After a jet lagged appearance on Riz Khan's talk show on Al Jazeera International, I have had time to reflect a little more deeply on the situation in my country. To say these are precarious times would be an understatement; Pakistan is perhaps at its most fragile moment since its independence in 1947. It is blatantly clear that self interest, which has been the hall mark of most of the nations leaders, be they in uniform or not, has begun to unfold in a sadistic soup of side deals, broken promises, exiles and finally the show of the power of the gun muzzle through 'emergency powers'. 160 million souls have now been again imprisoned behind the shadow of a political intent that is clearly only serving the handful who have decided to determine what is best for the country.
Sadly this attitude and apathy is not confined to Pakistanis only; the United States and others have taken the position of a rhetorical slap on the hand of a general who has gone mad, while hoping their political contriving with just one political leader might be the solution. In the backdrop of this the country's former Chief Justice, with perhaps the record of being the only Chief of an apex court to be dismissed twice in succession, has forgotten his oath to uphold law and taken to supporting a political rather than a legal position.
As emails pour in from observers and friends from abroad wondering why Pakistan is trying to commit political suicide there is a lack of solutions. As the general promises elections one can only wonder if these elections, if and when they are held, can mean anything with an election commission that will partial or indeed with only one political party being a serious contender. It is all the more baffling to note that in the middle of this turmoil an extremist insurgency continues in Waziristan and Swat where militant Islamists have raid their own flags, torn down Pakistan's flag and essentially declared their own Emirate. If the general wanted to combat extremism there is no evidence that he has moved against those elements who clearly have committed treasonable acts and even more surprisingly the former Chief Justice has not felt it worthy to condemn what is clearly an act of treason.
Interestingly the view that some might feel, in the West, that between General Musharaf and Benazir Bhutto there is perhaps a possibility to curb 'terrorism'. In the first place home grown militancy is not linked to Al Qadea, but more a knee jerk reaction to Musharraf's failure to deal with the causes of the resentment within the masses. There is no doubt in my mind that unless a broad based return to a truly democratic system does not occur the political and social will to deal with militancy will not emerge. It is clear that even the religious political parties do not want militancy like that in Waziristan but this is something that has not been understood by General Musharraf and his minders.
It would seem that as this political stalemate continues, even though a placating promise of an election might be some ray of hope, the reality is these are all truncated solutions. There is not enough people power on the streets to topple the general and perhaps only Imran Khan, cricketer turn politician understands that unless the students do not take to the streets the only hope is that the generals comrades in uniform either convince him to back down or take the measures to be a true obundsman for the country and bring some change to the system. Yet will the politicians promise in return not to go back to corruption and nepotism which seems to have been the hallmark of each civilian government. This is, as I said, a fragile moment and its time for Pakistanis to think of the country and not themselves.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Sher View: The General Totters
Being in the boots of General Pervez Musharraf is not one of the things many Pakistanis would desire, particularly right at this moment as he implements the suspension of the Constitution and imposes total military rule -- against the warning of the Bush Administration -- in one of America's longtime allies in the volatile South Asia region.
Faced with a possible Supreme Court judgment that would have gone against his Presidency, a controversial deal with former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, the bundling off of another former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, and the rising pressure of militants in his own backyard, clearly General Musharraf was and is a cornered man.
For the past year or so the military strongman clearly lost his touch, if not the political momentum: his handling of the firing of the Supreme Court Chief Justice and storming of the Lal (Red) Mosque barely 200 meters from the Military Intelligence Headquarters were more than mere embarrassments; they showed that the General did have a conspicuous chink in his armor.
While he tried a political foxtrot in the last few months favoring Benazir Bhutto to return in exchange for an amnesty on possible convictions against her on corruption charges -- presumably with an understanding from Ms. Bhutto that the General would remain as the President -- it was becoming clear that the General was not politically savvy about what he was getting himself into. His handling of sending Nawaz Sharif back into political exile in Saudi Arabia -- the country that had guaranteed Mr. Sharif not returning to Pakistan for at least ten years -- clearly showed that the General was picking his favorites among which political opponents would be permitted to come back home from abroad..
What happens next?
The Bush Administration -- which gave Pakistan more than $10 billion, mostly in military aid, since General Musharraf seized power in a bloodless coup in 1999 -- is scarcely pleased with what the General has donem It is more likely that the Europeans will take economically effective steps against Pakistan’s regime. The Americans will have to balance things given that Musharraf will use the martial law as the necessary weapon he needs to go after the militants of Al Qaeda and Taliban. With press freedoms curtailed or restricted, and military force rather than para-military rangers fighting the militants, his bet will be for quick results if Mr. Musharraf wants some semblance of acceptability in the White House again..
