Washington Post discussion
The Current Discussion: Are Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Obama on a collision course over Iran and the Palestinian problem? What would be the consequences of a breach between the United States and Israel?
One of the assurances that Israel has always had is the unwavering support of Washington, both when Israel is harmed and when it acts to harm others in response to its own perception of threat. President Obama, it would seem, is taking a slight detour from this established principle of U.S. foreign policy; keeping Israel as the cornerstone of U.S. policy in the Middle East, but effectively seeking a dialogue with Iran and at the same time wanting to push both Israel and the Palestinians to work out peace. While on the face of it there is nothing new in this approach, look at it in the rhetorical context of how past American administrations have handled Middle East policy. President Obama's approach is more open-minded and more interesting. His call to lead the world through example and deeds rather than simply by bullying has resonated well with many countries.
The Israeli position, as much as it professes the need for peace, takes as a starting point that peace must meet Israeli demands, which of course include the immediate cessation of all nuclear activity by Iran and a dismemberment of Hamas in Palestine. Yes, Iran must stop any activity related to the procurement of nuclear weapons and open itself up for international monitoring. But by the same logic Israel, too, must come clean on its own nuclear weapons, which it does possess, and to come to an agreement with the IAEA on how it intends to dismantle its own nuclear arsenal. If the logic is that it needs them for its defense, then clearly other countries, be they Iran or Mongolia, can make the same argument. As for Hamas, we often forget that it was elected into power. While it does resort to violence, which it too must renounce, the fact remains that its political future must be decided by the ballot box and not by pressure from abroad.
President Obama will face the wrath of many of the hawks in the U.S. State Department on his foreign policy initiatives as he tempers threats with dialogue in the Middle East. While it may not win him friends on the right of the political spectrum, it will certainly bring back fairness to the attempt for peace on the region. The chief complaint for the past three or more decades has been that the U.S. government has never really been balanced and fair in its handling of the Arab world, especially when it came to the issue of Israel. I am not suggesting that President Obama will or should abandon Israel, though the sad truth is that when he does ask for moderation in U.S. support and seek fairness and dialogue, many will assume that Israel has been abandoned.
Israel's preferred solution for Iran would be to first bomb their suspected nuclear sites, as they did with Iraq in 1981. But the world is different place than it was then. It is also well known that after Pakistan acquired nuclear weapons capabilities, Israel drew up a contingency plan to use Sri Lankan airbases for which they had operational rights, to see if they could disable Pakistan's nuclear capability. The fact that all this never happened does not mean that Israel was never planning such moves. It highlights the underlying mindset of how Tel Aviv would wish to resolve things in the Middle East. Obama has a sincerity of purpose and a resolve for showing the way without force which his predecessor grossly lacked.
While people might assume a U.S.-Israel falling out with the new Obama policy, that's highly unlikely. Strains will appear, but a complete breakdown will not happen. It would be helpful if Israelis also understood that the constraints of world policy are complex. While peace in the Middle East is of paramount importance, there is a need to consider a strategic peace effort which is good for all, not just for a few. The consequences of these changes in U.S. policy will at worst mean a sulking Israeli Prime Minister and at best a realization that the road to peace in the Middle East does not only lead through Tel Aviv. If anything, it goes through all the capitals of the Middle East.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Monday, April 27, 2009
The Talibanization of Pakistan
When the Swat deal was done by Mr. Zardari and his rather ill informed government, I had written that this form of appeasement does not mean that the Taliban have been stopped, it only implies that they have discovered the formula of continued expansion. Thus their recent entry into Bunner district, a few rocket throws from Islamabad, comes as no surprise; indeed friends tell me more black and green turbaned youth are visible in Lahore then every before. Its almost like a Fifth column infiltrating society and given their religious accent know that opposition to them will be minimal and when needed the Taliban form of law 'Nizam-e-Addal' (System of Justice) will be meted out.
I recently saw a wonderful movie, Khuda Kay Liye (For the Sake of God) which portrays exactly the challenge we now see in Pakistan. While US statements that they would not wish to see Pakistan be held hostage by the Taliban are all fine and sweet rhetoric, the truth is that as the majority of Pakistani's do not want the Taliban in their own midst, it is they who must speak out. The People Party of Zardari and the Muslim League of Nawaz Sharif have never had an agenda of support for the Taliban and they combined hold the maximum public vote. It is therefore logical to assume, rightly, that it is these two political parties who have to speak out against what the Taliban is doing.
Well where is the solution then?
