by Gallup organization. In particular, the two candidates clashed over Pakistan, US economy and energy.

Pakistan:

On Pakistan, the two candidates repeated their well-known positions articulated in the first debate and their policy speeches. As usual, Senator McCain advocated working with Pakistanis to win their support while Senator Obama insisted that the US must go after Al Qaeda and Taliban inside Pakistan. Senator McCain chided Sen Obama for talking loudly about going into Pakistan which will likely lessen support in Pakistan to go after the terrorists. He reminded Obama and the audience of President Theodore Rossevelt's motto to "talk softly but carry a big stick". Here's an excerpt of the transcript:

Katie Hamm( Audience Member): Should the United States respect Pakistani sovereignty and not pursue al Qaeda terrorists who maintain bases there, or should we ignore their borders and pursue our enemies like we did in Cambodia during the Vietnam War?

Obama: Katie, it's a terrific question and we have a difficult situation in Pakistan. I believe that part of the reason we have a difficult situation is because we made a bad judgment going into Iraq in the first place when we hadn't finished the job of hunting down bin Laden and crushing al Qaeda.

So what happened was we got distracted, we diverted resources, and ultimately bin Laden escaped, set up base camps in the mountains of Pakistan in the northwest provinces there.

They are now raiding our troops in Afghanistan, destabilizing the situation. They're stronger now than at any time since 2001. And that's why I think it's so important for us to reverse course, because that's the central front on terrorism.

They are plotting to kill Americans right now. As Secretary Gates, the defense secretary, said, the war against terrorism began in that region and that's where it will end. So part of the reason I think it's so important for us to end the war in Iraq is to be able to get more troops into Afghanistan, put more pressure on the Afghan government to do what it needs to do, eliminate some of the drug trafficking that's funding terrorism.

But I do believe that we have to change our policies with Pakistan. We can't coddle, as we did, a dictator, give him billions of dollars and then he's making peace treaties with the Taliban and militants.

What I've said is we're going to encourage democracy in Pakistan, expand our nonmilitary aid to Pakistan so that they have more of a stake in working with us, but insisting that they go after these militants.

And if we have Osama bin Laden in our sights and the Pakistani government is unable or unwilling to take them out, then I think that we have to act and we will take them out. We will kill bin Laden; we will crush Al Qaeda. That has to be our biggest national security priority.

Brokaw: Sen. McCain?

McCain: Well, Katie , thank you.

You know, my hero is a guy named Teddy Roosevelt. Teddy Roosevelt used to say walk softly -- talk softly, but carry a big stick. Sen. Obama likes to talk loudly.

In fact, he said he wants to announce that he's going to attack Pakistan. Remarkable.

You know, if you are a country and you're trying to gain the support of another country, then you want to do everything you can that they would act in a cooperative fashion.

When you announce that you're going to launch an attack into another country, it's pretty obvious that you have the effect that it had in Pakistan: It turns public opinion against us.

Now, let me just go back with you very briefly. We drove the Russians out with -- the Afghan freedom fighters drove the Russians out of Afghanistan, and then we made a most serious mistake. We washed our hands of Afghanistan. The Taliban came back in, Al Qaeda, we then had the situation that required us to conduct the Afghan war.

Now, our relations with Pakistan are critical, because the border areas are being used as safe havens by the Taliban and Al Qaeda and other extremist organizations, and we have to get their support.

Now, General Petraeus had a strategy, the same strategy -- very, very different, because of the conditions and the situation -- but the same fundamental strategy that succeeded in Iraq. And that is to get the support of the people.

We need to help the Pakistani government go into Waziristan, where I visited, a very rough country, and -- and get the support of the people, and get them to work with us and turn against the cruel Taliban and others.

And by working and coordinating our efforts together, not threatening to attack them, but working with them, and where necessary use force, but talk softly, but carry a big stick.

Obama: Tom, just a...

Brokaw: Sen. McCain...

Obama: ... just a quick follow-up on this. I think...

McCain: If we're going to have follow-ups, then I will want follow-ups, as well.

Brokaw: No, I know. So but I think we get at it...

McCain: It'd be fine with me. It'd be fine with me.

Brokaw: ... if I can, with this question.

Obama: Then let's have one.

Brokaw: All right, let's have a follow-up.

McCain: It'd be fine with me.

Obama: Just -- just -- just a quick follow-up, because I think -- I think this is important.

Brokaw: I'm just the hired help here, so, I mean...

Obama: You're doing a great job, Tom.

Look, I -- I want to be very clear about what I said. Nobody called for the invasion of Pakistan. Sen. McCain continues to repeat this.

What I said was the same thing that the audience here today heard me say, which is, if Pakistan is unable or unwilling to hunt down bin Laden and take him out, then we should.

Now, that I think has to be our policy, because they are threatening to kill more Americans.

Now, Sen. McCain suggests that somehow, you know, I'm green behind the ears and, you know, I'm just spouting off, and he's somber and responsible.

McCain: Thank you very much.

Obama: Sen. McCain, this is the guy who sang, "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran," who called for the annihilation of North Korea. That I don't think is an example of "speaking softly."

This is the person who, after we had -- we hadn't even finished Afghanistan, where he said, "Next up, Baghdad."

So I agree that we have to speak responsibly and we have to act responsibly. And the reason Pakistan -- the popular opinion of America had diminished in Pakistan was because we were supporting a dictator, Musharraf, had given him $10 billion over seven years, and he had suspended civil liberties. We were not promoting democracy.

This is the kind of policies that ultimately end up undermining our ability to fight the war on terrorism, and it will change when I'm president.

McCain: And, Tom, if -- if we're going to go back and forth, I then -- I'd like to have equal time to go -- to respond to...

Brokaw: Yes, you get the...

McCain: ... to -- to -- to...

Brokaw: ... last word here, and then we have to move on.

McCain: Not true. Not true. I have, obviously, supported those efforts that the United States had to go in militarily and I have opposed that I didn't think so.

I understand what it's like to send young American's in harm's way. I say -- I was joking with a veteran -- I hate to even go into this. I was joking with an old veteran friend, who joked with me, about Iran.

But the point is that I know how to handle these crises. And Sen. Obama, by saying that he would attack Pakistan, look at the context of his words. I'll get Osama bin Laden, my friends. I'll get him. I know how to get him.