While it is possible that there will be mass political rallies against him in Pakistan -- a land of 177 million Muslims of many persuasions -- it is highly unlikely that General Musharraf and his generals will be as tolerant of street demonstrations as they were during the uproar over the Supreme Court Chief Justice's firing. Benazir Bhutto will perhaps come out of this politically for the worse, finding her deal with the General scuttled. And even though she was acquiring some kudos for speaking out against terrorism after the attack on her convoy upon her return to Pakistan from her exile in Dubai,, she will be hard pressed to prove that democracy was really her sole motive for returning to Pakistan.
The martial law and the General’s sudden about-face actually will favor Nawaz Sharif, who in exile with the Saudis as their "guest," is going to gain the most from this turn of events. It will help him all the more since it seems that the United States had pressed both the General and Benazir Bhutto to come to some understanding; I am told reliably that some American officials urged Musharraf not to undertake any discussions with Nawaz Sharif.
In the street politics of Pakistan this is a huge dividend that Mr. Sharif can encash as and when he wants.
It is possible that General Musharraf acted to pre-empt any dissension within the army ranks. With the November 15th court judgment expected against General Musharraf's presidential election, it is possible his generals were getting uncomfortable about his personalization of the political challenges before the country.
It would well be that the martial law might have staved off any possible attempts by nationalist inspired Generals within the army. One of the most difficult aspects to fathom will be the reaction of the command line generals who have not always felt comfortable with performing martial law duties. Even though since the times of General Zia ul Haq -- one of Mr. Musharraf's predecessors as army chief and president-by-coup -- the army was highly politicized, it cannot be guaranteed that these generals will follow the edict of a President and Chief of Army Staff who seems to be battling more for his life than for his country.
For Pakistan and the region this is a precarious and fragile moment, and martial laws may not be the solution. While dealing with the militants may seem easier by comparison, there is no doubt that the political drama that is unfolding will not end so easily.
General Musharraf has merely written out the first act of a drama the Pakistani public is well versed in, but as with all such dramas the audience has no loyalties. Sadly enough, with Ms. Bhutto'’s political juggling and Mr. Sharif fuming in Saudi Arabia as a "guest," the chances are that General Musharraf will have to have a head-on clash with political forces within the country and most likely within the army.
Only the next few weeks will tell us if the General has truly tottered and fallen. Until then, this past weekend's troubling developments will remain a precarious tangle in Pakistan’s sad political history of military meddling, Islamist maneuverings, and the shredding of the social order.
America may well lose a key ally in the region in its war against global terrorism. It is difficult not to despair about Pakistan's prospects. It is even more difficult bot to despair over the incipient possibility that America's enormous economic, military and political investment in Pakistan may well have been for nought.
Faced with a possible Supreme Court judgment that would have gone against his Presidency, a controversial deal with former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, the bundling off of another former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, and the rising pressure of militants in his own backyard, clearly General Musharraf was and is a cornered man.
For the past year or so the military strongman clearly lost his touch, if not the political momentum: his handling of the firing of the Supreme Court Chief Justice and storming of the Lal (Red) Mosque barely 200 meters from the Military Intelligence Headquarters were more than mere embarrassments; they showed that the General did have a conspicuous chink in his armor.
While he tried a political foxtrot in the last few months favoring Benazir Bhutto to return in exchange for an amnesty on possible convictions against her on corruption charges -- presumably with an understanding from Ms. Bhutto that the General would remain as the President -- it was becoming clear that the General was not politically savvy about what he was getting himself into. His handling of sending Nawaz Sharif back into political exile in Saudi Arabia -- the country that had guaranteed Mr. Sharif not returning to Pakistan for at least ten years -- clearly showed that the General was picking his favorites among which political opponents would be permitted to come back home from abroad..
What happens next?
The Bush Administration -- which gave Pakistan more than $10 billion, mostly in military aid, since General Musharraf seized power in a bloodless coup in 1999 -- is scarcely pleased with what the General has donem It is more likely that the Europeans will take economically effective steps against Pakistan’s regime. The Americans will have to balance things given that Musharraf will use the martial law as the necessary weapon he needs to go after the militants of Al Qaeda and Taliban. With press freedoms curtailed or restricted, and military force rather than para-military rangers fighting the militants, his bet will be for quick results if Mr. Musharraf wants some semblance of acceptability in the White House again..
