A trap and a barrier

EVEN if the newly elected government does not want to act resolutely to reduce poverty in Pakistan and achieve positive results because of its feudal character, it is under increasing external and domestic pressures to act.

The external compulsion comes from a trio of international aid agencies, the IMF, the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank, and there is increasing awareness in the world of the need to fight poverty to reduce the number of threats it faces, with poverty acknowledged as one of the causes of terrorism. These agencies and other donors are willing to come up with large assistance for poverty reduction if we go about it properly and consistently.

The current IMF programme to assist Pakistan is known as the Poverty Reduction and growth Facility (PRGF). The assistance likely to be forthcoming from the World Bank and the ADB is much larger, including a $ 3.4 billion programme spread over five or more years, depending on how we perform.

Several donor countries led by Norway and Canada have also said that if we make effective use of the loans already given for social sector development, they could convert the loans into development grants.

On the domestic front, massive unemployment, of which a spate of suicides by desperate youth is a grim reminder, demand early action to reduce poverty, with almost 40 per cent of the people living below the poverty line of a dollar a day.

More and more unemployed young men are taking to major crimes, which are also behind the increasing violence against housewives demanding money from their husbands to feed their children.

The World Bank two years ago held a series of seminars or workshops in Pakistan to formulate a poverty reduction strategy for the country in view of the deteriorating situation and recently came out with a comprehensive report, “Pakistan Poverty Assessment — Poverty in Pakistan: Vulnerabilities, social gaps and rural dynamics.” It was struck by the rise in rural poverty in a country in which 72 per cent of the people live in the rural areas with very little to fall back on.

On the basis of that an Interim Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper has been prepared. After its approval by the military government, it awaits the sanction of the newly elected government of Mir Zafarullah Khan Jamali. Thereafter, specific aid commitments may follow and the strategy implemented step by step. In this context, a workshop was held in Karachi last week by Tara Viswanathan, who had organised the series of seminars two years ago. It was presided over by Dr Ishrat Husain, Governor of the State Bank of Pakistan, and was designed to make the stakeholders and others familiar with the anti-poverty strategy.

According to Dr Husain, devising a strategy is the easier part; implementing it is the difficult one. That has been our economic history for the last 50 years. A major drawback was lack of adequate funds as the bulk of public funds remained committed to debt servicing and defence. When foreign funds were available, matching counterpart funds were not. So it was not uncommon to see over $ 10 billion of committed aid in the pipeline on which an interest of half a per cent per year had to be regularly paid.

All that has changed a great deal. The budget deficit has come down to below five per cent from 8 to 10 per cent in the past when the national debt kept on piling, leading to even our modest annual development programmes getting slashed time and again. Now, external aid specifically for poverty reduction is being committed in increasing measure.

One of the pillars of the poverty reduction strategy is privatization of major public sector projects, which are currently causing a loss of Rs 100 billion annually. If this amount is saved within a period of three years, beginning with Rs. 50 billion in the first year, the budget deficit would eventually be reduced by more than a half. Dr Ishrat Husain says that Rs. 36 billion were collected through privatization during the last three years. Public sector enterprises earmarked for privatization now should yield Rs 40 to Rs 60 billion.

Along with that, the external debt has been reduced by $2 billion or Rs 120 billion, says Mr Shaukat aziz, adviser to the prime minister on finance. The interest on domestic loans is also coming down sharply. All that should reduce the debt burden and the debt servicing cost, which now stands at Rs. 291 billion. The dollar cost of servicing external loans, including private sector loans, has also come down by almost 10 per cent as that debt has to be cleared at around Rs 58 to a dollar.

In addition, we are getting over a billion dollars worth of oil from Saudi Arabia each year as grant since 1988 and that has been exceedingly helpful to the country. This year the Saudi facility is reported to cost $ 1.3 billion in view of the higher cost of oil.

