Entertaining, but not a turning point

IT all began with a chance encounter in the White House. At that moment in 1970, neither naval courier Bob Woodward nor senior FBI official W. Mark Felt could possibly have had any reason to suspect, or even to imagine, that both of them would play a pivotal role in cutting short the presidency of the man under whose roof, so to speak, they first ran into each other.

Woodward, then in his mid-twenties, went on to become a reporter. The considerably older Felt was promoted to the position of deputy FBI chief. The buck didn’t stop there, but his career did stall. Felt hoped to succeed his mentor, the infamous J. Edgar Hoover, as FBI supremo after the latter died in May 1972. But President Richard M. Nixon had other plans.

Hoover, who had effectively founded the Federal Bureau of Investigation, was untouchable. He reputedly kept files on every president, and would not have hesitated to use them if he deemed it necessary — in “self-defence”, of course. He particularly loathed the Kennedys and by all accounts the antipathy was mutual, but neither John nor Robert dared to mess with the FBI, because Hoover kept records of the brothers’ sexual dalliances.

Nixon and Hoover were natural ideological allies: each of them had played a leading role in the anti-communist witch-hunts of the 1950s, and they exhibited a shared contempt for pinkos, peaceniks and all other “subversives”. Hoover was also dead set against gays — an attitude that shines some light on his psychotic mindset, given that he himself was a repressed homosexual who got kicks from cross-dressing in private.

Notwithstanding their political compatibility, Nixon wanted to curtail the FBI’s independence and to put his own stamp on the organization, which wasn’t a serious possibility for as long as there was any breath left in Hoover. But once the monster died, the president moved swiftly by placing his own man at the bureau’s helm: L. Patrick Gray. It’s a different matter that the White House abandoned Gray shortly afterwards, deciding to let him “twist slowly, slowly in the wind” at his confirmation hearings on Capitol Hill.

The reason, evidently, was that Nixon’s entourage perceived Gray as insufficiently supportive of their efforts to stymie the investigation into a break-in at the Democratic party’s national campaign headquarters in Washington’s Watergate building. Fortuitously, the break-in occurred about two months after Hoover’s demise, Had the canny old bulldog still been around, chances are he would have arranged an impenetrable cover-up. And given Mark Felt’s profound esteem for Hoover, it is highly unlikely he would have chosen to divulge any secrets to a rookie Washington Post reporter. Felt was miffed not only because he had been denied a promotion he thought he deserved, but also because he resented the FBI’s progressive loss of independence — and particularly the obstacles the White House was placing in the path of the Watergate probe.

Felt and Woodward, in the meanwhile, had developed a friendship of sorts, and the FBI apparatchik wasn’t averse to occasionally offering tips to the reporter. He had once told him, for instance, about a $2500 cash bribe the vice-president, Spiro Agnew, had accepted. Woodward couldn’t do anything with the information, but later discovered that it was true.

On finding out that phone books found on some of the Watergate burglars contained the numbers of low-level officials associated with the Committee to Re-elect the President (known by the singularly appropriate acronym CREEP), it was only natural for Woodward to seek confirmation, and further information, from Felt. The latter hesitated at first, and then decided to comply.

At Felt’s instigation, the two of them evolved a bizarre series of rituals for getting in touch. If Woodward urgently needed to meet Felt, he would place a red flag stuck in a flowerpot in a certain spot on the balcony of his apartment. If Felt desired a meeting, he would draw a clock face with the designated hour on page 20 of Woodward’s subscription copy of The New York Times before it was delivered at 7am. In either case, they rendezvoused in an underground parking lot, with Woodward making his way there by cabs and on foot, in keeping with Felt’s instructions, to avoid being followed.

Felt, now 91, is evidently unable to recall by what means he kept an eye on Woodward’s balcony or how he managed to insert his hand-drawn clocks into the New York Times. At least some of the cloak-and-dagger stuff, it seems, will remain shrouded in secrecy, even though the main mystery stands solved as of last week, and that too via a confession.