While it is possible that there will be mass political rallies against him in Pakistan -- a land of 177 million Muslims of many persuasions -- it is highly unlikely that General Musharraf and his generals will be as tolerant of street demonstrations as they were during the uproar over the Supreme Court Chief Justice's firing. Benazir Bhutto will perhaps come out of this politically for the worse, finding her deal with the General scuttled. And even though she was acquiring some kudos for speaking out against terrorism after the attack on her convoy upon her return to Pakistan from her exile in Dubai,, she will be hard pressed to prove that democracy was really her sole motive for returning to Pakistan.
The martial law and the General’s sudden about-face actually will favor Nawaz Sharif, who in exile with the Saudis as their "guest," is going to gain the most from this turn of events. It will help him all the more since it seems that the United States had pressed both the General and Benazir Bhutto to come to some understanding; I am told reliably that some American officials urged Musharraf not to undertake any discussions with Nawaz Sharif.
In the street politics of Pakistan this is a huge dividend that Mr. Sharif can encash as and when he wants.
It is possible that General Musharraf acted to pre-empt any dissension within the army ranks. With the November 15th court judgment expected against General Musharraf's presidential election, it is possible his generals were getting uncomfortable about his personalization of the political challenges before the country.
It would well be that the martial law might have staved off any possible attempts by nationalist inspired Generals within the army. One of the most difficult aspects to fathom will be the reaction of the command line generals who have not always felt comfortable with performing martial law duties. Even though since the times of General Zia ul Haq -- one of Mr. Musharraf's predecessors as army chief and president-by-coup -- the army was highly politicized, it cannot be guaranteed that these generals will follow the edict of a President and Chief of Army Staff who seems to be battling more for his life than for his country.
For Pakistan and the region this is a precarious and fragile moment, and martial laws may not be the solution. While dealing with the militants may seem easier by comparison, there is no doubt that the political drama that is unfolding will not end so easily.
General Musharraf has merely written out the first act of a drama the Pakistani public is well versed in, but as with all such dramas the audience has no loyalties. Sadly enough, with Ms. Bhutto'’s political juggling and Mr. Sharif fuming in Saudi Arabia as a "guest," the chances are that General Musharraf will have to have a head-on clash with political forces within the country and most likely within the army.
Only the next few weeks will tell us if the General has truly tottered and fallen. Until then, this past weekend's troubling developments will remain a precarious tangle in Pakistan’s sad political history of military meddling, Islamist maneuverings, and the shredding of the social order.
America may well lose a key ally in the region in its war against global terrorism. It is difficult not to despair about Pakistan's prospects. It is even more difficult bot to despair over the incipient possibility that America's enormous economic, military and political investment in Pakistan may well have been for nought.
Sher View: The General Totters
Being in the boots of General Pervez Musharraf is not one of the things many Pakistanis would desire, particularly right at this moment as he implements the suspension of the Constitution and imposes total military rule -- against the warning of the Bush Administration -- in one of America's longtime allies in the volatile South Asia region.
Faced with a possible Supreme Court judgment that would have gone against his Presidency, a controversial deal with former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, the bundling off of another former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, and the rising pressure of militants in his own backyard, clearly General Musharraf was and is a cornered man.
For the past year or so the military strongman clearly lost his touch, if not the political momentum: his handling of the firing of the Supreme Court Chief Justice and storming of the Lal (Red) Mosque barely 200 meters from the Military Intelligence Headquarters were more than mere embarrassments; they showed that the General did have a conspicuous chink in his armor.
While he tried a political foxtrot in the last few months favoring Benazir Bhutto to return in exchange for an amnesty on possible convictions against her on corruption charges -- presumably with an understanding from Ms. Bhutto that the General would remain as the President -- it was becoming clear that the General was not politically savvy about what he was getting himself into. His handling of sending Nawaz Sharif back into political exile in Saudi Arabia -- the country that had guaranteed Mr. Sharif not returning to Pakistan for at least ten years -- clearly showed that the General was picking his favorites among which political opponents would be permitted to come back home from abroad..
What happens next?
The Bush Administration -- which gave Pakistan more than $10 billion, mostly in military aid, since General Musharraf seized power in a bloodless coup in 1999 -- is scarcely pleased with what the General has donem It is more likely that the Europeans will take economically effective steps against Pakistan’s regime. The Americans will have to balance things given that Musharraf will use the martial law as the necessary weapon he needs to go after the militants of Al Qaeda and Taliban. With press freedoms curtailed or restricted, and military force rather than para-military rangers fighting the militants, his bet will be for quick results if Mr. Musharraf wants some semblance of acceptability in the White House again..