I'll get him no matter what and I know how to do it. But I'm not going to telegraph my punches, which is what Sen. Obama did. And I'm going to act responsibly, as I have acted responsibly throughout my military career and throughout my career in the United States Senate.

And we have fundamental disagreements about the use of military power and how you do it, and you just saw it in response to previous questions.

Brokaw: Can I get a quick response from the two of you about developments in Afghanistan this week? The senior British military commander, who is now leading there for a second tour, and their senior diplomatic presence there, Sherard Cowper-Coles, who is well known as an expert in the area, both have said that we're failing in Afghanistan.

The commander said we cannot win there. We've got to get it down to a low level insurgency, let the Afghans take it over. Cowper-Coles said what we need is an acceptable dictator.

If either of you becomes president, as one of you will, how do you reorganize Afghanistan's strategy or do you? Briefly, if you can.

Obama: I'll be very brief. We are going to have to make the Iraqi government start taking more responsibility, withdraw our troops in a responsible way over time, because we're going to have to put some additional troops in Afghanistan.

Gen. [David] McKiernan, the commander in Afghanistan right now, is desperate for more help, because our bases and outposts are now targets for more aggressive Afghan -- Taliban offenses.

We're also going to have to work with the Karzai government, and when I met with President Karzai, I was very clear that, "You are going to have to do better by your people in order for us to gain the popular support that's necessary."

I don't think he has to be a dictator. And we want a democracy in Afghanistan. But we have to have a government that is responsive to the Afghan people, and, frankly, it's just not responsive right now.

Brokaw: Sen. McCain, briefly.

McCain: Gen. Petraeus has just taken over a position of responsibility, where he has the command and will really set the tone for the strategy and tactics that are used.

And I've had conversations with him. It is the same overall strategy. Of course, we have to do some things tactically, some of which Sen. Obama is correct on.

We have to double the size of the Afghan army. We have to have a streamlined NATO command structure. We have to do a lot of things. We have to work much more closely with the Pakistanis.

But most importantly, we have to have the same strategy, which Sen. Obama said wouldn't work, couldn't work, still fails to admit that he was wrong about Iraq.

He still will not admit that he was wrong about the strategy of the surge in Iraq, and that's the same kind of strategy of go out and secure and hold and allow people to live normal lives.

And once they feel secure, then they lead normal, social, economic, political lives, the same thing that's happening in Iraq today.

So I have confidence that General Petraeus, working with the Pakistanis, working with the Afghans, doing the same job that he did in Iraq, will again. We will succeed and we will bring our troops home with honor and victory and not in defeat.

Financial Crisis

On the current financial crisis, Senator Obama blamed the wave of deregulation during the Bush years under Republicans for the current crisis. He accused Sen McCain of supporting the deregulation that precipitated the current crisis. In response, Sen McCain accused the lack of oversight by the Democratic Congress and Democrats' long-standing support of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in helping promote easy home loans to those who could not afford them. Here's the transcript on this part of the debate:

Clark: Well, Senators, through this economic crisis, most of the people that I know have had a difficult time. And through this bailout package, I was wondering what it is that's going to actually help those people out.

McCain: Well, thank you, Oliver, and that's an excellent question, because as you just described it, bailout, when I believe that it's rescue, because -- because of the greed and excess in Washington and Wall Street, Main Street was paying a very heavy price, and we know that.

I left my campaign and suspended it to go back to Washington to make sure that there were additional protections for the taxpayer in the form of good oversight, in the form of taxpayers being the first to be paid back when our economy recovers -- and it will recover -- and a number of other measures.

But you know, one of the real catalysts, really the match that lit this fire was Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I'll bet you, you may never even have heard of them before this crisis.

But you know, they're the ones that, with the encouragement of Sen. Obama and his cronies and his friends in Washington, that went out and made all these risky loans, gave them to people that could never afford to pay back.

And you know, there were some of us that stood up two years ago and said we've got to enact legislation to fix this. We've got to stop this greed and excess.

Meanwhile, the Democrats in the Senate and some -- and some members of Congress defended what Fannie and Freddie were doing. They resisted any change.

Meanwhile, they were getting all kinds of money in campaign contributions. Sen. Obama was the second highest recipient of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac money in history -- in history.

So this rescue package means that we will stabilize markets, we will shore up these institutions. But it's not enough. That's why we're going to have to go out into the housing market and we're going to have to buy up these bad loans and we're going to have to stabilize home values, and that way, Americans, like Alan, can realize the American dream and stay in their home.

But Fannie and Freddie were the catalysts, the match that started this forest fire. There were some of us -- there were some of us that stood up against it. There were others who took a hike.

Brokaw: Sen. Obama?

Obama: Well, Oliver, first, let me tell you what's in the rescue package for you. Right now, the credit markets are frozen up and what that means, as a practical matter, is that small businesses and some large businesses just can't get loans.

If they can't get a loan, that means that they can't make payroll. If they can't make payroll, then they may end up having to shut their doors and lay people off.

And if you imagine just one company trying to deal with that, now imagine a million companies all across the country.

So it could end up having an adverse effect on everybody, and that's why we had to take action. But we shouldn't have been there in the first place.

Now, I've got to correct a little bit of Sen. McCain's history, not surprisingly. Let's, first of all, understand that the biggest problem in this whole process was the deregulation of the financial system.

Sen. McCain, as recently as March, bragged about the fact that he is a deregulator. On the other hand, two years ago, I said that we've got a sub-prime lending crisis that has to be dealt with.

I wrote to Secretary Paulson, I wrote to Federal Reserve Chairman [Ben] Bernanke, and told them this is something we have to deal with, and nobody did anything about it.

A year ago, I went to Wall Street and said we've got to reregulate, and nothing happened.

And Sen. McCain during that period said that we should keep on deregulating because that's how the free enterprise system works.

Now, with respect to Fannie Mae, what Sen. McCain didn't mention is the fact that this bill that he talked about wasn't his own bill. He jumped on it a year after it had been introduced and it never got passed.

And I never promoted Fannie Mae. In fact, Sen. McCain's campaign chairman's firm was a lobbyist on behalf of Fannie Mae, not me.

So -- but, look, you're not interested in hearing politicians pointing fingers. What you're interested in is trying to figure out, how is this going to impact you?

This is not the end of the process; this is the beginning of the process. And that's why it's going to be so important for us to work with homeowners to make sure that they can stay in their homes.