First with the Taliban spreading to Bunner, the Pakistan government should tell them the Swat deal is off, and it should establish its own effective rule over the Swat valley, and then if America really wants to help, a major program be started to rebuild roads and hospitals and schools (yes the Taliban destroyed 160 of them) which will create jobs and let people see that their future is in prosperity and not in black turbans and rocket propelled launchers. It is the lack of economic opportunities that has driven people to the hard liners who have stepped into a vacuum of ineffective government and in the process created a promise that the Taliban can guarantee security for the people better than the government.
Secondly, if the US really wants to help they must understand that missiles fired in Pakistan cannot help the eradication of the Taliban. If nothing else in the shrapnel and the dead bodies, mostly of innocent civilians, lies the very proof that the Taliban carry from village to village telling people that the 'Infidel Americans' and their 'Stooges in Islamabad' are their enemies. The hunt of foreign fighters and the issues now within Pakistan of a Pakistani Taliban are entirely different and while may be connected through some moral umbilical chord, are really a distinctly different set of circumstances. The Al Qadea want to get even with the US, the Pakistan Taliban want to take over Pakistani society through what I call 'social subversion'. While their aims may eventually be the same the battle grounds are distinctly different.
Finally, I do feel that the Pakistani ISI needs a complete overhaul, better still it needs to be disbanded and a new structure be created that is truly nationalist as opposed to religiously motivated. The damage that General Zia has done to the Pakistan Army remain deep and he must still be beaming his toothy smile that almost 15 years on and he still has his pet organization pulling the invisible strings of government.
For those who will claim that the issue of Pakistan is about Islam miss the point. Islam is not a religion about violence or coercion and its tolerance through the ages is well documented. The Taliban have no credence to claim any sanction under the name of Islam, because simply put what they advocate is not Islam, but some hybrid creed developed in the caves and villages of Afghanistan by a half blind mad man, Mullah Omar, whose understand of Islam could be put on a postage stamp and still leave room to spare.
This is indeed time for everyone in Pakistan to speak out against the tyranny of the Taliban and if we could have a million man march to restore the judges why cannot we have a 10 million man march in Pakistan to denounce the Taliban. Let them hear this message that their creed cannot be in a country which was founded on modern principles of Islam.
I recently saw a wonderful movie, Khuda Kay Liye (For the Sake of God) which portrays exactly the challenge we now see in Pakistan. While US statements that they would not wish to see Pakistan be held hostage by the Taliban are all fine and sweet rhetoric, the truth is that as the majority of Pakistani's do not want the Taliban in their own midst, it is they who must speak out. The People Party of Zardari and the Muslim League of Nawaz Sharif have never had an agenda of support for the Taliban and they combined hold the maximum public vote. It is therefore logical to assume, rightly, that it is these two political parties who have to speak out against what the Taliban is doing.
Well where is the solution then?
First with the Taliban spreading to Bunner, the Pakistan government should tell them the Swat deal is off, and it should establish its own effective rule over the Swat valley, and then if America really wants to help, a major program be started to rebuild roads and hospitals and schools (yes the Taliban destroyed 160 of them) which will create jobs and let people see that their future is in prosperity and not in black turbans and rocket propelled launchers. It is the lack of economic opportunities that has driven people to the hard liners who have stepped into a vacuum of ineffective government and in the process created a promise that the Taliban can guarantee security for the people better than the government.
Secondly, if the US really wants to help they must understand that missiles fired in Pakistan cannot help the eradication of the Taliban. If nothing else in the shrapnel and the dead bodies, mostly of innocent civilians, lies the very proof that the Taliban carry from village to village telling people that the 'Infidel Americans' and their 'Stooges in Islamabad' are their enemies. The hunt of foreign fighters and the issues now within Pakistan of a Pakistani Taliban are entirely different and while may be connected through some moral umbilical chord, are really a distinctly different set of circumstances. The Al Qadea want to get even with the US, the Pakistan Taliban want to take over Pakistani society through what I call 'social subversion'. While their aims may eventually be the same the battle grounds are distinctly different.
Finally, I do feel that the Pakistani ISI needs a complete overhaul, better still it needs to be disbanded and a new structure be created that is truly nationalist as opposed to religiously motivated. The damage that General Zia has done to the Pakistan Army remain deep and he must still be beaming his toothy smile that almost 15 years on and he still has his pet organization pulling the invisible strings of government.
For those who will claim that the issue of Pakistan is about Islam miss the point. Islam is not a religion about violence or coercion and its tolerance through the ages is well documented. The Taliban have no credence to claim any sanction under the name of Islam, because simply put what they advocate is not Islam, but some hybrid creed developed in the caves and villages of Afghanistan by a half blind mad man, Mullah Omar, whose understand of Islam could be put on a postage stamp and still leave room to spare.