Woodward and his collaborator on the Post, Carl Bernstein, had vowed not to divulge Felt’s identity for as long as he lived. Among their colleagues, they had shared the secret with only one person: the Post’s then executive editor Ben Bradlee, and even he had been told only after Nixon resigned. In his reports, Woodward had initially referred to his anonymous source as My Friend — a nomenclature that shares Mark Felt’s initials. At a colleague’s suggestion, he changed that to Deep Throat, the name borrowed from a pornographic film that was viewed as scandalous in those days.

Thus was a legend born, and over the decades thousands of column inches have been devoted to speculation over the identity of Deep Throat. The better-known suspects have included Henry Kissinger, Alexander Haig and George H.W. Bush. Felt, too, was a candidate in some eyes, not least those of the Nixon White House, but there was no conclusive proof.

Until now, Felt had always denied that he was Deep Throat, even going so far as to say that spilling the beans in this manner was a dishonourable thing to do. In recent years, however, his children cottoned on to his Watergate role and persuaded him to come clean, so that he could be acknowledged as a hero in his lifetime. They have also been reasonably candid in admitting that they hoped to profit financially from the disclosure in order to help pay family debts.

They sought Woodward’s assistance, but he was reluctant to play along, saying he couldn’t be sure whether Felt really wanted to do this or had been coerced by his offspring. All along he also made clear he wasn’t formally confirming that Felt was indeed Deep Throat.

A separate publishing deal was the family’s next option, but in the end it settled for a detailed article in the July issue of Vanity Fair. The extremely readable piece, credited to family lawyer John D. O’Connor, earned the writer about $10,000 and denied The Washington Post the scoop it believed would eventually come its way. Woodward and Bernstein grappled with their consciences for a few hours before deciding to corroborate the Vanity Fair account.

In last Thursday’s edition, the Post carried a fascinating account by Woodward — an extract, apparently, from a book he had already written and intended to publish after Felt died. Now it is being rushed into print and will reportedly go on sale next month. Meanwhile, sales of All the President’s Men, Woodward and Bernstein’s initial account of the Watergate saga, have perked up, and DVDs of the book’s Hollywoodized version — starring Robert Redford, Dustin Hoffman, Jason Robards and Hal Holbrook as, respectively, Woodward, Bernstein, Bradlee and Deep Throat — are also doing well.

In the wake of Felt’s outing, most media comments and analyses have focused on the value and morality of anonymous disclosure. Generally hailed as a hero, in some cases Felt has also been denounced as a traitor. The latter charge is rubbish: the charge of treachery should be laid at the door of those who broke the law and violated the Constitution.

At the same time, let’s not forget there is a lot more Felt could have disclosed but chose not to. He appears not have been bothered by the fact that the FBI had drifted far from its crime-fighting mandate into a political instrument, a largely unaccountable upholder of the status quo. In fact, he was very much a party to the Bureau’s ideologically motivated activities. In 1980, Felt was convicted of authorizing break-ins into private homes in a drive against militant anti-war protesters. Within months he was pardoned by President Ronald Reagan.

In the case of Watergate, he did the right thing, albeit not necessarily for particularly respectable reasons. Whistleblowers are an invaluable resource for reporters: for instance, from My Lai to Abu Ghraib, Seymour Hersh has relied to a considerable extent on sources who cannot be named.

Nixon’s downfall was a magic moment in modern American history, and Woodward and Bernstein — and, by proxy, Felt — deserve their share of the credit. It was not, however, the turning point it’s often made out to be. Watergate was not an aberration in US political culture: the unusual aspect of it was that the perpetrators were named and shamed. But, as crimes go, it was minuscule compared to, say, Vietnam.

The indignities subsequently heaped upon the US and the world in the name of democracy suggest that the appropriate lesson haven’t been learned. Else the imperial (and imperious) presidency would have made way for far greater accountability, would have been no Iran-Contragate, and there certainly would not be the sort of impunity that is so much in evidence today, channelled through Nixon-era leftovers such as Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.