We ought to be given a full picture of the accounting pattern following these reliefs instead of isolated statements made by the officials from time to time. If we need a higher rate of economic growth — far higher than the current year’s 4.5 per cent against a population growth of 3 per cent or less — far more will have to be invested, particularly in job-creating infrastructure projects. By reducing wasteful or needless expenditure all round we should be targeting growth rate of six to seven per cent, if not eight per cent, to reduce poverty within a short time. But our rulers and law-makers have been doubling their salaries while surplus labour is to be retrenched. That is not how the new regime should act when unemployment is so widespread and the people are being employed at lower and lower salaries. The new rulers should have been more tactful.

This has happened at a time when, according to this newspaper, there was a 12 per cent rise in suicides by teenagers in 2002 as compared to the previous year. the number of young people who killed themselves in 2001 was 125 while the number was 142 last year. Most of them were responsible for supporting their families but could not find employment. And some young women killed themselves in economic distress as their husbands could not support them.

Will the doubling of the salaries of the rulers from the president downward and of all legislators, central and provincial, make them work harder for the betterment of the masses who pay them their higher emoluments? As far as Prime Minister Jamali is concerned, he is only promising a “relief package” before Eid, but the people expect more substantial benefits.

Reducing poverty is no longer a matter of providing food and clothing. The task has become far more comprehensive. Dr Ishrat Husain has spelled out some of the pre-requisites for that, beginning with higher economic growth and macro-economic stability and ending with specific safety nets for the very poor and highly vulnerable groups. And now Mr Shaukat Aziz says that an economic growth of six per cent will be achieved in three years, by 2006, and poverty will be reduced to 22 per cent from the current level of 30 per cent. But development spending is set to increase to only four per cent of GDP from the current 3.3 per cent less far than is required to tackle unemployment in any significant way.

To achieve even the modest goals outlined, there are a number of vital preconditions such as political stability, regional stability, better law and order situation, continuation of consistent and transparent economic policies, continuation of the structural reform programme, and sustained fiscal responsibility.

But are the political policies of the government leading to political stability in the country? Are they creating regional stability in a province like Sindh? Will General Pervez Musharraf come to a settlement with the opposition on the issue of the Legal Framework Order and continuing to be both president and military chief? And will the National Accountability Bureau be used selectively instead of in a fair and transparent manner?

There is the question of good governance as part of the poverty reduction programme. People have to be given educational facilities, public health services beginning with clean and safe drinking water, a far better environment and access to justice. Above all, there has to be absolute elimination of corruption at all levels. We do not have enough resources for the rich and the corrupt to grab a large part of them and also spare enough for the poor. Corruption and conspicuous corruption have to be checked. The population explosion has to be controlled by educating women and providing them with jobs. Bangladesh has achieved considerable success in that. Iran, though governed by the clergy, has been able to bring down the population growth to 1.2 per cent. We have to do much more in this area than we have done so far because of our reluctance to adopt the obviously needed steps.

Strong political commitment is essential to bring about such changes. But feudal rulers do not usually feel much compulsion to change. Fair, regular and clean elections provide a way for people to exert pressure for a change in their lives. But elections in Pakistan are only an occasional exercise and are deeply flawed. And we have too many parties with their racuous voices to achieve the transformation that is urgently needed.

Time to break ranks

IF there was an award in Washington for the ‘most loyal ally’ it would undoubtedly go to British Prime Minister Tony Blair. His support for the Bush administration’s ‘war against terror’ has been rock solid.

As other allies distanced themselves over concerns about bombing of civilians, treatment of POWs in Afghanistan, lack of reconstruction funds and Guantanamo Bay, Blair stood resolutely with the US. Even as Washington raised serious international alarm by widening the war against terror to include Iran, Iraq and North Korea, and justify ‘pre-emptive offence’, Blair did not back off. Some differences did emerge over the Middle East — Blair tried to revive peace efforts while Bush remained indifferent — but not on the scale to be called a disagreement.

Tony Blair has indeed been George Bush’s most loyal ally. The time has come, though, for him to break ranks with his Texan friend. Britain’s prime minister has to join the anti-US movement. To be more precise, he has to join the movement opposed to US military action against Iraq.