The secretary already has the power to do that in the rescue package, but it hasn't been exercised yet. And the next president has to make sure that the next Treasury secretary is thinking about how to strengthen you as a home buyer, you as a homeowner, and not simply think about bailing out banks on Wall Street.

Brokaw: Sen. Obama, time for a discussion. I'm going to begin with you. Are you saying to Mr. Clark (ph) and to the other members of the American television audience that the American economy is going to get much worse before it gets better and they ought to be prepared for that?

Obama: No, I am confident about the American economy. But we are going to have to have some leadership from Washington that not only sets out much better regulations for the financial system.

The problem is we still have a archaic, 20th-century regulatory system for 21st-century financial markets. We're going to have to coordinate with other countries to make sure that whatever actions we take work.

But most importantly, we're going to have to help ordinary families be able to stay in their homes, make sure that they can pay their bills, deal with critical issues like health care and energy, and we're going to have to change the culture in Washington so that lobbyists and special interests aren't driving the process and your voices aren't being drowned out.

Brokaw: Sen. McCain, in all candor, do you think the economy is going to get worse before it gets better?

McCain: I think it depends on what we do. I think if we act effectively, if we stabilize the housing market -- which I believe we can, if we go out and buy up these bad loans, so that people can have a new mortgage at the new value of their home -- I think if we get rid of the cronyism and special interest influence in Washington so we can act more effectively.

My friend, I'd like you to see the letter that a group of senators and I wrote warning exactly of this crisis. Sen. Obama's name was not on that letter.

The point is -- the point is that we can fix our economy. Americans' workers are the best in the world. They're the fundamental aspect of America's economy.

They're the most innovative. They're the best -- they're most -- have best -- we're the best exporters. We're the best importers. They're most effective. They are the best workers in the world.

And we've got to give them a chance. They've got -- we've got to give them a chance to do their best again. And they are the innocent bystanders here in what is the biggest financial crisis and challenge of our time. We can do it.

Energy:

On energy, Sen McCain emphasized the need to drill for energy in the US now to reduce dependence on foreign nations and help stabilize or cut prices. Obama responded by saying that the focus must be on promoting alternative, sustainable sources like wind and solar. McCain accused Obama of voting for a bad energy bill laced with pork and huge tax breaks for the oil companies. Here's the part of the transcript related to energy:

Brokaw: Should we fund a Manhattan-like project that develops a nuclear bomb to deal with global energy and alternative energy or should we fund 100,000 garages across America, the kind of industry and innovation that developed Silicon Valley?

McCain: I think pure research and development investment on the part of the United States government is certainly appropriate. I think once it gets into productive stages, that we ought to, obviously, turn it over to the private sector.

By the way, my friends, I know you grow a little weary with this back-and-forth. It was an energy bill on the floor of the Senate loaded down with goodies, billions for the oil companies, and it was sponsored by Bush and Cheney.

You know who voted for it? You might never know. That one. You know who voted against it? Me. I have fought time after time against these pork barrel -- these bills that come to the floor and they have all kinds of goodies and all kinds of things in them for everybody and they buy off the votes.

I vote against them, my friends. I vote against them. But the point is, also, on oil drilling, oil drilling offshore now is vital so that we can bridge the gap. We can bridge the gap between imported oil, which is a national security issue, as well as any other, and it will reduce the price of a barrel of oil, because when people know there's a greater supply, then the cost of that will go down.

That's fundamental economics. We've got to drill offshore, my friends, and we've got to do it now, and we can do it.

And as far as nuclear power is concerned, again, look at the record. Sen. Obama has approved storage and reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel.

And I'll stop, Tom, and you didn't even wave. Thanks.

Who Won?

Overall, I think Barack Obama fared well in a format that is known to favor John McCain. I would still give McCain a slight edge on his knowledge of the substance discussed and the points argued. Senator McCain made a bold proposal to allocate $300b to buy out bad mortgages, although he did not get into the specifics of it. Even as Obama criticized Musharraf and Pakistan for trying to negotiate peace with militants, I was disappointed that there was not much discussion on the broad consensus now reportedly emerging among US, UK, NATO and UN that the Afghan war can not be won by military means alone; that political negotiations are necessary.

Manmohan Professes India's Deep Love for Bush

2008-10-07T12:43:00.000-07:00

"The people of India deeply love you", said Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to President Bush on a recent visit to the White House.

The Prime Minister continued with the theme of affection and gratitude by adding, “In the last four and half years that I have been Prime Minister, I have been the recipient of your generosity, your affection, your friendship. It means a lot to me and to the people of India.”

Later, India's Foreign Secretary Shiv Shankar Menon explained: “I think, if you look at the public opinion polls, the ratings for President Bush are higher in India than in any other country. That is the factual basis.”

The Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) poll that Mr. Menon referred to shows that India tops the world in its admiration for President Bush who is deeply unpopular in the United States and most of the rest of the world. The survey found that 62% of Indians thought his second term as US president was positive for global security.

Another most recent PIPA poll conducted in 2008 shows that the one country with a majority expressing a positive view of Bush is Nigeria with 60 percent saying they have some or a lot of confidence. Indians also lean positive (45 to 34%). Interestingly, this year Chinese views have softened (41% positive, 45% negative)--with the number of those expressing positive views up 10 points since Pew's 2007 poll.

India has benefited from the Bush policies of closer economic and nuclear cooperation which led to India's rapid economic growth in recent years, and its acceptance as a legitimate member of the prestigious nuclear club, a distinction not bestowed on nuclear rival Pakistan. The US-led war on terror has also legitimized India's crackdown on Islamic and other insurgents and helped India regain influence in Afghanistan and South Asia. Bush's pressure on Musharraf was instrumental in reducing violence in Indian held Kashmir and India, a Musharraf policy that angered the Islamists who started targeting Pakistani civilians and military. Bush popularity is, therefore, based on concrete results India achieved from the support of the outgoing US president.

A grateful Prime Minister acknowledged Mr. Bush’s part in ending India’s nuclear isolation: “For 34 years, India has suffered from a nuclear apartheid. We have not been able to trade in nuclear material, nuclear reactions, and nuclear raw materials. And when this restrictive regime ends, I think a great deal of credit will go to President Bush. And, for this I am very grateful to you, Mr. President.”

President Bush's lame duck status was clearly on Dr. Singh's mind. Turning to Mr. Bush, Dr. Singh said with apparent sincerity: “So, Mr. President, this may be my last visit to you during your presidency, and let me say ‘Thank you very much’. The people of India deeply love you.”