This is indeed time for everyone in Pakistan to speak out against the tyranny of the Taliban and if we could have a million man march to restore the judges why cannot we have a 10 million man march in Pakistan to denounce the Taliban. Let them hear this message that their creed cannot be in a country which was founded on modern principles of Islam.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Obama Must Bring Middle East to the Table
Obama's biggest mistake would be failing to bring the warring parties in the Middle East to the table. While the Arabs must also show their willingness to trust Obama, and be willing to allow him the time to settle down, they will also have to moderate their position if they want peace. On the Iraq front the conditions for a substantial U.S. withdrawal, even if incomplete, is more likely then ever before. Afghanistan will be a bigger challenge as confrontation has never worked in the long and checkered history of the country, and I am not sure that the Obama camp completely understands the complexities of that tribal land.
The Israeli government has given him the first real test of his foreign policy acumen. This adds to the Bush Blunder of Iraq and Afghanistan, where Obama has already made clear his position of disengagement, albeit with a slightly different approach. While in Iraq he would favor a quick withdrawal, in Afghanistan he would want to build up troop strength to overcome the resistance and 'bring peace' to the country. While policy action on both Iraq and Afghanistan are more within Obama's direct purview as the commander in chief of the U.S. Armed Forces, the situation in Gaza is more a test of his diplomatic determination.
Political observers in the Arab world may be banking too much on the Obama administration, hoping it will immediately seek a withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza and an end to the hostilities. This might be more a result of military realities. But dealing with the political carnage and the lack of trust in the U.S. as an honest broker in the Middle East are the more pressing issues for the Obama team. The expectation of the Obama administration is not to take sides, but more to be fair and even-handed in its dealing with all parties. Whether the issue is Gaza, Iraq or Afghanistan, the world expects the U.S. to restore confidence and be willing to make hard policy choices to bring peace.
On a broader canvas of foreign policy initiatives, Barack Obama will have to re-engage in serious dialogue all of the world actors whom Bush has spent eight long years alienating. Bush created a world where it was assumed, for example, that all Muslims were hell bent on destroying the United States, one in which the onus was on every Muslim to prove he or she was a 'good Muslim.' This clearly is a distorted view of the Muslim world, and it is one of Obama's most serious challenges. It will not be an easy task and there will have to be serious effort on both sides to find trust to engage in a new social set of principles. The 'War on Terror' will have to be replaced with a 'War on Intolerance', anger will have to be replaced with understanding, force will have to be replaced with empathy and most importantly, all must understand that a disjointed world is not in the interest of humanity.
Barack Obama has won the presidency. In the next six months, he has to win the right to be called a world statesman.
The Israeli government has given him the first real test of his foreign policy acumen. This adds to the Bush Blunder of Iraq and Afghanistan, where Obama has already made clear his position of disengagement, albeit with a slightly different approach. While in Iraq he would favor a quick withdrawal, in Afghanistan he would want to build up troop strength to overcome the resistance and 'bring peace' to the country. While policy action on both Iraq and Afghanistan are more within Obama's direct purview as the commander in chief of the U.S. Armed Forces, the situation in Gaza is more a test of his diplomatic determination.
Political observers in the Arab world may be banking too much on the Obama administration, hoping it will immediately seek a withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza and an end to the hostilities. This might be more a result of military realities. But dealing with the political carnage and the lack of trust in the U.S. as an honest broker in the Middle East are the more pressing issues for the Obama team. The expectation of the Obama administration is not to take sides, but more to be fair and even-handed in its dealing with all parties. Whether the issue is Gaza, Iraq or Afghanistan, the world expects the U.S. to restore confidence and be willing to make hard policy choices to bring peace.
On a broader canvas of foreign policy initiatives, Barack Obama will have to re-engage in serious dialogue all of the world actors whom Bush has spent eight long years alienating. Bush created a world where it was assumed, for example, that all Muslims were hell bent on destroying the United States, one in which the onus was on every Muslim to prove he or she was a 'good Muslim.' This clearly is a distorted view of the Muslim world, and it is one of Obama's most serious challenges. It will not be an easy task and there will have to be serious effort on both sides to find trust to engage in a new social set of principles. The 'War on Terror' will have to be replaced with a 'War on Intolerance', anger will have to be replaced with understanding, force will have to be replaced with empathy and most importantly, all must understand that a disjointed world is not in the interest of humanity.