The reasons for Blair to do so are both many and compelling. At the most basic level, he has to consider whether he backs Bush’s motives in going to war — not the declared motive of eradicating weapons of mass destruction (WMD) but the real motives: domestic political ambitions, revenge for George Bush Senior and oil. Bush is using war against Iraq to maintain his popularity at home. His father failed to oust Saddam Hussein in the first Gulf War and was almost assassinated by him in 1993. Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world. All these might be ample justification for the US, but they are not causes that Tony Blair can or should be backing.

Even the overt reason for attacking Iraq — destroying WMD — is open to question. War can only be waged to eradicate WMD once the existence of WMD is established. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer’s simple assertion “We know for a fact that there are weapons there” is not sufficient. UN Security Council Resolution 1441 calls for Iraq to cooperate with weapons inspectors. It is doing so. Hans Blix’ team has open access to any site it chooses, but has so far failed to uncover ‘any smoking gun’. So long as Iraq continues to cooperate, and so long as nothing is discovered by UN weapons inspectors, war cannot be justified. Blair cannot and should not back an unjustifiable war.

The US is making increasingly desperate attempts to show a breach of Resolution 1441. American ambassador to the UN, John Negroponte, defined ‘cooperation’ as Iraq admitting to have WMD: “anything less is not cooperation, and will constitute a further material breach”. This is the judicial equivalent of an accused person being found guilty because he failed to confess to his crime. Such calls for ‘pro-active cooperation’ by Iraq reveal the Bush administration’s resolve — irrespective of what the inspectors do or do not find — to go to war. Britain cannot and should not share such blind obsession.

These are early days for the inspection teams. They could yet find something incriminating in Iraq: as Blix said, the 12,000-page Iraqi declaration on WMD “leaves many questions unanswered”. But even if WMD is found, Resolution 1441 does not specifically authorize the use of military force against Iraq. A UN mandate for attack could only come through a second specific resolution. Washington has made it amply clear that it will go to war using just 1441. This would amount to a unilateralist, action. Britain cannot and should not support the US in such a violation of international law and norms.

The US claims that its forces would enter Iraq not as conquerors but as ‘liberators’. It is inconceivable, though, that war would hit the desired target, Saddam Hussein, and not kill or maim the Iraqi people it is supposed to liberate. A UN report entitled ‘Likely Humanitarian Scenarios’ warns that war against Iraq would lead to electricity shortages, widespread famine, cholera and typhoid in “epidemic if not pandemic proportions”, mass migration of two million refugees, and up to ten million civilians in urgent need of aid. Britain cannot and should not participate in a carnage of this kind.

It is uncertain what the post-war consequences of ousting Saddam Hussein by force would be. What is certain is that they would be disastrous. The break-up of Iraq into Shi’a, Kurd and Sunni fractions, civil war, a wider conflagration, regional and global economic decline — this is the depressing menu of options. Afghanistan showed Washington’s failure to live up to promises of post-war stability and reconstruction. Britain cannot and should not wait for the US to break similar promises in Iraq.

Support for Al Qaeda and Islamic militancy is the other definite consequence of western attack on Iraq. The attacks of 9/11 were motivated by the first Gulf War and the presence of American forces on Saudi soil, US partisanship in the Middle East, crippling sanctions against Iraq and the general perception that Washington saw Islam as the new enemy.

No great insight is required to predict that an assault on Iraq, especially with no WMD discovered and no UN resolution cover, would enrage the Muslim people and push at least some into the arms of Al Qaeda. That in turn means a heightened risk to the nationals and interests of America, Britain, Israel and any western country. In short, it means defeat in the ‘war against terror’. Tony Blair cannot and should not stand by while Washington puts Britons in danger.

Lest this long list of reasons be insufficient to convince Tony Blair, he should consider the final and — from the perspective of a politician — most compelling reason: self-preservation. It is becoming increasingly clear that neither the British public, nor Parliament, nor the Labour Party, nor even the cabinet, share Blair’s commitment to George Bush and war against Iraq.

Labour MPs have been reminding their leader of the consequences of a politically divided Britain going to war the last time — Suez in 1956. If Blair wants to avoid Anthony Eden’s ignominious fate, he can and should act now.