Passing on the benefits

THE criteria for evaluating the merit of the Rs. 1.1 trillion 2005-06 budget are many. That is because the needs of the nation are too many, and most of them are urgent. But the means at the disposal of the finance minister are relatively small. Hence he has to do the best he can with the limited resources and spread them as tactfully as he can.

The criteria begins with whether it helps to reduce poverty in a country in which one-third of the people live below the poverty line of a dollar a day and enables the squeezed middle class breathe easily? Will it promote large scale employment, accelerate productive investment and boost the exports significantly? Can it sustain the high economic growth rate of 8.4 per cent achieved this year, though the target fixed for next year is seven per cent? And does it allocate far more to the critical social sector so that the wrongs of the past can be rectified quick?

To achieve all that, and in a significant manner, the additional tax revenue available is only Rs. 100 billion at total tax revenues of Rs. 690 billion, and total additional revenues of Rs. 52 billion. And the revenue available is small after top priority items like defence which get 15 per cent more than last year’s budget allocation at Rs. 231 billion, and the allocation of Rs. 25.5 billion for 15 per cent increase in the salary of the government employees and 10 per cent more as pensions. Larger defence allocation, which increased far more over the budgeted for the current year, to procure sophisticated defence equipment in view of the defence purchases of India.

In addition, the government has to spend Rs. 301 billion to service the external and domestic debt in spite of their overall reduction. And it is also to spend over Rs. 62 billion as subsidy to institutions like WAPDA and KESC in view of their poor management, widespread corruption and low recovery of their billing dues because of power theft and line losses.

In such a context the finance minister has spread the relief as widely as possible and in the process many of the reliefs have become too thin.

The total tax revenues have come down to nine per cent of the GDP after swinging between nine and 10 per cent for the last five years. The government wanted to raise the tax-GDP ratio eventually to 15 per cent, as urged by the World Bank and the IMF, but as the GDP went up by 8.4 per cent this year the tax-GDP ratio instead of going up with it went down to nine per cent, as stated in the Economic Survey.

That is because the federal tax contribution of the agricultural sector, which contributes to 25 per cent of the GDP, is almost nil. The ruling class, including senior officials, do not pay full taxes on their total income, says the Economic Survey.

Two sectors made large fortunes recently. But the real estate sector and those who profited by the boom in the stock exchange did not pay proportionate taxes. A move was afoot to make the real estate dealers pay income tax but that has been given up, as the federal budget shows. The move to have capital gains tax, as in other countries, has also been abandoned, although that was part of the taxation proposals.

As a result of so much money being freely afloat and on the move the rate of inflation increased to 15.3 per cent instead of decreasing as the government had projected. The spending of illegal incomes aggravated the inflation further. As a result the rate of inflation projected next year is eight per cent. And it is only in 2006-2007 that an inflation rate of five per cent is envisaged.

The State Bank of Pakistan is, meanwhile, making bank credit more costly by raising the interest rates. But when there is so much money afloat in the open market the prices tend to go up rather than come down. No wonder in such an informal market with money flowing in from abroad as well, the rate of growth of the banks was 22.5 per cent, and the reduction in taxes on banks should enable them make larger profits and thrive.

Most of the steps announced by the finance minister should help reduce prices and under-cut the inflation, particularly after the abolition of duties from 319 edible items. What the government earned from such items when imported was small, but importers profited a great deal as the recent imports of onion and other vegetables from India demonstrated.

The finance minister said the measures proposed by the government would provide employment to 1.3 million people. This is a large number, though it falls far short of the total number of persons unemployed. Unfortunately, too many of them are unskilled, while the industries and the country need skilled persons for local employment as well as export.

Who monitors how many of them are employed each month? We don’t have an equivalent to the American system. The government has to create a mechanism to register all the employed and the unemployed. If the government does not, it will not pretend that unemployment in Pakistan is six or eight per cent, far below the European figures.