Barack Obama has won the presidency. In the next six months, he has to win the right to be called a world statesman.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Senselessly Barbaric
The ferocity of the attacks by Israel, its use of white phosphorus on civilian populations, its total disregard for women and children dying in Gaza all indicate a rabid barbarism that has not been seen in modern times, all the more as Israel tries so desperately to take the moral high ground on this issue. In the first place it was Israel who on Nov 4, 2008 first raided into Gaza killing Hamas fighters in the raid, and thus broke the ceasefire, there had been no rocket attacks at that point since the last ceasefire. It is convenient to claim that eight years of rocket attacks have caused this invasion is nothing but a spin. While it was acknowledged through the six month ceasefire Hamas has made efforts to stop rocket attacks into Israel there were the odd rouge attack which, even the Human Rights Watch said were hard to stop.
When Israel reinforced the blockade of Gaza on December 19, bringing down the supply trucks to a mere 70 trucks that were allowed in, instead of the 500 hundred a day needed to sustain the population of Gaza, the ceasefire had effectively ended. Irrespective of this technicality, and even assuming the Hamas are entirely to blame for the attacks and the collapse of the ceasefire, how can collective responsibility be set onto the entire population of Gaza? Of the 900 killed the actual number of Hamas fighters are a small percentage, so much so that after the incident of Beit Zaitoun where 30 women and children were killed in a missile attack on a building where the previous day Israeli troops had herded the families in on grounds of it being 'safe', one can only assume that war crimes would be an appropriate word for the way the Israeli army has conducted itself.
The question of the conduct of the war cannot be justified merely on grounds that the Hamas started the war, this is a misplaced logic as it assumes therefore Israel is absolved of any responsibility of the way it conducts the military operation. Israel cannot simply say because of the rockets it attacks it is now morally acceptable to kill women and children in Gaza. Once Israeli spin doctors realized there is just so much that can be blamed on the rocket attacks they changed their tune to say Hamas fighters are using women and children as human shields. This is such a weak and feeble argument that international observers have scoffed at the mere gall of Israeli commentators to even suggest this.
When in an article for Postglobal I used the word 'genocide' I was told it was was using terms that were no appropriate. Perhaps I can concede that, but I would need to know then what is the current horror described as? I am not asking for explanations of what Hamas did, I know they have not been exemplary citizens of the world community. I am asking has Israel lived up to its claim that it takes care 'not to target women and children.'?
World reaction has been appalling as far as the governments of the world are concerned. The people with conscious have spoken up, in the streets of Europe, the US, and Asia, but where is the voice of governments. The Arab League is as good as a society of eunuchs who cannot even condemn the Israeli action without worrying about what the Americans will tell them. As for the US government the measure of ethics has been long since discarded and its shocking that President elect Obama has not even spoken up about the Israeli action. Clearly there is more hope, perhaps misplaced, on him changing the tone of what is happening than anyone else.
For the Arab governments, the Egyptians are playing honest broker half hoping that Hamas is weakened to the point where it is ineffective, in the process ignoring the carnage on the streets of Gaza. The rest of the Arab world is caught up in their own issues or at best ignoring them and none of them have seriously told the US to exert pressure on the Israeli's to stop military actions in Gaza, or atleast end them against civilians.
To consider an enduring peace as a possibility is now all the more difficult as the people of Gaza have suffered to an extent where their hearts are hard and the neglect of the world has become all the more obvious. I merely wish to ask if, whatever the reasons, in a war 40% of the people killed were women and children and this was in Europe, or American or Israeli families had suffered this way would everyone have been quiet. Where is the conscious of the American media which questioned the Mai Lai massacre in Vietnam, where soldiers were convicted for shooting down women and children.
http://palestinianvoice.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/gaza_mother_dead_children.jpg
This is the image that we need to remember.
When Israel reinforced the blockade of Gaza on December 19, bringing down the supply trucks to a mere 70 trucks that were allowed in, instead of the 500 hundred a day needed to sustain the population of Gaza, the ceasefire had effectively ended. Irrespective of this technicality, and even assuming the Hamas are entirely to blame for the attacks and the collapse of the ceasefire, how can collective responsibility be set onto the entire population of Gaza? Of the 900 killed the actual number of Hamas fighters are a small percentage, so much so that after the incident of Beit Zaitoun where 30 women and children were killed in a missile attack on a building where the previous day Israeli troops had herded the families in on grounds of it being 'safe', one can only assume that war crimes would be an appropriate word for the way the Israeli army has conducted itself.