Tony Blair is showing signs of being aware of, and responding to, the anti-war movement: addressing a gathering of British diplomats last week he promised he would never “commit UK troops to a war that I thought was wrong”. This is a good start, but only that — a start. Blair needs to follow it through with a firm commitment not to act outside the UN and not to join a war against Iraq unless there is a clear legal and moral justification for it.

And he needs to go even further. It is not in the Bush administration’s nature to listen to the advice of others: so far it has shown an obstinate refusal to unplug its ears. It is equally true that Britain’s or Blair’s claims to have influence over the White House are more illusory than real. Nonetheless, there is a small chance that George Bush would heed his British counterpart and call off his war against Iraq. Tony Blair cannot and should not let that chance go.

Washington windmills at work

WASHINGTON windmills are inching towards a rapprochement between bitter rivals, India and Pakistan. The third-party mediation behind the scenes is quietly at work. For Islamabad, it’s a coup of sorts: having America on board and getting New Delhi to admit the US as a peace broker.

Except, the facetious muscle-flexing put on daily display by Pakistani and Indian heavyweights tells a different tale: these bombastic blowhards, while lunging at each other, look for a zero-sum game aimed at a win-win situation while destroying the other. Their nuclear brinkmanship is spooking the world and whipping up national frenzy at home.

However, America as the enabler has firmly in place its own strategic agenda. A phalanx of Asia experts’ traction on issues all things empirical to parlay their subcontinent experience appears squirting through the State Department where “generalists” seem to “make foreign policy without really knowing much”.

“While arms control and security analysts know a lot about India and Pakistan’s nuclear weapons, what they don’t know is if these two nations will ever use them,” argues Harvard University Professor Dwight Perkins. “For that you need people like Ambassador Nicholas Platt, who have an inherent knowledge of the subcontinent, its ways and its leaders.” According to him, experts really can’t wager whether Pakistani military has been “weakened or strengthened” by nukes or the “formula America has worked out on Kashmir finds reason with India or Pakistan.”

Platt, who served as the American ambassador in Islamabad in early 1990s says that despite three wars, India and Pakistan which were again “at daggers drawn” last year, “scared each other and everybody else.” Delineating US-India relations, he says the latter’s friendship with the then Soviet Union really “peeved” America, leading to a “coolness, a stand-off between the two.”

As for Pakistan, “America betrayed and discarded it like a used Kleenex tissue after the end of the cold war,” Platt — currently the president of the Asia Society in New York, a prestigious post that he has held for a decade — comments wryly: “With Pakistan we had an unstable partnership which alternated between periods of intimacy and indifference, but in this new phase of friendship, we will stay the course.”

In the next breath, Platt points to India and the US embarking on a new phase because America is aware that it is dealing with an important strategic power, “possibly an economic partner” and also “maybe a military partner.” This of course has “upset” Pakistan, he says. But he hastens to add that America today has “better relations” with both Pakistan and India than during the last 50 years and has the ability to play a “calming role” between the two nuclear states.

After 34 years of diplomatic service in Asia, the ambassador well knows how crucial what he calls the “three Rs — Relations, Religion and Real Estate” — are in an Asian milieu. “A one-on- one economic ties between India and Pakistan, if allowed to occur, will soften the gristle of intractability. People on both sides want to relate, to interact, but it’s the ignorance of their leaders and religious extremists that prevent this from happening.”

He thinks, “Musharraf has more of a say than his Indian counterpart in calibrating the next step towards peace. The BJP coalition, on the other hand, is more “fragile”. However, “nobody in India, Pakistan or the US thinks that the (Real Estate) Kashmir problem will be solved quickly; it will take time.”

Having dialogued with India and Pakistan for five long years, America has finally realized that it must include Kashmir in the equation. Platt is “optimistic” that the US role as an “honest broker” will be positive but “America has to be smart, tactful and very, very careful.”