The industrialists have been helped through cheaper raw materials with zero-rate or lower import duties on machinery and raw materials and lower taxes. Agriculture is to be helped with larger bank credit upto Rs. 100 billion or more, through 10,000 tractors imported duty free, a partly free and cheaper imported fertilisers. All that should result in higher production, agricultural as well as industrial, and help bring down the prices.

The small and medium enterprises, which have been lagging far behind for so long, are to be assisted with a variety of incentives. Hardly any benefit has been directly provided to the masses by the budget. These are to come to them through the industrialists or traders who handle related items. And appeals to them to be fair to the consumers have been of little effect so far. What special measures does the government intend to take to pass on the relief to the consumers and bring down the rate of inflation? It is time a mechanism that enabled the consumers to be the ultimate gainers is set up and sustained. Otherwise, the measures announced will merely enrich the rich, while the poor grovel in abject misery.

The main vehicles for providing employment to 1.3 million workers is the Public Sector Development Programme which will cost Rs. 272 billion, including a foreign exchanged component of Rs. 65 billions. The federal share of the programme is Rs. 204 billion, while Rs. 68 billion will be spent by the provinces.

It is here that the problems of the provinces would begin. The provincial programmes could be far larger if the sixth National Finance Commission had given its award, but it has not. Instead they have now to enhance the salaries of employees and pensions of the retired and incur additional expenditure for which too, they re seeking federal assistance.

The programme, indeed, is very large and is to be financed largely through borrowing, including external borrowing. Hence the projects must be well conceived, completed in time without the usual corruption and waste of funds. And contractors not completing the projects in time should be changed as prime minister Shaukat Aziz urges.

The industrialists, agriculturists and exporters are the prime beneficiaries of the budget. The salaried class too gain by the reduced taxes. But the real challenge to the government is how to reduce the inflation rate of 11.3 per cent? Critics of the government and the budget are focussing on this issue, which is a major challenge to it.

If the inflation rate does not come down soon the development projects would cost far more and the rupee will become weak against the dollar. Already the government has prepared the budget on the basis of Rs. 61 for a dollar instead of Rs. 60 as it is now. The government cannot afford to let the rupee become weaker against the weak dollar, but if inflation is not checked the rupee will go down. As the State Bank of Pakistan has urged, it is imperative for the government to take adequate administrative measures to bring into the open market the hoarded goods like sugar or wheat to bring down prices. And if high prices are the result of cartels at work such ganging up should be broken up and the goods made to flow freely. Merely letting economic forces to prevail through competition will not produce the results the country needs.

The government can increase the supply of goods by permitting imports and removing blockages of hoarded goods. But making the goods available to the consumers is the task of the traders.

When food inflation goes up, and that has gone above 13 per cent, other prices move up easily. The government must win the battle against the hoarders and price manipulators. When abundant supplies are available in the country it is sheer waste to import more of them, although the government is tempted to import more and put the hoarders out of trade.

The government at the moment is assisting and encouraging the productive forces, beginning with the farmers. The exporters and the industrialists follow them. Their enhanced output should not be held to ransom by the hoarders and cartel operators.

Over the years the finance ministers have reduced taxes in the hope that it will pass on the benefit to the consumers or at least they will share the benefits.

Instead, traders and stockists have profited from them. Next year, it will be the same. This cycle has to be broken and the consumer be made the ultimate gainer, as the government, too, wants.

Don’t travel zone

THE country is outsourcing everything these days. By sending work abroad, America saves billions of dollars.

It is in this spirit that Tommy Cook, a travel agent, came up with a plan.

“Why not outsource vacations?”

“How?” I asked.

“Instead of your going on a trip, we have someone take it for you.”

“Please give me an example.”

“Let us say you planned on going to India. We would hire an Indian to take the trip for you while you stayed at home. What do you want see in India?”

I replied, “The Taj Mahal for certain, Jaipur, Bombay and Hindustan.”

“It could be arranged. Do you want to stay at the New Delhi Hilton or the Four Seasons?”

“What is the difference?”

“The Hilton’s rooms are much cheaper.”