While it is possible that there will be mass political rallies against him in Pakistan -- a land of 177 million Muslims of many persuasions -- it is highly unlikely that General Musharraf and his generals will be as tolerant of street demonstrations as they were during the uproar over the Supreme Court Chief Justice's firing. Benazir Bhutto will perhaps come out of this politically for the worse, finding her deal with the General scuttled. And even though she was acquiring some kudos for speaking out against terrorism after the attack on her convoy upon her return to Pakistan from her exile in Dubai,, she will be hard pressed to prove that democracy was really her sole motive for returning to Pakistan.
The martial law and the General’s sudden about-face actually will favor Nawaz Sharif, who in exile with the Saudis as their "guest," is going to gain the most from this turn of events. It will help him all the more since it seems that the United States had pressed both the General and Benazir Bhutto to come to some understanding; I am told reliably that some American officials urged Musharraf not to undertake any discussions with Nawaz Sharif.
In the street politics of Pakistan this is a huge dividend that Mr. Sharif can encash as and when he wants.
It is possible that General Musharraf acted to pre-empt any dissension within the army ranks. With the November 15th court judgment expected against General Musharraf's presidential election, it is possible his generals were getting uncomfortable about his personalization of the political challenges before the country.
It would well be that the martial law might have staved off any possible attempts by nationalist inspired Generals within the army. One of the most difficult aspects to fathom will be the reaction of the command line generals who have not always felt comfortable with performing martial law duties. Even though since the times of General Zia ul Haq -- one of Mr. Musharraf's predecessors as army chief and president-by-coup -- the army was highly politicized, it cannot be guaranteed that these generals will follow the edict of a President and Chief of Army Staff who seems to be battling more for his life than for his country.
For Pakistan and the region this is a precarious and fragile moment, and martial laws may not be the solution. While dealing with the militants may seem easier by comparison, there is no doubt that the political drama that is unfolding will not end so easily.
General Musharraf has merely written out the first act of a drama the Pakistani public is well versed in, but as with all such dramas the audience has no loyalties. Sadly enough, with Ms. Bhutto'’s political juggling and Mr. Sharif fuming in Saudi Arabia as a "guest," the chances are that General Musharraf will have to have a head-on clash with political forces within the country and most likely within the army.
Only the next few weeks will tell us if the General has truly tottered and fallen. Until then, this past weekend's troubling developments will remain a precarious tangle in Pakistan’s sad political history of military meddling, Islamist maneuverings, and the shredding of the social order.
America may well lose a key ally in the region in its war against global terrorism. It is difficult not to despair about Pakistan's prospects. It is even more difficult bot to despair over the incipient possibility that America's enormous economic, military and political investment in Pakistan may well have been for nought.
Faced with a possible Supreme Court judgment that would have gone against his Presidency, a controversial deal with former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, the bundling off of another former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, and the rising pressure of militants in his own backyard, clearly General Musharraf was and is a cornered man.
For the past year or so the military strongman clearly lost his touch, if not the political momentum: his handling of the firing of the Supreme Court Chief Justice and storming of the Lal (Red) Mosque barely 200 meters from the Military Intelligence Headquarters were more than mere embarrassments; they showed that the General did have a conspicuous chink in his armor.
While he tried a political foxtrot in the last few months favoring Benazir Bhutto to return in exchange for an amnesty on possible convictions against her on corruption charges -- presumably with an understanding from Ms. Bhutto that the General would remain as the President -- it was becoming clear that the General was not politically savvy about what he was getting himself into. His handling of sending Nawaz Sharif back into political exile in Saudi Arabia -- the country that had guaranteed Mr. Sharif not returning to Pakistan for at least ten years -- clearly showed that the General was picking his favorites among which political opponents would be permitted to come back home from abroad..
What happens next?
The Bush Administration -- which gave Pakistan more than $10 billion, mostly in military aid, since General Musharraf seized power in a bloodless coup in 1999 -- is scarcely pleased with what the General has donem It is more likely that the Europeans will take economically effective steps against Pakistan’s regime. The Americans will have to balance things given that Musharraf will use the martial law as the necessary weapon he needs to go after the militants of Al Qaeda and Taliban. With press freedoms curtailed or restricted, and military force rather than para-military rangers fighting the militants, his bet will be for quick results if Mr. Musharraf wants some semblance of acceptability in the White House again..