Russia and China, the two other major powers in the region, are actively engaged in trying to bring India and Pakistan together. Will they succeed? “America today is the only superpower and it alone can play the role of a peacemaker,” Nicholas Platt tells me. With an authoritative voice, he sums up his thesis: “US is not hedging anymore. We have made it amply clear to India and Pakistan to open negotiations and we will mediate based on our best interests. India has to weigh its permanent conflict with Kashmir, and for that it has to talk to Pakistan first.”

Sugata Bose’s candour on Kashmir is also right. His views appear balanced and well nuanced. The Indian professor from Harvard, who has co-authored books on South Asia with Pakistani historian Ayesha Jalal, comes through as a breath of fresh air compared to his compatriots who court assiduously any anti- Pakistan sentiment they can find. By all accounts, “India’s obsession with terrorism is out of sync today,” simply states Bose. “I think India is frittering away its energy towards putting down Pakistan in front of Washington.”

Dovetailing Platt’s arguments, Bose sums them in one sentence: “Kashmir, which is a real estate dispute, can only have one owner.” Merely, “respecting” the LoC (Line of Control) is just a “quick fix”; what “we need is converting the LoC into an international border”

But he tells us that before sealing the fate of the Kashmiris, “insaniyat” (humanness) must be the guiding principle. Kashmiris are people “conquered by spiritual forces”, never by the “force of soldiers”, reminding one of the bungling British, juxtaposing their “own fake sovereignty” which set the stage a century before, for Kashmir insurgency of 1989. “Denial of democracy and negation of federal autonomy was the cause of the uprising.”

“The Indian Union is so brittle it would break. Therefore it didn’t keep its promise of autonomy to the Kashmiri people. I suggest we now follow the Irish peace process and set up a three- way axis of communication: New Delhi and Srinagar, New Delhi and Islamabad and Srinagar and Muzaffarabad.”

Another authority on India and Pakistan is Stephen Cohen of Brookings in Washington. He enjoys considerable clout with US policy-makers. Speaking of India as a “potential catalyst in shaping new western perceptions,” he warns that hawks in India “want to destroy Pakistan,” while some others want Pakistan transformed into a pliable, subservient state of India. “In other words destroy the Pakistan army, eliminate Punjabi dominance, really to create a revolution in Pakistan, and of course the Indians would like us (America) to do that on their behalf. I don’t think the Administration is quite prepared to take on that task.”

As for Pakistani hawks, they “want all of Kashmir. If they can’t have Kashmir they want to continue to bleed India” through exerting “Islamic pressure” which they hope will “eventually lead to its destruction,” says Cohen.

E-mail: anjumniazusa@yahoo.com

Foreign affairs for dummies

THERE is so much going on in the world that every time I get lost I refer to my book, Foreign Affairs for Dummies.

Here is what it says:

QUESTION: If a smoking gun can’t be found in Iraq, where can you find one?

ANSWER: In North Korea. They announced they have a smoking gun and are proud of it.

Q: If they can’t find one in Iraq, why should we unilaterally go there?

A: Because our troops are there. They are prepared to fight in Iraq, but they are not prepared to fight in North Korea. The Bush Administration has been ready to fight in Baghdad for over a year, and if we don’t topple Saddam Hussein now the U.S. will have egg on its face.

Q: How much money will it cost us to go into Iraq and find a smoking gun?

A: Probably $200 billion.

Q: So, if we don’t go into North Korea we will save $200 billion?

A: That’s correct. That way the president can afford to give us another tax cut.

Q: How do our allies feel about this?

A: Most of them are for us, but don’t want American troops on their soil if we go to war.

Q: Is it true when the president says that oil is not part of the equation in our foreign policy?

A: Of course it is. When you’re acting diplomatically, you can’t let petroleum get in the way of liberating a dictatorship.

Q: Is North Korea a dictatorship?

A: Probably, but we can’t do anything about it because it’s too close to China, and we don’t want the Chinese to get mad at us, because they are our best trading partners.

Q: A lot of countries have a smoking gun now—Pakistan, India, China, North Korea, Israel, France and Great Britain, to name a few. How many countries are we going to attack after we wipe out Iraq?

A: We’re not necessarily going to attack them. In a lot of cases, we’ll just bomb their smoking gun factories.