“Let me get this straight. I book a trip, but an Indian takes it for me. He goes to all the places I would have wanted to go, but at one-fifth the cost.”

“That is correct and, you pay either in dollars or by credit card. Now this is the “Great Wall of China Trip.” A Chinese guide in Beijing will visit the Great Wall and send you pictures of it. He will also go to Shanghai and Hong Kong. If you took this trip, it would cost $3,000. My man would do it for $130.”

“Fantastic. How can you do it so cheap?”

“You get a group rate, which means the guide will take 12 more couples who also want to go but don’t have the money.”

“I don’t suppose you have any trips to the Middle East?”

“Of course we do. A Sunni or a Shia will take your trip to Baghdad for you, which includes a rental car to drive from the airport to town — the most dangerous stretch of highway in the world.”

“Does your outsource travel agency take people to Bangladesh?”

“We have a summer special. You can dream of going to Nepal, Sri Lanka and Mount Everest in the same package. Since my people will fly on Kung Fu Airlines, you can save $900, but the airline carries no meals or insurance.”

I told Tommy, “I must admit it is a new way of travelling.”

“It is cheap and safe and keeps our dollars at home,” he said. “By outsourcing our trips we are saving millions of dollars on our balance of payments, and also giving employment to needy people in poorer countries all over the world.”

He continued, “My agency also has a video library with films of all the places you would sign up to see without leaving your living room.”

I said, “A great deal of outsourcing goes to Mexico.”

“It is one of the most popular destinations. We will provide a legal Mexican citizen to drive around the Aztec ruins for you.”

I said, “A lot of my friends go to Mexico to buy drugs that are too expensive in the US.”

Tommy said, “Our representative will purchase the drugs and FedEx them to you across the Rio Grande.”

“What about big game hunting in Tanzania?”

“We will provide a white hunter and he will e-mail you a photo of a lion he shoots.”

“I have always wanted to go to the rainforests in the Amazon, but I am afraid of snakes.”

Tommy said, “Aren’t we all?” —Dawn/Tribune Media Services

Europe’s giant mess By Eric Margolis

AS German panzer divisions were approaching Paris in mid-May, 1940, France’s high command ordered Paris’s military governor to send the city’s garrison troops to lock the enemy advance. Amazingly, France’s government ordered him to keep troops in Paris, fearing Marxist mobs would seize the capital and proclaim a communist republic — as happened in 1871 at the end of the Franco-Prussian war. France’s leftists frightened the government as much as the invading Germans.

Rejection of the EU’s proposed constitution last week by 55 per cent of French voters reminds us the nation that made the “mother of all revolutions” in 1789 remains politically combustible and still deeply divided by a century and a half struggle between the forces of right and left.

Recently, we witnessed a return to the barricades by France’s massed left: civil servants, teachers, industrial workers and pensioners fearful their gravy train would be derailed by desperately-need labour and welfare reforms. Ironically, the left adopted the anti-immigrant, anti-EU, protectionist agenda of Jean-Marie Le Pen’s far right National Front.

President Jacques Chirac committed a dreadful blunder by holding a referendum instead of simply having parliament ratify the constitution, as Germany and Italy did. Had they held a referendum, angry Germans and Italians would probably have voted no.

In spite of the Soviet Union’s demise, the hard left remain strong in the EU. But it lacks charismatic leadership and a cause. The ill-fated EU vote provided a welcome if temporary rallying point.

The Dutch also voted down the constitution but for different reasons. Half of Holland’s population is now foreign, mostly North African labour does the hard, nasty jobs Dutch refused. Many of these emigrants were tribals from the wild Riff mountains.

After the murder of a minor Dutch film maker seeking notoriety by making a slanderous, film about Islam, the normally civilized anti-Muslim racism erupted in the Netherlands. That, and Holland’s bad economic deal in the EU, led to the crushing no vote.

What a fiasco. What a giant mess. Almost every EU politician has been badly damaged. Chirac and Germany’s Schroeder have suffered grave political injury. Italy’s Berlusconi is barely hanging on.