The question of the conduct of the war cannot be justified merely on grounds that the Hamas started the war, this is a misplaced logic as it assumes therefore Israel is absolved of any responsibility of the way it conducts the military operation. Israel cannot simply say because of the rockets it attacks it is now morally acceptable to kill women and children in Gaza. Once Israeli spin doctors realized there is just so much that can be blamed on the rocket attacks they changed their tune to say Hamas fighters are using women and children as human shields. This is such a weak and feeble argument that international observers have scoffed at the mere gall of Israeli commentators to even suggest this.
When in an article for Postglobal I used the word 'genocide' I was told it was was using terms that were no appropriate. Perhaps I can concede that, but I would need to know then what is the current horror described as? I am not asking for explanations of what Hamas did, I know they have not been exemplary citizens of the world community. I am asking has Israel lived up to its claim that it takes care 'not to target women and children.'?
World reaction has been appalling as far as the governments of the world are concerned. The people with conscious have spoken up, in the streets of Europe, the US, and Asia, but where is the voice of governments. The Arab League is as good as a society of eunuchs who cannot even condemn the Israeli action without worrying about what the Americans will tell them. As for the US government the measure of ethics has been long since discarded and its shocking that President elect Obama has not even spoken up about the Israeli action. Clearly there is more hope, perhaps misplaced, on him changing the tone of what is happening than anyone else.
For the Arab governments, the Egyptians are playing honest broker half hoping that Hamas is weakened to the point where it is ineffective, in the process ignoring the carnage on the streets of Gaza. The rest of the Arab world is caught up in their own issues or at best ignoring them and none of them have seriously told the US to exert pressure on the Israeli's to stop military actions in Gaza, or atleast end them against civilians.
To consider an enduring peace as a possibility is now all the more difficult as the people of Gaza have suffered to an extent where their hearts are hard and the neglect of the world has become all the more obvious. I merely wish to ask if, whatever the reasons, in a war 40% of the people killed were women and children and this was in Europe, or American or Israeli families had suffered this way would everyone have been quiet. Where is the conscious of the American media which questioned the Mai Lai massacre in Vietnam, where soldiers were convicted for shooting down women and children.
http://palestinianvoice.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/gaza_mother_dead_children.jpg
This is the image that we need to remember.
Friday, January 9, 2009
The Gaza Genocide
The Israeli President, when recently asked about Israeli's response to rocket attacks by Hamas, said that when would it become disproportionate, after ten rockets, hundred rockets or a thousand rockets. Well its therefore normal to ask the question when will the Israeli Defense Force understand that they have killed one, two, ten, or a hundred children too many and then they can say the objective of silencing rockets will be achieved. I know many readers will find this offensive for me to say, but quite frankly for Israeli's to allow their government and army to kill so many civilians in Gaza is pure and simple genocide. I am not for one moment saying that Hamas firing rockets was fine, in my eyes both acts of violence are wrong and misplaced. However, it has always seemed to me that Hamas have been always shooting these rockets more to bolster their own image amongst their own people rather than really inflict any serious damage on Israeli citizens, considering not one person was killed in these attacks. The issue of who started this war first will never be resolved and it can be traced back to decades if not centuries. The issue is that both sides need to understand that innocent people are dying and there is not other way about seeing this.
As for the outcome of the Gaza invasion there will obviously be a weakening of Hamas, perhaps even their removal from the power structure, and they may return to more underground tactics. However, it is still not clear whethere Hamas has been marginalized enough by the current invasion for Palestinians in Gaza to actually reject them. Perhaps if the effect of the invasion was actually dead Hamas fighters rather the children and civilians then perhaps the ensuing discomfort of a military occupation would make Gazans realize that indeed the problem is the Hamas. However, at the moment the Israeli overhanded brutality has meant that Gazans relate their suffering directly to the Israeli invasion and not the actions of the Hamas. Eventually a stalemate will be achieved when Israel will realize the Hamas fighters they went after actually got away, or were not as badly effected as hoped for and then perhaps an honorable withdrawal will be done.
A wider war is not possible mainly because the Arab countries have either feebly condemned the invasion or in the case of Hosni Mubarak's Egypt and the Palestinian Authorities Mahmmod Abbass actually blamed the Hamas for their own political motives. If the string is drawn to when the rocket attacks started then yes Hamas is to be blamed, if the string is to be drawn further back then Israel, and to some extent Egypt's, controlled blockade of the Gaza strip are perhaps the starting point for this round of conflict. Either way, the issue remains that a wider war cannot be possible given Israel's military might, and the Arab leaderships inability to even agree to switch off the oil tap for one hour. (not that oil embargoes bring any solutions).
