|
| March 03, 2007 | Saturday | Safar 13, 1428 |
Taliban leader’s arrest
The selection fiasco
View from Duba: Why Muslims love and hate the US
Saving the system
A QUESTION in response to a question can often be the answer. This is what one realised when Major-General William B Caldwell, the deputy chief of staff for strategic effects and spokesman for the US-led coalition in Iraq, visited the Khaleej Times earlier this week with a team of high-ranking US officials.
AS anticipated for some time, stock markets across the United States and China tumbled on Tuesday with a worldwide impact, apparently on fears that the US and Chinese economies may be running out of steam and that shares are overvalued. Just before the close of the year 2006, the world stock market indices and profits touched an all-time high. Investors overlooked high oil prices, geopolitical uncertainty and international economic imbalances, and the Dow Jones Index reached a record level of 12,500 points. Now the inevitable has happened. On Tuesday, the Chinese Shanghai Composite Index plunged 8.8 per cent — the biggest drop in a decade — sparking a global sell-off. On the same day, the Dow Jones Index dropped by 412 points. Wall Street suffered its worst day since the September 11 terrorist attack. The American and the Chinese governments acted swiftly to calm investors’ nerves, with the White House reiterating that the “fundamentals” of the US economy were “very strong”. The Chinese prime minister assured the market that he would ensure financial stability. He also denied rumours that his government would levy a 20 per cent capital gains tax on stock investments, which is what triggered the plunge. While markets worldwide regained some ground on Wednesday, the European markets were lower while sell-off was more pronounced in Asia.
Some analysts view the slump as a simple case of market correction (price adjustment of overvalued shares) but concede that this trend may linger on for a few months. There is some sort of consensus among analysts that the bourses will remain volatile for a while. Others, however, view this development as an outcome of a slowing down of the US economy and the onset of a possible recession. The demand for durable goods in the US market fell by eight per cent last month. In the past two months, the manufacturing sector shrank, which is attributable to a housing slump and falling demand for construction material produced by allied industries. The United States is still the biggest market for exports from developing countries, including China which has virtually turned into a global factory and is itself a huge market for many emerging economies. But many experts believe that the emerging US slowdown will cast a shadow over the global economy, making financial markets more volatile this year, while Asia may get away with a “slightly rougher environment”. In recent years, much of the economic growth in developing economies has been driven by domestic demand and not so much by exports. Also, Asia is emerging as an engine of global economic growth. Some Asian bourses, including those in Pakistan, are still attractive for foreign investors, as the increasing portfolio investment indicates. The Karachi Stock Exchange may get a few million dollars of investment if fund managers diversify their risks away from the overvalued US and Chinese markets.
Tuesday’s market slump is a reminder that the world, especially the industrialised countries, have to focus on volatility in the financial markets which have been facing one crisis after another since the 1970s. Without international financial stability, the worst hit are often the developing countries. In the absence of more productive channels, huge amounts of footloose global capital finds outlets in speculative activity in stock markets and damages economies even with strong fundamentals. A recent example is the 1997 East Asian crisis.
THE arrest of Mullah Obaidullah Akhund, one of Mullah Omar’s deputies, is both a success and an indication of the gravity of the problem. The arrest shows that the security agencies are not sitting idle, and that terrorists and the brains behind them are still operating in the country. Among the top Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders arrested by Pakistan are Abu Faraj al-Libbi, Abu Zubaidah, Ramzi Bin al-Sibh, Ahmad Khalfan Ghaliani, Khalid Sheikh Mohammad and many others. In sharp contrast, the Afghan government has nothing to show by way of the arrest of top Taliban leaders. The emphasis on the other side has mostly been on fighting the insurgents and killing as many as possible without actually pacifying a given area. Pakistan’s task is far more complex. It has to fight terrorism not because the world expects it to ‘do more’ but because it is in Pakistan’s own peace and security interests. Since 9/11, Pakistan has suffered more at the hands of terrorists, foreign and Pakistani, than any other country. Among the major acts of terrorism that come to mind immediately are the attack on the US consulate building and the murder of 11 French engineers, both in Karachi in 2002; last year’s carnage at Nishtar Park that left 57 dead; the assassination attempts on President Musharraf and Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz; the suicide bombing at Dargai that killed 42 soldiers last November; the recent spate of suicide bombings; the murder of Punjab Social Welfare Minister Zille Huma; and the ‘cycle blast’ in Multan on Friday.
Mullah Akhund’s is a good catch, but that should not lull the security agencies into complacency. The arrest was made in Quetta, where a suicide bomb attack last month in a civil court killed the judge and 14 others. The issue gets mixed up with violence, the legitimate political rights of the Baloch people and the need for a correct approach that should include both the stamping out of militants and having a political dialogue with parties genuinely interested in redressing the Baloch people’s economic and political grievances. Mullah Akhund’s arrest deserves to be welcomed, but his presence in Quetta only shows how much more remains to be done.