The Americans clearly see India as a strategic partner and a counterweight to China's growing influence in Asia, Middle East and Africa. While the US has made the effort to cultivate close friendship with Indians, it is not clear how this partnership will unfold in terms of specific Indian policies to help the US.

Isolating Iran is one its goals where the US wants India's help. Energy-hungry India needs Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline project to move forward. The US is clearly opposed to it. How will India respond to the US pressure? Alastair Scrutton, Reuters Chief Correspondent in Delhi, has addressed this in an analysis of the nuclear deal, saying those hoping that India will now fall into line with western policy will be disappointed.

Scrutton quotes Brahma Chellaney as saying that India will be reluctant to get sucked into U.S. efforts to isolate Iran.

“Now the (nuclear) deal has been sealed, India will have to mend ties with Iran,” Chellaney said. “For India’s strategy, to give up Iran would be a very difficult proposition … There is no way India can pursue an effective Afghan, Central Asian policy without Iran.”

I have a feeling that the I-P-I gas pipeline will be built with or without the US blessing. The reason is simple: Both India and Pakistan are energy-hungry and Iran is the closet source of abundant natural gas for South Asia. It is in their own best national interest to defy the U.S. on this particular issue. The only thing that is likely to delay it significantly is the deep distrust between India and Pakistan where U.S. can and must play a role regardless of the I-P-I project. It is in U.S.’s best interest to do so for its own economic and strategic interests in South Asia.

Collateral Damage or Unintended Consequence?

2008-10-06T21:14:00.000-07:00

Fear of the unknown is as old as the human race. We tend to use a broad brush in characterizing as dangerous what we feel is unknown or different. It seems this way of thinking applies to most aspects of our lives when we fear something or someone, whether it is "militants" or "insurgents" or "communists" or "Islamic terrorists" or various kinds of people of different faith or color or nationality or ethnicity. It is this indiscriminate thinking that leads us to actions that cause "collateral damage" or create "unintended consequences" of the use of violence to solve problems.

For example, most of us believe all micro-organisms that live in and around us are harmful germs. We tend to overuse antibiotics and antiseptics to kill all germs indiscriminately. But the latest research is showing that such indiscriminate killing of germs is hurting us. A case in point is Helicobacter pylori bacteria. Among those born in the U.S. during the 1990s, only 5% or so still carry these microbes, largely due to the indiscriminate use of antibiotics.

After analyzing health records of 7,412 people collected by the National Center for Health Statistics, Dr. Blaser and NYU epidemiologist Yu Chen reported this summer in the Journal of Infectious Diseases that children between three and 13 years old who tested positive for H. pylori bacteria were 59% less likely to have asthma. They also were 40% to 60% less likely to have hay fever or rashes.

To Dr. Blaser's way of thinking, antibiotics and other sanitation measures are eliminating the harm these bacteria cause at the expense of the protection they provide us, according to Robert Lee Hotz's Science Journal Column published recently in the Wall Street Journal.

The latest research shows that the human body teems with so many microbes that they outnumber our own cells ten to one. Large colonies of bacteria live in and around us in a symbiotic relationship with our bodies. "They are not simply along for the ride," says Stanford University microbiologist David Relman. "They are interacting with us."

Yet almost all of them are still unknown to science, since most cannot be grown and studied in the laboratory. In ways mysterious to medicine, this microbial menagerie of fellow travelers in and on us is controlling our health, affecting obesity, cancer and heart disease, among others, according to Robert Lee Hotz's column.

I think there is a profound lesson for our political and military leaders in the research results from Blaser and Chen. Let us not be indiscriminate in how we fight the war on terror that must be fought. Let us not be too cavalier about causing collateral damage in this necessary war. Let us think about the unintended consequences of this war. Let us be smart rather than indiscriminate in this war.

Zardari Stirs India Controversy, Wants $100b in Aid

2008-10-05T22:36:00.000-07:00

Mr. Asif Ali Zardari, Pakistan's new president, spoke to Brett Stephens of the Wall Street Journal last week. His interview covered a wide range of subjects including the ongoing insurgency, Afghanistan, FATA, and relations with US and India. He repeatedly brought up the subject of financial help for his government from the US and the world to deal with Pakistan's growing economic crisis. He is clearly pleading for a US-led economic bailout of Pakistan to halt rapid deterioration and to consolidate his power.

Here are some of the key points Mr. Zardari made:

1. India is "not a threat" to Pakistan. "India has never been a threat to Pakistan," he said, adding that "I, for one, and our democratic government is not scared of Indian influence abroad."

2. Those fighting Indian rule in Kashmir are "terrorists". He spoke of the militant Islamic groups operating in Kashmir as "terrorists" -- former President Musharraf would more likely have called them "freedom fighters" -- and allowed that he had no objection to the India-U.S. nuclear cooperation pact, so long as Pakistan is treated "at par." "Why would we begrudge the largest democracy in the world getting friendly with one of the oldest democracies in the world?"

3. Pakistan has given consent to US air strikes inside FATA. Mr. Zardari seemed eager to downplay any differences with the U.S. "I am not going to fall for this position that it's an unpopular thing to be an American friend. I am an American friend." The firing on the U.S. aircraft was, he said, merely an incident, "and while incidents do happen, they are not important." He went off the record to describe sensitive military subjects, but acknowledged that the U.S. is carrying out Predator missile strikes on Pakistani soil with his government's consent. "We have an understanding, in the sense that we're going after an enemy together."

4. With foreign reserves to cover only two months worth of imports and Pakistan's dire economic situation, he wants US and world's help to the tune of $100b to support his democratic government and its war against militants. "I need your help," he said more than once. "If we fall, if we can't do it, you can't do it." "Aid is proven through the researches of the World Bank . . . [to be] bad for a country," he says. "I'm looking for temporary relief for my budgetary support and cash for my treasury which does not need to be spent by me. It is not something I want to spend. But [it] will stop the [outflow] of my capital every time there is a bomb. . . . In this situation, how do I create capital confidence, how do I create businessmen's confidence?"

Brett Stephens characterized the economic crisis Mr. Zardari spoke of as "at least in part, a crisis of confidence in him."

Speaking of the recent Islamabad Marriott bombing, Mr. Zardari again brought the subject around to his economic problem. "If I can't pay my own oil bill, how am I going to increase my police?" he asked. "The oil companies are asking me to pay $135 [per barrel] of oil and at the same time they want me to keep the world peaceful and Pakistan peaceful."