Q: Can we send UN inspectors into the countries that are suspect?

A: You can’t send them into France and Great Britain because you would be violating their sovereignty.

Q: How long will it take to eliminate Saddam from power?

A: Anywhere from two weeks to two years.

Q: And how long will it take for a democratic regime to take his place?

A: Anywhere from two weeks to two years.

Q: Am I going crazy?

A: It’s very possible.

—Dawn/Tribune Media Services

Praying for a miracle

HAVE the Americans given sufficient thought to the calendar they propose for their war against Iraq? According to serious analysts, the date for the invasion is juggling between 15 and 21 February. Washington is expected to wait till the end of January for United Nations inspectors to deliver their full report (which, so far, has not discovered a ‘smoking gun’ in Iraq, leave alone a smoking weapon of mass destruction).

The White House will then spend a fortnight trying to get another, and hopefully unequivocal, resolution passed by the Security Council to serve as the international cloak before the dagger. Come 15 February: bang! Does America realize that the dates clash directly with the Cricket World Cup in South Africa and Zimbabwe? The Americans could win the war on the ground and lose it in the air. Given a choice, what would you watch on television: cricket or war? President George Bush cannot be so isolationist as to be indifferent to the fact that the whole of the former British Empire, plus Holland, will be riveted to cricket rather than the second Gulf war.

It is obvious that Britain does not care, but that is no surprise. Britain has left its empire behind, physically, psychologically, emotionally; even erased it from its memory. But surely America cannot be so irresponsible.

After all, America has to run the world, and do so, according to Texan optimists, for the rest of this century. That is a long haul. America could need the help of client states, as available from the old Empire.

It is true that China, Russia, Germany, France, Turkey and Japan will not be watching the Cricket World Cup, and will therefore concentrate their whole attention on America’s techno-military prowess in the deserts, marshes and mountains of Iraq. However, I hope the penny has dropped. All these nations are potential competitors of America, not allies, either singly or together, in the race to dominate the world in this century. Europe has already stated its claim to equality, and the euro is now valued above the dollar. The French already hate Americans (except as tourists). The Germans are more guarded and the Italians are checking out both sides.

But France and Germany are determined to turn Europe into the superpower of the 21st century, and prevent the unchallenged sway of the dollar and the gunship. Russia has not given up its ambitions; it is only a matter of time before it begins to growl again, this time with more Tsarist cadence than Communist. China is well on its way to economic superstardom, backed by steely military muscle.

As for Japan, who can really predict what it will do? It is the only race that actually dared to invade America, did so with smashing success, and then fought a long war against the Americans. Who knows where it will sit when an opportunity beckons?

So, loyal and useful, client states can only come from the English-speaking, cricket-playing world. Useful, because there is no point in having a client state that cannot look after itself: a superpower wants a comprador, not a leech. And how is the old Empire going to be impressed if we spend February and March rooting for Sachin Tendulkar instead of General Tommy Franks? What would you rather watch on February 12? India vs Holland or America vs Iraq?

Actually since India is playing Holland and I can’t recall the name of a single Dutch cricketer, I might actually switch to the America-Iraq encounter. On the other hand, since India were turned into toast by New Zealand, one can never be sure of what India does against any team. Even this one could become a thriller, with India losing in the last over still two runs behind Holland’s score of 167. You never know.

There is no doubt in my mind about the next match, though. On February 15, India plays Australia, and I am going to stick to this even if George Bush is celebrating victory with a mass in Baghdad Cathedral. Australia will already have beaten Pakistan by then. Glen McGrath and Shane Warne will have recovered from their injuries, and fired up by match play. Frankly, if you ask me, I don’t think that either of them was in any serious trouble last month. They just wanted some rest from beating up England.

Even for an Australian, smashing England into pulp can become boring. They wanted rest, in order to be fresh and fully fit for the World Cup. You notice this in Sachin as well. He has become a minimalist against New Zealand. They are all gearing up for the Real Thing. They also know that this will be their last World Cup. Sachin Tendulkar is 30, as are Rahul Dravid and Saurav Ganguly. The Australians are much older. The next World Cup will be in the West Indies, four years later. You cannot be fit for World Cup fielding at the age of 34 or more. Your body is past it.