IT was bound to happen and it did. True to form, the Pakistan Cricket Board has succeeded in making a difficult situation even more baffling and conjuring up last-minute controversies that should have been put to rest months ago. By omitting Shoaib Akhtar and Mohammad Asif from the World Cup squad on ‘fitness’ grounds, the PCB has yet again made Pakistan the laughing stock of the cricketing world. On Tuesday, captain Inzamamul Haq had informed the press that Shoaib’s and Asif’s injuries were “not serious” and that they were fit to play in the World Cup. Two days later they were dropped from the team, on the grounds that the new-ball pair “may take weeks and even months to recover”, according to PCB chief Nasim Ashraf. The chief selector had a different tale to tell. Shoaib and Asif did not make the squad, Wasim Bari said, on the recommendation of the captain who felt that even if they were fit for the time being, the fast bowlers may not be able to withstand the rigours of a gruelling tournament. In case people started believing everything they heard, team spokesman P.J. Mir insisted that “their withdrawal had nothing to do with doping.”
None of this makes any sense and is difficult to swallow. If the last-minute decision had “nothing to do with doping”, why doesn’t the PCB conduct tests on Shoaib and Asif right now and clear the air? If they were only suffering from niggling injuries — or indeed if they were fit, as Inzamam claimed earlier in the week — why did Shoaib and Asif need to rush to England for ‘treatment’? Could it be that they sought private doping tests abroad, or was it the ICC’s target-testing threat that sealed their fate? Contrary to what the team spokesman would like the public to believe, this chapter is anything but closed.
The US officials were ostensibly on a mission to win “hearts and minds” in the Middle East and the Muslim world by reaching out to the media and telling their side of the story. When asked what the US proposed to do to reach out to the alienated Arab and Muslim world, Major-General Caldwell in turn asked as to what one thought the US should do to win over the Muslims.
One mumbled something to the effect that the US should bridge the gulf by initiating a genuinely free and frank dialogue with the Islamic world addressing each other’s concerns. Caldwell agreed, pointing out that his very inability to answer the question underscored the seriousness of the problem.
A great deal has been said and written about the yawning gulf that exists between the West, especially the US, and the Muslim world. It’s hardly a secret that while the ruling classes in the Muslim world revel in their proximity to the US, the same cannot be said of the majority of ordinary people. In fact, of late the commotion in the street over America’s far from popular policies in the Middle East has grown alarmingly. Yet our American friends appear genuinely surprised every time there is a pointed expression of anger against US policies and actions. They ask themselves: “Why do they hate us?”
Is it that hard to figure out why the world’s 1.8 billion Arabs and Muslim have some serious issues with the reigning superpower that has invaded and occupied at least two Muslim countries and could be planning to attack a third one? It’s not only America’s unquestioning support of Israel and the letter’s persecution of Palestinians that agitates the Muslim world. The superpower's historical political and economic exploitation of the Middle East and its attempts to redraw the map of the region after the Second World War have been at the heart of this alienation.
A recent survey by the University of Maryland and Zogby International found that 78 per cent of Arabs have an unfavourable view of the US. At least 72 per cent of them see the US as the biggest “state threat”. Another poll in 40 Muslim countries by Gallup’s Centre for Muslim Studies reveals that 52 per cent of Iranians have an unfavourable view of the “Big Satan”. That’s hardly a surprise, given the US-Iran conflict. But this antipathy towards Uncle Sam is significantly lower than that recorded in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Jordan — all three close US allies. Two-thirds of Jordanians and Pakistanis and a staggering 79 per cent of Saudis have a negative view of their so-called friend and ally.
But remember, this disillusionment with the Americans is not limited to the Muslim world. Anti-Americanism as a movement in Europe and around the world has survived the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War.
By contrast, way back in 1993, a State Department study found that a whopping 83 per cent of the British had a favourable opinion of their cousins across the Atlantic. This support has drastically dwindled in recent times. Most Britons, polled by Pew Global Attitudes Project, today see the US presence in the Middle East and its “war on terror” as a bigger threat to world peace than Iran or North Korea.
It should be a real source of concern to the Americans that this view is widely shared by respondents in France, Spain, Russia, India, China and throughout the Middle East. Clearly, what unites the world today is hatred of America the almighty. Should these findings really come as a surprise to the Americans? Remarkably, few of them seem to realise that it is the callous policies — especially, foreign policy — of their successive governments that make them the world's most despised nation.