5. He used phrases such as Pakistan's war is "my war," its fighter jets "my F-16s," its Intelligence Bureau "my IB." In recent weeks there have been reports that Pakistan has deployed F-16s against tribal insurgents, in part because the army's own frontier troops have been routinely routed in ground fighting. Their problems aren't simply tactical. "What kind of a joke is this that I cannot pay my security personnel more than the Talibs are paying?" he asked. "Those terrorists are paying their soldiers 10,000 rupees; I'm paying seven or six thousand rupees."

6. On the corruption issue, he said, it "has been used for a long time as a political tool," particularly by "radicals" trying to give democracy a bad name. Foreign investors, he said, have been coming to Pakistan for decades, and "none of them have complained about corruption."

A lot of what President Zardari said to Brett Stephens in this interview will be seen as highly controversial in Pakistan by the military leadership, policy think tanks and analysts, as well as the opposition parties. Much of it will likely be a surprise to Pakistan's foreign policy establishment, career diplomats and the government bureaucracy that has the responsibility of developing policy toward India and the United States. It seems that he was not briefed or, if he was, he simply chose to ignore the briefing he was given.

Does this interview signal a fundamental shift in Pakistan's posture and policies toward India and the US? On the face of it, it does seem so. However, only time will tell if and when such changes are practically implemented, and how they are received by Pakistanis, Indians and Americans. Regardless of Mr. Zardari's real intentions in strongly hinting at a major policy shift, it is unlikely that a US-led bailout of Pakistan would be forthcoming at a time when the US economy is headed into a recession, limiting the options open to any incoming administration in Washington.

US, NATO Fighting to Stalemate in Afghanistan?

2008-10-05T08:41:00.000-07:00

"We're not going to win this war", Brig Mark Carleton-Smith, the UK's commander in Afghanistan's Helmand province, told London's Sunday Times this week.

"It's about reducing it to a manageable level of insurgency that's not a strategic threat and can be managed by the Afghan army." he added.

"If the Taleban were prepared to sit on the other side of the table and talk about a political settlement, then that's precisely the sort of progress that concludes insurgencies like this."

To appreciate this latest dose of ground reality from Brig Carelton-Smith, let us try and put it in historical perspective. The Brigadier represents a nation that has had a very long experience of running an empire and dealing with the Afghans as well as frequent encounters with the Pushtoons on the Pakistani side of the border. The British almost certainly understand the Pushtoons better than America and its NATO allies. They played the Great Game with the Russians for supremacy in Afghanistan and Central Asia for most of the 19th century. "The Great Game" as an accepted term was introduced into mainstream consciousness by British novelist Rudyard Kipling in his novel Kim (1901). It ended just prior to WW I when the British made an alliance with Russia and reached an accommodation with Amir Abdur Rahman Khan in Afghanistan.

After reaching a virtual stalemate in two wars against the Afghans, the British got Amir Abdur Rahman Khan of Afghanistan in 1893 to come to an agreement to demarcate the border between Afghanistan and what was then British India (now North-West Frontier Province (N.W.F.P.), Federally Administered Tribal Areas (F.A.T.A.) and Balochistan provinces of Pakistan).

After concluding agreements with Russia and Afghanistan, the British repeatedly tried and failed to establish control of the tribal belt (known as Federally Administered Tribal Areas or FATA) now inside Pakistan. In the face of this reality, a new system of governance was codified by the British in Frontier Crimes Regulation (FCR) in 1901 and it remains in force today. It relies on Political Agents (PAs) appointed by the governor of NWFP (North West Frontier Province) on behalf of Pakistan's president. The PAs are the highest officials of the state of Pakistan in tribal agencies. They do not directly rule or administer, but they work with the tribal chiefs (maliks) using carrots and sticks to influence the tribes' behavior. The PAs provide money, infrastructure support and other incentives to the maliks in exchange for cooperation. When such cooperation is not forthcoming, the PAs withhold funds, levy fines and, in rare circumstances, threaten the use of military force to bring them in line. The bottom line is that the system relies on the PAs cooperation with the maliks. Without it, the governance model falls apart. Like the colonial British rulers of the past, no government in Pakistan has managed to take full control of FATA since the country's independence in 1947.

The words of the British commander clearly hint at the fact that, at best, the US and its allies can hope to reach a stalemate with the insurgents in Afghanistan in the absence of a political strategy. The political strategy necessary in a situation like this requires an understanding of the other side's position to negotiate a mutually acceptable settlement. Brute, raw military force and a corrupt Quisling government of Hamid Karzai will not suffice.

As fighting words come out of the mouths of US presidential candidates (particularly Barack Obama) about Afghanistan and Pakistan, it is time for the American people to listen to the voices of reason, such as the British brigadier's voice. Let us not be swayed by the political rhetoric of the moment. We need to start thinking about the end game in Afghanistan.

The Battle of Bajaur

2008-10-03T09:04:00.000-07:00

"Fighting is going on and to help us, the army sent some gunships which fired at the militants, killing several of them," tribal elder Malik Younus told Reuters. "We can't tolerate lawlessness in our land. Everyone has to obey our tribal rules and they can't make our land a hub of terrorism," Younus said.

As the battle of Bajaur rages with great intensity, the questions are being asked as to the effectiveness and the ultimate outcome of the war on terror within Pakistan's border. Is there a well-conceived strategy behind it? Or is it being done just to get the Americans off Pakistan's back? Is it purely a military effort? Is there Pakistani political will behind it? Are the people of FATA in particular, and of Pakistan in general, being persuaded to support it? Can this battle lead to ultimate victory over terrorism in the region?

As far as the people of Bajaur are concerned, Pakistan government has been trying to turn tribal communities there against the militants and government helicopters have dropped leaflets in different parts of Bajaur calling for support, residents have reported.

A full-scale war is unfolding in Bajaur agency of federally administered tribal areas (FATA) in Pakistan. Pakistani military, aided by local tribesmen and tribal elders unhappy with the militants, is fighting the Taliban and Al Qaeda militants. There are reports that tribal militias are being formed to fight the Taliban. These militias have the support of the Pakistani military, Pakistani-appointed Political Agents(PAs) and the traditional tribal elders who have been losing their power and influence since the 1980s, first with the Afghan "Jihad" against the Soviets, and then the subsequent arrival of the Taliban and Pakistani military in their villages during his decade.