A Hamas defeat? Well on one side one could argue that how do you militarily defeat an army that tends to dissolve into society when it chooses too. This is not some large standing army with armored tanks and planes. So in the sense of a military defeat of Hamas its more likely that they will be weakened and perhaps politically out flanked but defeated seems a bit hard to see given the nature of this movement.
Overall the Palestinians and the Israelis have a sorry story to tell for themselves. Decades of conflict, and not a single step worth mentioning towards peace for their people. While the Palestinian leadership lacks the courage to carve a new deal with Israel based on realities, Israel continues to be an occupier in most of the territory to seized in 1967 and its recent actions in Gaza are shameful and a war crime. So in a sense both sides will continue to behave like criminals and the world leadership doesn't have the conscious or the will to tell them otherwise.
As for the outcome of the Gaza invasion there will obviously be a weakening of Hamas, perhaps even their removal from the power structure, and they may return to more underground tactics. However, it is still not clear whethere Hamas has been marginalized enough by the current invasion for Palestinians in Gaza to actually reject them. Perhaps if the effect of the invasion was actually dead Hamas fighters rather the children and civilians then perhaps the ensuing discomfort of a military occupation would make Gazans realize that indeed the problem is the Hamas. However, at the moment the Israeli overhanded brutality has meant that Gazans relate their suffering directly to the Israeli invasion and not the actions of the Hamas. Eventually a stalemate will be achieved when Israel will realize the Hamas fighters they went after actually got away, or were not as badly effected as hoped for and then perhaps an honorable withdrawal will be done.
A wider war is not possible mainly because the Arab countries have either feebly condemned the invasion or in the case of Hosni Mubarak's Egypt and the Palestinian Authorities Mahmmod Abbass actually blamed the Hamas for their own political motives. If the string is drawn to when the rocket attacks started then yes Hamas is to be blamed, if the string is to be drawn further back then Israel, and to some extent Egypt's, controlled blockade of the Gaza strip are perhaps the starting point for this round of conflict. Either way, the issue remains that a wider war cannot be possible given Israel's military might, and the Arab leaderships inability to even agree to switch off the oil tap for one hour. (not that oil embargoes bring any solutions).
A Hamas defeat? Well on one side one could argue that how do you militarily defeat an army that tends to dissolve into society when it chooses too. This is not some large standing army with armored tanks and planes. So in the sense of a military defeat of Hamas its more likely that they will be weakened and perhaps politically out flanked but defeated seems a bit hard to see given the nature of this movement.
Overall the Palestinians and the Israelis have a sorry story to tell for themselves. Decades of conflict, and not a single step worth mentioning towards peace for their people. While the Palestinian leadership lacks the courage to carve a new deal with Israel based on realities, Israel continues to be an occupier in most of the territory to seized in 1967 and its recent actions in Gaza are shameful and a war crime. So in a sense both sides will continue to behave like criminals and the world leadership doesn't have the conscious or the will to tell them otherwise.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
The Mumbai Massacre
The taking of any life, according to my personal belief, is a cardinal sin, and neither war, nor 'jihad' nor anything can justify this to me. The Mumbai Massacre, the 9/11 incident, the killing of Palestinians, Iraqi's, Afghans and anyone in the world all fall within my definition of senseless murder. It is sad testimony that in this day and age we cannot sit across the table and sort things out and have to resort to this mayhem. The Mumbai Massacre will be tainted by many different connotations but none of these will bring back the people who died and their only fault was to be there at that time.
Sadly the terrible incident will be colored in the light of the tense political relationship between Pakistan and India, and people will forget that Pakistani's too face the wrath of this terrible mayhem and any Pakistani who had a sense of empathy will feel the pain of what the Indian nation has gone through. It is a time to heal and it is a time for people to educate themselves on the scourge of this hate that is falsely using the name of Islam, which actually is a very tolerant religion, to spread hate and death.
Terrorism does not have a face and it does not rely on the conveinence of borders, so it does not matter if one or all of the attackers in Mumbai were Pakistani or from wherever. These same people could just as easily have attacked a hotel in Karachi as they did in Mumbai. What people have to understand, appreciate and act upon is a common sense of loss and bring about an understanding of why these people have such hate and what can be done to deal with it.