Conversely, according to the same Gallup poll cited earlier, most Arabs and Muslims also admire America for many of its positive qualities and features. For example, an overwhelming majority of Muslims admires American technology, its democracy and political freedom, among many other things. According to the poll, all Muslims want is “more respect” from America. Clearly, it is a complex, love-hate relationship.
From one’s own personal experience as a Muslim who grew up admiring all things American, it is not hard to understand how fellow believers the world over feel about America. For many adolescent Pakistanis introduction to America begins with westerns and thrillers by lovable writers such as Oliver Strange and James Hadley Chase, who rubbed shoulders with the best in Urdu classics in one’s father’s library. This adolescent affair with America can develop into a heady passion when one goes to university.
It was, for instance, my fawning fascination for Amriika — as we call it back home — that made me choose American literature as an elective subject in MA English. I never regretted that decision — to be in the enriching company of Frost, Whitman, Hemingway and many others. Over the years, this bond with America has only strengthened with my philistine fondness for Hollywood and exposure to US democracy and civil liberties icons.
Like fellow Muslims everywhere, I still love and admire America and all that it stands for and represents — or once did. I admire its democratic values, its love of liberty and personal freedom and respect for the rule of law and human rights — notwithstanding Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay.
But what really makes the American way of life so attractive to us Muslims — from the edge of Africa to the end of Asia — is its celebration of honesty, fair play and hard work. If you are confident, hard working and enterprising, the American dream can embrace you as its own. Which is why the rags-to-riches stories are so common in the New World. And this is why it remains the favourite destination of dream chasers everywhere.
From actor-governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to Sabeer Bhatia of Hotmail, in our own lifetime there have been numerous examples of immigrants scaling dizzying heights to become a part of the great American dream. It’s this side of America that conquers hearts and minds everywhere — in the Muslim world and elsewhere.
Indeed, there is a great deal that Muslims have in common with America. We share a faith in God, justice, honesty, freedom and humanity. It is such a shame, then, that such a huge gulf between the US and the Muslims and between the West and Islam should exist.
How do we bridge this divide? The only way to end the rift is by trying to understand what has caused this in the first place. If the Americans — the US establishment, to be more precise — are indeed keen to bridge the divide preventing a clash of civilisations, they must start by showing some respect to Arabs and Muslims. It’s only when you respect the other side that you pay attention to their point of view.
Bush is wrong to claim that Muslims hate America and the West because we abhor their “way of life”. We do not hate America or its way of life. It’s one’s life after all and one has the right to live it the way one wants. As the Quran puts it, “To you be your way, to me mine.” Trouble starts only when you try to force your way upon others.Ordinary Muslims find it hard to accept that a nation inspired by the ideals of freedom, democracy, dignity and justice should unconditionally support a state like Israel which is rooted in injustice, oppression and tyranny. This gulf between the US and Muslims is not impossible to bridge, if the US establishment makes a sincere effort to understand what really concerns and agitates Muslims.
Our American friends, including well-meaning individuals like Major-General Caldwell, can rest assured that it’s not that difficult to figure out what makes Muslims unhappy with America. Identify and eliminate those causes and Muslims and America can emerge on the same side.
The writer is a journalist based in Dubai
Email:aijazsyed@khaleejtimes.com
THANKS to an innovative request from Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, the Federal Election Commission voted to try to salvage the endangered public financing system for presidential elections. Now it is up to presidential candidates who claim to support that system to put real commitment behind their rhetoric.
The FEC ruled that candidates can raise general election money now but change their minds down the road, return the private money and accept public financing instead. Candidates who are sincere supporters of public financing ought to be willing to pledge to stay within the system if they win their party's nomination and the other side's nominee promises to do the same.
So far, the indications are favourable. “If Senator Obama is the nominee, he will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election,” spokesman Bill Burton said after the FEC action. He was matched by the campaign of Senator John McCain. “Should John McCain win the Republican nomination, we will agree to accept public financing in the general election, if the Democratic nominee agrees to do the same,” said campaign manager Terry Nelson.
The 2008 campaign had been shaping up to be the first in which both parts of the post-Watergate presidential financing system collapsed. By the 2004 race, the cost of campaigning and the capacity for fund-raising had so outstripped spending restrictions for the primary campaign that none of the serious contenders agreed to accept matching funds in exchange for limiting his spending. This time around it looked as if the system of full financing for the general election would be obsolete as well.
But the FEC’s approval of Mr Obama’s request would allow candidates to agree to call off the general election money race provided that other candidates follow the example of Mr Obama and Mr McCain.
Candidates who believe in public financing need to do more than consider Mr Obama’s challenge. They should just say yes and help save the system.
— The Washington Post