Allowing the EU to grow to 25 nations was a serious mistake. The over-expanded union left many western Europeans feeling lost and diminished in a sea of needy East European newcomers. Applications for EU admission from Romania, Bulgaria, Serbia, Albania and, most important, Turkey, are likely to be shelved.

But this is not the end of the EU. Integration will continue, albeit at a slower, halting pace. In the end, the political and economic logic of a united Europe will overcome outdated nationalism and leftwing obstruction. But this will take far longer than expected.

The Bush administration and its far right supporters are crowing over the ‘no’ votes and mocking France. They are wrong to do so. A politically wounded Europe is bad for everyone. A strong, united Europe would be a badly needed ally for faltering America and a pillar of international stability and prosperity. Anti-French American elements have no reason to gloat.

The US now imports $700 billion annually more than it exports, financing this deficit by pyramid scheme loans from China and Japan.

Europe’s welfare state finances have caused stagnation, but at least the EU is not hocked to its ears to nations that hold no love for the West. And Europe is not stuck in two no-win colonial wars that have so far cost America $300 billion with no end in sight.

The summer vacations should calm passions and give Europeans time to reflect on how to repair the huge train wreck they have just experienced. —Copyright Eric S. Margolis 2005

OIC: challenges and response

UNITY and solidarity among the Muslims has been the perennial wish of the Ummah. For centuries it has inspired the Muslims across the globe to attain this utopian goal. During the last century the concept of Islamic unity motivated a number of Islamic scholars and strategists to offer models and schemes under the rubric of pan-Islamism.

Visionaries like Iqbal and Jamaludin Afghani and religious scholars like Syed Qutub and Hasan Al-Banna fired the Muslim imagination with precepts and schemes supported by Quranic injunctions as a panacea to the problems afflicting the Ummah. However ethnic differences, historical experiences, political polarization and, above all, idealism rendered them mere pious wishes.

Historically speaking, the OIC is the first tangible evidence and symbol of this desire. It came into existence as a reaction to the criminal arson by Zionists in August 1969 of the Al-Aqsa Mosque in occupied Jerusalem — the first Qibla and the third holiest Muslim shrine.

The basic mandate of the OIC was to liberate Jerusalem and Al-Aqsa from Zionist occupation. Its charter adopted in February 27, 1970, provided for Islamic solidarity among member states, strengthening of cooperation in the political, economic, social, cultural and scientific fields and support for all Muslim people to safeguard their dignity, independence and national rights.

To achieve these objectives and coordinate its actions, a secretariat was set up in Jeddah and a number of committees were established to promote and accelerate cooperation in various fields — political, economic, social and scientific. It was further decided that head of states/governments shall meet every three years at a summit to consider plans and proposals for strengthening solidarity among the member states to adjust to the contemporary developments, while preserving the political and cultural characteristics of the OIC member states.

During the last 37 years of its existence, however the OIC has failed to fulfil the aspirations of the Islamic Ummah in any tangible form. It has remained content with lofty declarations at the end of each summit stating that “any threat to security of any member state is a threat to world peace and security and requires action within the framework of the OIC”. It adopted the issues of Kashmir, Palestine and Afghanistan, but has failed to play any significant role in their resolution. The gathering of the potentates at the OIC summits and their clarion calls for unity of action initially stirred the Muslim hearts, but it soon became obvious that these speeches were no antidote to the challenges being faced by the Muslim countries.

Since the establishment of the OIC, the Islamic world has suffered five major catastrophes, which have reduced them to almost a non-factor in international politics. The break-up of Pakistan through armed intervention by India in 1971, the invasion of Lebanon by Israel in 1982 that led to yet another Palestinian diaspora, the Iran-Iraq war and the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan and the US occupation of Iraq — all have dealt a mortal blow to the unity, dignity and image of the Muslim world.