Indian reaction internally will test their dogma of secularism and indeed some Indian Muslims will become the target of a form of internal exclusion and suspicion that will fall upon them. It would be in the interest of peace that such recriminations are not directed towards the Muslims, Pakistani or anyone in general terms. This was not a communal, religious or state act, it was the work of some misguided people who have been led to believe that their means are justified for the ills they feel they have suffered.
Underlying these sort of events bring about the urgency for people to settle their differences and bring about peace in their communities. People have said this is India's 9/11, I hope India does not react in the way the US acted when the 9/11 act happened to them. It is not the solution that would achieve anything, and while the people behind such an attack should be brought to justice it also implies that a better understanding of how to tackle the mind of these youth is needed. I have argued, even in my book soon to be published, that the battle that is going on is not on battlefields or a war for land, it is a battle for the minds of the next generation of our youth. It is here that we have to win the argument.
Sadly the terrible incident will be colored in the light of the tense political relationship between Pakistan and India, and people will forget that Pakistani's too face the wrath of this terrible mayhem and any Pakistani who had a sense of empathy will feel the pain of what the Indian nation has gone through. It is a time to heal and it is a time for people to educate themselves on the scourge of this hate that is falsely using the name of Islam, which actually is a very tolerant religion, to spread hate and death.
Terrorism does not have a face and it does not rely on the conveinence of borders, so it does not matter if one or all of the attackers in Mumbai were Pakistani or from wherever. These same people could just as easily have attacked a hotel in Karachi as they did in Mumbai. What people have to understand, appreciate and act upon is a common sense of loss and bring about an understanding of why these people have such hate and what can be done to deal with it.
Indian reaction internally will test their dogma of secularism and indeed some Indian Muslims will become the target of a form of internal exclusion and suspicion that will fall upon them. It would be in the interest of peace that such recriminations are not directed towards the Muslims, Pakistani or anyone in general terms. This was not a communal, religious or state act, it was the work of some misguided people who have been led to believe that their means are justified for the ills they feel they have suffered.
Underlying these sort of events bring about the urgency for people to settle their differences and bring about peace in their communities. People have said this is India's 9/11, I hope India does not react in the way the US acted when the 9/11 act happened to them. It is not the solution that would achieve anything, and while the people behind such an attack should be brought to justice it also implies that a better understanding of how to tackle the mind of these youth is needed. I have argued, even in my book soon to be published, that the battle that is going on is not on battlefields or a war for land, it is a battle for the minds of the next generation of our youth. It is here that we have to win the argument.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
UAE and the Global Financial Crisis
The financial markets around the world have taken a massive beating, but certainly not the first and certainly not the last. However, as with all such situations of extreme volatility the human mind loses perspective and we begin to forget the context and scope of what exactly is happening. I lived through the Stock Market crash of 1987 and was then trading in the financial markets and saw, one Monday afternoon, everything go red on the screen. It was ofcourse scary to say the least but in months the market had gradually crawled back to not only its former levels but then took off on a barraging bull run through the 1990's. Look at a stock market price chart of the past 30 years and that evening when my heart stopped still is only evidenced by a small jagged little line going down to then rise and leave a small tick mark. I call it the tick mark from the ultimate teacher of financial wisdom; the market itself, which told me I learned something.
I will share what I learned. Crises will come and go; not long ago the Asian Contaignation was seen as the Arrmageddon the financial system as we know it, today people have to stretch their mind to remember what it was. The current crisis is a combination of silly deregulation of the mortgage markets in the US and the abandoned lending of the banks to people who could not afford what they were buying. However, what took the toll was when banks wanted to switch these mortgages into securitized paper (called sub prime paper) and this ofcourse was bought by banks. When accounting rules did not allow this paper to be not marked to market the banks suddenly realized they were holding onto to something that was not that valuable after all. (A dummy version of explaining this). The ensuing concern on the worth of the banks clearly began to hurt their profits and in essence made the world stand up and wonder what was really the true worth if the financial system.
Just prior to the adjustments that took place in the market values, the banking system had been leveraged to around 11 to 12 times the equity base needed to support it. Typically this leverage is around seven times and thus a correction was overdue in any case. Now you will wonder what all this has to do with the UAE market or indeed the GCC market?
Indeed there is some interdependence of financial markets and what happens in New York will have an effect on UAE, Singapore and in small measure to some small Balkan country too. The question is what should be the extent of this impact?
First of all the UAE and GCC banking systems exposure to the sub prime market was negligible in consideration of their size of the domestic banks. In addition none of the local banks were in anyways involved in heavy overseas lending. Yes property markets were a bit over heated and prices has rocketed up and to some extent the argument of supply and demand was being using too often to justify over 100% returns on real estate. Yes there is a strong demand for housing, and my estimate is that this is about 38,000 homes currently needed with an additional 12,000 per year for the next five to seven years. Yes loads of projects have been announced but those nearing completion and fullfiling this demand are few.