The war is beginning to take its toll on the ordinary people in FATA villages, which may affect support for it in the absence of any effective measures to alleviate their suffering. According to a New York Times report, an estimated 250,000 people have now fled the helicopters, jets, artillery and mortar fire of the Pakistani Army, and the assaults, intimidation and rough justice of the Taliban who have dug into Pakistan’s tribal areas. About 20,000 people are so desperate that they have crossed the border from the Bajaur tribal area to seek safety in Afghanistan. This is the first time in recorded history that refugees are pouring out of Pakistan into Afghanistan.

In addition to the growing refugee crisis, there are reports of rising anger and resentment in Pakistan as the dead, wounded and displaced show up right on their doorstep. It is hard to find reliable casualty figures. But the International Committee of the Red Cross has flown in a special surgical team from abroad to work alongside Pakistani doctors and help treat the wounded in two hospitals. This is now a war zone,” said Marco Succi, the spokesman for the International Committee of the Red Cross.

It seems that the Pakistani military is attempting to win the support of the traditional tribal elders as part of its campaign to rid FATA of the Taliban and Al Qaeda militants. While winning FATA elders' support is necessary, it will not be sufficient. In addition to serious efforts to alleviate the suffering of the innocent victims of war caught in the cross fire, what is really required is a Pakistani government-led campaign to persuade a substantial majority of Pakistanis to support its efforts against terrorists who have wreaked havoc on Pakistani streets by a series of deadly suicide bombings this year.

Pakistan's campaign must emphasize that it is fighting this war for its own existence as an independent and democratic nation free of terror. Pakistan government must demonstrate by its actions that it does care for its people; that it is not accepting dictation from Washington to wage its concerted political and military campaign. President Asif Zardari and other leaders need to communicate, honestly and frequently, with the people of Pakistan on the aims and progress of the campaign in FATA. There can be no victory in this war without winning the hearts and minds of a substantial majority of Pakistanis. In the meanwhile, the US political and military leaders must control their actions and rhetoric to avoid being seen as the instigators of Pakistan's war against terror.

Here's a video clip of the news coverage of the battle of Bajaur:

Pakistan and Iran Figure in Biden-Palin Debate

2008-10-02T20:01:00.000-07:00

Sarah Palin, the Republican candidate for vice president, went head to head with a much more experienced Democrat vice presidential hopeful Joe Biden in their only debate tonight. While she may have lacked on substance, she was quite effective with her folksy manner and charm that has endeared her to small-town America. She was able to hold her own in articulating and defending McCain's policy positions regarding Pakistan and Iran, the two important foreign policy challenges facing the next administration. At the same time, Joe Biden, often described as a gaffe machine, was able to avoid looking patronizing or disrespectful toward Sarah Palin.

Here is the debate transcript as it relates to foreign policy:

IFILL: Let's move to Iran and Pakistan. I'm curious about what you think starting with you Senator Biden. What's the greater threat, a nuclear Iran or an unstable Afghanistan? Explain why.

BIDEN: Well, they're both extremely dangerous. I always am focused, as you know Gwen, I have been focusing on for a long time, along with Barack on Pakistan. Pakistan already has nuclear weapons. Pakistan already has deployed nuclear weapons. Pakistan's weapons can already hit Israel and the Mediterranean. Iran getting a nuclear weapon would be very, very destabilizing. They are more than - they are not close to getting a nuclear weapon that's able to be deployed. So they're both very dangerous. They both would be game changers.

But look, here's what the fundamental problem I have with John's policy about terror instability. John continues to tell us that the central war in the front on terror is in Iraq. I promise you, if an attack comes in the homeland, it's going to come as our security services have said, it is going to come from al Qaeda planning in the hills of Afghanistan and Pakistan. That's where they live. That's where they are. That's where it will come from. And right now that resides in Pakistan, a stable government needs to be established. We need to support that democracy by helping them not only with their military but with their governance and their economic well-being.

There have been 7,000 madrasses built along that border. We should be helping them build schools to compete for those hearts and minds of the people in the region so that we're actually able to take on terrorism and by the way, that's where bin Laden lives and we will go at him if we have actually intelligence.

IFILL: Governor, nuclear Pakistan, unstable Pakistan, nuclear Iran? Which is the greater threat?

PALIN: Both are extremely dangerous, of course. And as for who coined that central war on terror being in Iraq, it was the General Petraeus and al Qaeda, both leaders there and it's probably the only thing that they're ever going to agree on, but that it was a central war on terror is in Iraq. You don't have to believe me or John McCain on that. I would believe Petraeus and the leader of al Qaeda.

An armed, nuclear armed especially Iran is so extremely dangerous to consider. They cannot be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons period. Israel is in jeopardy of course when we're dealing with Ahmadinejad as a leader of Iran. Iran claiming that Israel as he termed it, a stinking corpse, a country that should be wiped off the face of the earth. Now a leader like Ahmadinejad who is not sane or stable when he says things like that is not one whom we can allow to acquire nuclear energy, nuclear weapons. Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong Il, the Castro brothers, others who are dangerous dictators are one that Barack Obama has said he would be willing to meet with without preconditions being met first.

And an issue like that taken up by a presidential candidate goes beyond naivete and goes beyond poor judgment. A statement that he made like that is downright dangerous because leaders like Ahmadinejad who would seek to acquire nuclear weapons and wipe off the face of the earth an ally like we have in Israel should not be met with without preconditions and diplomatic efforts being undertaken first.

IFILL: Governor and senator, I want you both to respond to this. Secretaries of state Baker, Kissinger, Powell, they have all advocated some level of engagement with enemies. Do you think these former secretaries of state are wrong on that?

PALIN: No and Dr. Henry Kissinger especially. I had a good conversation with him recently. And he shared with me his passion for diplomacy. And that's what John McCain and I would engage in also. But again, with some of these dictators who hate America and hate what we stand for, with our freedoms, our democracy, our tolerance, our respect for women's rights, those who would try to destroy what we stand for cannot be met with just sitting down on a presidential level as Barack Obama had said he would be willing to do. That is beyond bad judgment. That is dangerous.

No, diplomacy is very important. First and foremost, that is what we would engage in. But diplomacy is hard work by serious people. It's lining out clear objectives and having your friends and your allies ready to back you up there and have sanctions lined up before any kind of presidential summit would take place.