Regrettably, the OIC failed to respond meaningfully to any of these crises or demonstrate any unity of thought and action except issuing high-sounding resolutions at the end of each summit. Nothing was done to contain the crisis at hand or avert one. In some cases it even remained a silent spectator. This attitude not only disappointed the Muslims, but also encouraged their adversaries to pursue their hostile designs against Muslim countries with impunity.

The history of the Palestine issue is a living testimony to this impotence and paralysis of the organization. The Palestine problem is no longer one of the vacation of the occupied territories by Israel and restoring the inalienable rights of the Palestinians but of an armed struggle between Hamas (Palestinians) and Israeli state terrorism. The creeping annexation has eroded all possibilities of any settlement as the Israeli policies have totally marginalized the Palestinians.

Similarly, on Kashmir the OIC has failed to muster the courage to challenge India its policies of repression and widespread violation of human rights in Indian held Kashmir. The inaction and indifference on Israeli massacres in Sabra and Shattila (Beirut 1982), in Bosnia and Herzegovina (1992) and the recent US military intervention and brutalities in Iraq and Afghanistan have rendered the OIC totally irrelevant to the needs and requirements of the Muslim world.

At the last summit held in the capital of Malaysia there was an agonizing appraisal of the OIC and it was decided that instead of condemning the OIC to the dustbin of history, it should be re-invigorated and made an effective instrument on shaping the destiny of the Muslims. A commission was set up to look into the malaise and suggest measures to revive the OIC. Recently the commission met in Islamabad and finalized its recommendations.

It was agreed that there was a deep and widespread discontent among the Muslims over the bloods had and massacres in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine, stressing that unless an effective strategy and practical measures were adopted to face the challenges, both ideological and physical, we will witness more violence and terror. These primarily stem from the humiliation and insults to which Muslims are subjected to on daily basis. They have been denied even the basic rights as human beings and their religion is being demonized and insulted in a most vicious manner.

The stories of the brutal treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib in Iraqi have hurt the Muslim youth and unless there is a collective and meaningful response to these indignities, the Muslim world may witness an upheaval on a scale not seen before.

Few can dispute President Musharraf’s assessment that “we are at a defining moment in history. We can either seize the moment and define history, or let the moment define our destiny. The Ummah is in a state of siege, gripped by ignorance, apathy, disarray and discord. The economic underdevelopment has consigned Muslims to the margins of international power structure. The shortage of scientific skill and the disconnect between promised, potential and reality has further exacerbated the feelings of frustration and alienation.”

The tragedy becomes even more pronounced when seen in the context of the enormous resources, bestowed on most Muslim countries. It is painful that despite the fact that Muslims represent 1/5 of the world’s population, possess 70 per cent of the world’s energy resources and 40 per cent of the available raw material, the total GDP is only five per cent of the world GDP.

The entire GDP of the OIC states is a mere 1,200 billion dollars as against Japan’s 5,500 billion dollars. The failure of the Muslim world to adopt modern technology and spread education is obvious with only 500 PhDs, as compared to 3,000 in India and 5,000 in the UK. The OIC’s political marginalization has thus been further compounded by economic backwardness.

The recommendations adopted at the Islamabad meeting reflect the changed global realities and the need to bring the OIC charter, its structure and working in line with the contemporary environment. The follow-up of the decisions of the summit has been given top priority, and the need for a unified position on issues and work towards a collective response has been given due emphasis. Along with these recommendations, the proposal made by Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz to establish a “credible international think tank to highlight the Islamic values of a moderate as well as a compassionate society” should go a long way in awakening the OIC from its slumber.

The OIC bears a heavy responsibility in this regard. Its top priority should be for economic emancipation of the member states and projection of true Islamic values and teachings. The 9/11 episode has created a negative image of Islam which needs to be corrected. Muslims are seen as potential terrorists and their religion blamed for violence, intolerance and terrorism.

The OIC should adopt a strategy to correct such impressions as well as the distorted vision of Islam. An honest effort at shifting the focus from geo-strategic to geo-economic perspective and developing a critical mass of human resource capacity would alone salvage the Islamic world and help it regain its rightful place in the emerging global order.

The writer is a former ambassador.