Secondly the real estate market had moved up on the back of speculators who chose to put down 3 to 5% on a property and then flipped it to another investor till finally the end user was paying over 40 to 60% more than he could have by buying direct from the developer. So in essence alot of paper profits were being created for middle men who didn't do more than merely be at the right place at the right time with their check book ofcourse.
Thirdly those investors who are serious and hold property for longer than a few weeks or months have the money even today, and for them an opportunity has been created.
What is likely to happen? First I believe people will realize that the market is being talked down more than it should. Second there is no doubt some prices had gone up too much and the greed factor for the developers was too much. These people will have to realize that construction prices have come down and at the same time their is a need to price the projects better and the sales prices too. I foresee developers who will look for say 20% maximum profit and target the end user there is likely to me more joy than headache.
The financial system of the UAE is strong and UAE, especially Abu Dhabi has the firepower to remedy any glitches in the need for money in an instant. Yes the will to do so has to be there, and this is ofcourse going to be tested from time to time. For the moment and based on my experience here it is highly unlikely that UAE will be allowed to have a financial crunch of any sort, not because of the words that can be said but because of the financial resource available to correct things.
I am not suggesting a wild spree of rising prices should occur again but as normalcy has returned to the market, value has been created. Those with strong nerves are more likely to have a better time than those who look at the doom and gloom.
I will share what I learned. Crises will come and go; not long ago the Asian Contaignation was seen as the Arrmageddon the financial system as we know it, today people have to stretch their mind to remember what it was. The current crisis is a combination of silly deregulation of the mortgage markets in the US and the abandoned lending of the banks to people who could not afford what they were buying. However, what took the toll was when banks wanted to switch these mortgages into securitized paper (called sub prime paper) and this ofcourse was bought by banks. When accounting rules did not allow this paper to be not marked to market the banks suddenly realized they were holding onto to something that was not that valuable after all. (A dummy version of explaining this). The ensuing concern on the worth of the banks clearly began to hurt their profits and in essence made the world stand up and wonder what was really the true worth if the financial system.
Just prior to the adjustments that took place in the market values, the banking system had been leveraged to around 11 to 12 times the equity base needed to support it. Typically this leverage is around seven times and thus a correction was overdue in any case. Now you will wonder what all this has to do with the UAE market or indeed the GCC market?
Indeed there is some interdependence of financial markets and what happens in New York will have an effect on UAE, Singapore and in small measure to some small Balkan country too. The question is what should be the extent of this impact?
First of all the UAE and GCC banking systems exposure to the sub prime market was negligible in consideration of their size of the domestic banks. In addition none of the local banks were in anyways involved in heavy overseas lending. Yes property markets were a bit over heated and prices has rocketed up and to some extent the argument of supply and demand was being using too often to justify over 100% returns on real estate. Yes there is a strong demand for housing, and my estimate is that this is about 38,000 homes currently needed with an additional 12,000 per year for the next five to seven years. Yes loads of projects have been announced but those nearing completion and fullfiling this demand are few.
Secondly the real estate market had moved up on the back of speculators who chose to put down 3 to 5% on a property and then flipped it to another investor till finally the end user was paying over 40 to 60% more than he could have by buying direct from the developer. So in essence alot of paper profits were being created for middle men who didn't do more than merely be at the right place at the right time with their check book ofcourse.
Thirdly those investors who are serious and hold property for longer than a few weeks or months have the money even today, and for them an opportunity has been created.
What is likely to happen? First I believe people will realize that the market is being talked down more than it should. Second there is no doubt some prices had gone up too much and the greed factor for the developers was too much. These people will have to realize that construction prices have come down and at the same time their is a need to price the projects better and the sales prices too. I foresee developers who will look for say 20% maximum profit and target the end user there is likely to me more joy than headache.
The financial system of the UAE is strong and UAE, especially Abu Dhabi has the firepower to remedy any glitches in the need for money in an instant. Yes the will to do so has to be there, and this is ofcourse going to be tested from time to time. For the moment and based on my experience here it is highly unlikely that UAE will be allowed to have a financial crunch of any sort, not because of the words that can be said but because of the financial resource available to correct things.
I am not suggesting a wild spree of rising prices should occur again but as normalcy has returned to the market, value has been created. Those with strong nerves are more likely to have a better time than those who look at the doom and gloom.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)