IFILL: Senator?

BIDEN: Can I clarify this? This is simply not true about Barack Obama. He did not say sit down with Ahmadinejad.

BIDEN: The fact of the matter is, it surprises me that Senator McCain doesn't realize that Ahmadinejad does not control the security apparatus in Iran. The theocracy controls the security apparatus, number one.

Number two, five secretaries of state did say we should talk with and sit down.

Now, John and Governor Palin now say they're all for -- they have a passion, I think the phrase was, a passion for diplomacy and that we have to bring our friends and allies along.

Our friends and allies have been saying, Gwen, "Sit down. Talk. Talk. Talk." Our friends and allies have been saying that, five secretaries of state, three of them Republicans.

And John McCain has said he would go along with an agreement, but he wouldn't sit down. Now, how do you do that when you don't have your administration sit down and talk with the adversary?

And look what President Bush did. After five years, he finally sent a high-ranking diplomat to meet with the highest-ranking diplomats in Iran, in Europe, to try to work out an arrangement.

Our allies are on that same page. And if we don't go the extra mile on diplomacy, what makes you think the allies are going to sit with us?

The last point I'll make, John McCain said as recently as a couple of weeks ago he wouldn't even sit down with the government of Spain, a NATO ally that has troops in Afghanistan with us now. I find that incredible.

Palin argued that Biden is a Washington insider who has disagreed with Obama on many crucial policy issues and voted differently from Obama over the years. She said Biden's positions have been closer to McCain's than Obama's on Iraq. I agree with Palin's assessment that Biden voted for Iraq war and only starting opposing Iraq war after things started go badly there to avoid taking responsibility for failure. In fact, he not only voted against the surge in Iraq, but he made the case for effectively dividing Iraq into three countries and existing from there. Division of Iraq would have been extremely destabilizing for the entire region, with southern Iraq aligning with Iran, and Kurds demanding freedom of Kurds in Turkey, Iran and Syria to join with northern Iraq. While attacking Obama and Biden as liberal Democrats aligned completely with their party, Palin emphasized the maverick image of John McCain and her record as a reformer within the Republican party. I believe Palin was successful in blunting Biden's attempts to link John McCain with George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

Overall, Palin came through as a genuine people's person while Biden did well by showing his deeper knowledge and long experience, ready to be vice president and, if necessary, president.

UN Millennium Goals in Pakistani Village

2008-10-02T11:50:00.000-07:00

"We need a hospital," one man said, "and a school for girls. If something could be done about the drinking water, we'd be grateful."

"One day it's diarrhea, the next day it's fever, the next day, vomiting" said a village woman, speaking about her children.

These villagers reluctantly spoke to their feudal prince of Ratrian, a poor village in north of Pakistan, highlighted by TVE and BBC recently. The young prince is Rafeh Malik, the son of the feudal lord Malik Atta Mohammad, whose family's vast land holdings include this village. The prince took the initiative to ask for his villagers' opinions about what needs to be done to improve their lives.

Apparently, Prince Rafeh Malik has been influenced by the United Nations Millennial Development Goals (MDGs) and he wants to try and implement them within his domain. He has taken the initiative by convincing his father that it must be done.

Here's a brief overview of the UN MDGs:

1 Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger
2 Achieve universal primary education
3 Promote gender equality and empower women
4 Reduce child mortality
5 Improve maternal health
6 Combat HIV/Aids, malaria, and other diseases
7 Ensure environmental sustainability
8 Develop a global partnership for development

These goals can not be achieved by governments alone. In spite of Pakistani government's efforts and international assistance, Pakistan does not have a lot to show in terms of real progress toward UN MDGs. Ranked at 136 on a list of 177 countries, Pakistan's human development ranking remains very low. Particularly alarming is the low primary school enrollment for girls which stands at about 30% in rural areas, where the majority of Pakistanis live. In fact, the South Asia average of primary school enrollment is pulled down by Pakistan, the only country in all of Asia and the Pacific with the lowest primary enrollment rate of 70 per cent in 2005. This is 12 percentage points lower than that of Maldives, which, at 80 per cent, has the second lowest rate in Asia and the Pacific. However, whereas Pakistan is rapidly reducing the proportion of children out of primary school - the net enrollment rate was just 60 per cent in 2003 - the rate in Maldives actually dropped 18 percentage points between 1999 and 2005.

The government effort is necessary but the real success will require active participation of private Pakistani citizens of all classes in society. People, including young, educated and enlightened feudal princes, need to come together to light candles rather than curse darkness.

The mission that Rafeh Malik has embarked on is an extremely welcome and necessary effort to change the feudal attitudes toward the poor in Pakistan. There are obviously risks and fears associated with any change. But Rafeh Malik's work should be an inspiration to other young men and women of the feudal class in Pakistan. "I am scared," Rafeh told his friend Shehryar Mufti, a Dawn TV journalist, "but I'm willing to take the risk."

Let's hope Rafeh Malik, and others like him, succeed in bringing about peaceful and positive changes in Pakistani feudal-tribal society that will ultimately benefit all Pakistanis, including the villagers, the middle class and the feudal and tribal chiefs. It has been shown in many developed nations that peaceful transitions from traditional feudal societies to modern democratic, successful, industrialized societies have brought wealth, peace and prosperity for all. The children of the feudal lords in Europe benefited from better education and lucrative business investments to remain rich and powerful, without keeping their people impoverished and illiterate. The transitions were clearly win-win situations for both the rulers and the ruled. The alternatives to peaceful transitions will be far worse for the big zamindars and sardars in Pakistan. Resistance to change by of the feudal-tribal leaders will prove dangerous and futile over the long run.

Related Links:

Light a Candle, Do Not Curse Darkness

BBC News

Lifeline

United Nations Report on School Enrollment

Volunteerism in Pakistan

India Protects Passive Smokers

2008-10-02T08:13:00.000-07:00

As of today, the Indian government has banned cigarette and bidi smoking in public places in an attempt to reduce harm to passive smokers. The double digit growth in the number of smokers in South Asia has increased the dangers faced by people forced to inhale toxic smoke against their will. As the smoking rates in developed countries have slowly declined, they have risen dramatically in some developing counties, where Philip Morris International (PMI), often described as the merchant of death, is a major player. These include Pakistan (up 42% since 2001), Ukraine (up 36%) and Argentina (up 18%), according to the Wall Street Journal. Alarmed by the data, Pakistan banned public smoking in 2003 and strengthened health warnings on cigarette packs and advertisements.