The Warnes and Tendulkars will squeeze every ounce of glory from this Cup. A lifetime of product endorsements depends upon it. Big Cricket is Big Money. The only person who will not retire by then will be Saurav Ganguly, because he will not go until he is pushed and no one will push him as long as Jagmohan Dalmiya is around, and Dalmiya is going to be around for ever. So there you are.

Even a nuclear war would not drag me away from the India-Pakistan match on the first of March. This will be a hinge game. So much could hinge on it. For instance, who of the two teams would make it to the next round, the Super Six category. Who would be sacked by their Board for losing could depend on this match. And, of course, this match could lead to a resumption of Indo-Pakistan cricket on the subcontinent (if you can play in South Africa, why not here?), thereby ushering in a new era of peace, defusing the terrorism-induced crisis, changing the mood on Kashmir, persuading Islamabad to take firm steps towards the regime of SAPTA and SAFTA (agreed by all at Kathmandu in January 2002), and eventually eliminating the possibility of nuclear war between India and Pakistan. Saurav Ganguly and Waqar Younus could be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize if they get it right at the Super Sport Park in Centurion on March 1.

We all know who is going to win the America-Iraq match. That is a no-brainer. The World Cup is more difficult to predict. Australia is the George Bush of the Cup. India is giving every indication of being the Saddam Hussein: lots of support from people who cannot influence the result, immense posturing but no real hope.

There is of course what might be called the Pepsi Option. It is sleazy but it is there. It has been featured in Pepsi ads on television: you must have seen it, it always comes when something interesting is about to happen in the game. A clever clever Indian unplugs the Pepsi dispenser and Warne, Nasser Hussein, Jonty Rhodes et al injure themselves in frustration. You get the idea? If you can’t defeat them fair and square, injure them through subterfuge. Alas, Pepsi Sleaze won’t work. Warne and Company may be greedy, but they are not stupid.

Will real sleaze work? It is estimated that some 80 per cent of the Cup money will be provided by the Indian advertiser. The Indian advertiser will not pay unless India plays. Ratings drop like a stone in a pond if India is not on the field. You can take a ten-second ad for Rs 10,000 when Australia plays South Africa, which is a proper game of cricket. Let India play Namibia and the same ad costs you Rs 100,000. You see how crucial it is to ensure that India get into the Super Six round?

So could the multinationals (it sometimes seems that the economic future of South Korea and Japan depends on the World Cup) spread the goodies to ensure that a few games are thrown? The idea has its merits. Cricket is money, not national pride. If money can work overground, it can also work underground.

Corruption has already entered the game. It is also multi-racial. Remember Hansie Cronje? May his soul rest in peace since his last days were so tortured.

The problem is that administrators have now equipped themselves with hawk-eyes. Everything is monitored. They are even keeping tabs on bowlers who leave the field after finishing their ten overs so that a better fielder can replace them in the crucial last over. Unfortunately, even bribery and corruption must be ruled out.

We cannot however rule out miracles. Both Saddam Hussein and Saurav Ganguly are currently praying for one.

The writer is chief editor, Asian Age, New Delhi.

The lowest of the low

THE Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks brought out the best in most Americans. But in some, it seems, the attacks brought out the inner con man.

While people across the country were donating money to charitable organizations to help victims, an unknown number were inventing family members allegedly killed in the attacks in order to cash in on the generosity of others. In the confusion of the months immediately following the attacks, when even the rough number of dead was constantly in flux, several people seem to have done rather well for themselves and reaped large sums of aid for fictitious lost loved ones. The New York Times reports that New York authorities alone have made 37 arrests.

The magnitude of some of the con jobs is startling. Namor Young is serving time for netting more than $53,000 from charities for the death of a nonexistent husband. Terry Smith faces federal charges in San Diego of duping charities into giving him $136,000 (which he gambled away) for the loss of his wife — rumours of whose death he grossly exaggerated.—The Washington Post