The Indian government says there are more than 120 million cigarette smokers in the country. As with other laws, the results of the ban will depend greatly on how well it is enforced. Those flouting it face fines of 200 rupees ($4.50). Tobacco smoking in India kills 900,000 people a year. That figure is expected to rise to a million by 2010.

As the governments of developing nations deal with the consequences of increase in smoking, PMI and other tobacco giants are targeting Pakistan, India, Brazil and Russia. one of PMI's immediate goals is to harness the huge potential of China's smoking population, as well as some of that country's own brands, according to the Wall Street Journal.

While Philip Morris investments in Pakistan, Brazil, Russia, India and China are expected to bring in much-needed capital and create thousands of new jobs, the proven health risks posed by smoking will also cause widespread disease and death in future years. This does not appear to be a good bargain for these emerging economies with young populations.

Pakistanis Join Hunt for "God Particle"

2008-09-30T08:31:00.000-07:00

Humans have been engaged in the perennial effort to crack the code of the physical world; to figure out what the universe is made of; to know the origins of human and other species; in other words, to get to the very bottom of things. These are existential questions that religions and philosophers have offered answers to. But most scientists remain unconvinced with these answers and continue their hunt for "God Particle".

The most high-profile effort to find "God Particle" is taking place about 300 ft below ground in a tunnel at the French-Swiss border. Buried there is a massive particle accelerator and super collider called LHC (Large Hadron Collider) run by the Swiss lab CERN (European Organization of Nuclear Research), which has two beams of particles racing at nearly the speed of light in opposite directions and the resulting particles produced from collisions are being detected by massive detectors in the hope of experimentally finding the fundamental particle of which everything in the universe is built from: God Particle. The knowledge gained from this multibillion-dollar atom smasher may eventually help scientists treat diseases, improve the Internet, and open doors to travel through extra dimensions, according to the scientists associated with it.

Among the world scientists working at CERN on LHC project is Professor Hafeez Hoorani of Pakistan's Quaid-e-Azam University in Islamabad. He is one of 27 Pakistani scientists at CERN.CERN is the most highly respected research lab in Switzerland responsible for LHC. He acknowledges that Pakistan government's support for Pakistani scientists' serious involvement at CERN materialized only after 1999, the year former President Musharraf's government assumed power. He also gives credit to Dr. Abdus Salam, Pakistan's only Nobel Laureate, for inspiring him and his colleagues to pursue serious scientific research. Here's what Professor Hoorani says about Pakistan's involvement in LHC and CERN:

When I first came to CERN, I was mainly working on technical things but became increasingly involved in political issues. In 1999, I went back to Pakistan to set up a group working on different aspects of the LHC project. There I had to convince my people and my government to collaborate with CERN, which was rather difficult, since nobody associated science with Switzerland. It is known as a place for tourism, for its watches, and nice places to visit.

However, Pakistan already had an early connection to CERN through the late Abdus Salam, the sole Nobel laureate from Pakistan in science and one of the fathers of the electroweak theory. CERN has been known to the scientific community of Pakistan since 1973 through the discovery of neutral currents which eventually led to the Nobel Prize for Salam. We are contributing much more now because of the students who worked with Salam, who know his theories and CERN, and who are now placed at highly influential positions within the government of Pakistan. They have helped and pushed Pakistan towards a very meaningful scientific collaboration with CERN. People now know that there is an organization called CERN. It took a long time to explain what CERN is about, and I brought many people here to show them, because they did not imagine CERN this way. Many people support us now which gives us hope…”

In addition to the 27 scientists, Pakistan has made material contributions to the tune of $10m. According to a post by Ujmi on WTF, Pakistan signed an agreement with CERN which doubled the Pakistani contribution from one to two million Swiss francs. And with this new agreement Pakistan started construction of the resistive plate chambers required for the CMS muon system. While more recently, a protocol has been signed enhancing Pakistan’s total contribution to the LHC program to $10 million.

CERN is a pan-European effort and all of its member states are European. Pakistan, with all of its contributions to LHC project, is hoping to join the ranks of India, Israel, Japan, Russia, Turkey and United States as an observer state at CERN.

Pakistan has contributed the LHC in numerous ways including some of the following in particular:

1. Detector construction
2. Detector simulation
3. Physics analysis
4. Grid computing
5. Computational software development
6. Manufacturing of mechanical equipment
7. Alignment of the CMS (Compact Muon Solenoid) tracker using lasers
8. Testing of electronic equipment
9. Barrel Yoke: 35 Ton each feet made in Pakistan
10. Assembly of CF (Carbon Fiber) Fins for the Silicon Tracker’s TOB (Tracker Outer Barrel).
11. 245 of the 300 CMS chambers required were made in Islamabad, of which 226 are already installed at CERN.

The Higgs boson, also known as "God Particle", is a hypothetical massive scalar elementary particle predicted to exist by the Standard Model of particle physics. It is the only Standard Model particle not yet experimentally observed. An experimental observation of it would help to explain how otherwise massless elementary particles cause matter to have mass. More specifically, the Higgs boson would explain the difference between the massless photon and the relatively massive W and Z bosons. Elementary particle masses, and the differences between electromagnetism (caused by the photon) and the weak force (caused by the W and Z bosons), are critical to many aspects of the structure of microscopic (and hence macroscopic) matter; thus, if it exists, the Higgs boson is an integral and pervasive component of the material world.

The Standard Model of particle physics has its limits. It can't explain several big mysteries about the universe that have their roots in the minuscule world of particles and forces. If there's one truly extraordinary concept to emerge from the past century of inquiry, it's that the cosmos we see was once smaller than an atom. This is why particle physicists talk about cosmology and cosmologists talk about particle physics: Our existence, our entire universe, emerged from things that happened at the smallest imaginable scale. The big bang theory tells us that the known universe once had no dimensions at all—no up or down, no left or right, no passage of time, and laws of physics beyond our vision.

There have been many other efforts to build particle accelerators and supercolliders including SLAC (Stanford Linear Accelerator) and Fermi Collider, but none so ambitious and massive as the LHC. It is a commendable effort that will advance human knowledge. However, there is no guarantee that it will help find "God Particle".

Sources:

CERN Website
Wikipedia
National Geographic
WTF Website