While it is possible that there will be mass political rallies against him in Pakistan -- a land of 177 million Muslims of many persuasions -- it is highly unlikely that General Musharraf and his generals will be as tolerant of street demonstrations as they were during the uproar over the Supreme Court Chief Justice's firing. Benazir Bhutto will perhaps come out of this politically for the worse, finding her deal with the General scuttled. And even though she was acquiring some kudos for speaking out against terrorism after the attack on her convoy upon her return to Pakistan from her exile in Dubai,, she will be hard pressed to prove that democracy was really her sole motive for returning to Pakistan.
The martial law and the General’s sudden about-face actually will favor Nawaz Sharif, who in exile with the Saudis as their "guest," is going to gain the most from this turn of events. It will help him all the more since it seems that the United States had pressed both the General and Benazir Bhutto to come to some understanding; I am told reliably that some American officials urged Musharraf not to undertake any discussions with Nawaz Sharif.
In the street politics of Pakistan this is a huge dividend that Mr. Sharif can encash as and when he wants.
It is possible that General Musharraf acted to pre-empt any dissension within the army ranks. With the November 15th court judgment expected against General Musharraf's presidential election, it is possible his generals were getting uncomfortable about his personalization of the political challenges before the country.
It would well be that the martial law might have staved off any possible attempts by nationalist inspired Generals within the army. One of the most difficult aspects to fathom will be the reaction of the command line generals who have not always felt comfortable with performing martial law duties. Even though since the times of General Zia ul Haq -- one of Mr. Musharraf's predecessors as army chief and president-by-coup -- the army was highly politicized, it cannot be guaranteed that these generals will follow the edict of a President and Chief of Army Staff who seems to be battling more for his life than for his country.
For Pakistan and the region this is a precarious and fragile moment, and martial laws may not be the solution. While dealing with the militants may seem easier by comparison, there is no doubt that the political drama that is unfolding will not end so easily.
General Musharraf has merely written out the first act of a drama the Pakistani public is well versed in, but as with all such dramas the audience has no loyalties. Sadly enough, with Ms. Bhutto'’s political juggling and Mr. Sharif fuming in Saudi Arabia as a "guest," the chances are that General Musharraf will have to have a head-on clash with political forces within the country and most likely within the army.
Only the next few weeks will tell us if the General has truly tottered and fallen. Until then, this past weekend's troubling developments will remain a precarious tangle in Pakistan’s sad political history of military meddling, Islamist maneuverings, and the shredding of the social order.
America may well lose a key ally in the region in its war against global terrorism. It is difficult not to despair about Pakistan's prospects. It is even more difficult bot to despair over the incipient possibility that America's enormous economic, military and political investment in Pakistan may well have been for nought.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Sher Value: Alternative Energy
Back two decades ago there was a consensus that when oil prices were consistently above US$ 30 per barrel the move towards alternate energy would be spurned on to reach a commercially viable solution. Now with oil in the mid $80 range, and in my opinion set to eventually cross the $100 mark, it is surprising that alternate energy is not the hottest topic on the scene. Indeed a lot has been done in the past two decades and perhaps now we can see a major effort forward towards solar and other alternate forms of energy emerging on the market.
In the US work is underway for a 550 megawatt solar thermal generation plant in the Mojave Desert, which will provide power to over 400,000 homes. In addition Spain, Morocco, India, Iran and others have solar power generation projects underway, which produce anywhere from 30 MW to 354 MW of power. While such power plants will not be the suppliers for huge industrial consumers they will take the place of valuable conventional power generation. Just imagine if all the homes in UAE could get their power needs from alternate energy.
We also have to consider that sooner or later the use of nuclear energy will be a cleaner and more efficient way of mass power generation in the future. Thus it is not far from conceivable that in the coming years perhaps countries like UAE and Qatar will consider nuclear power plants to replace the conventional energy generation. This will mean that the current myopic view of nuclear energy will have to change, and with the right safeguards should actually be encouraged.
It is also clear that with the current concern for the environment and global warming the impetus for alternate energy sources will gather pace. It is inevitable that we will have to consider a wide variety of generation needs, and indeed the government should consider incentives for those businesses who deploy clean, safe and efficient alternate energy systems.
The current predictions are that solar power generation will become more efficient and while today it would cost 15 cents pr Kilowatt hour it is estimated that within a couple years, and as more systems are deployed, the cost will come down to 7 cents per KWh, making solar energy very competitive with the oil and gas fired traditional power generation technologies.
We are at the point where alternate energies can be sustainable and to do this we need to create an encouraging atmosphere and this where a major effort towards legislation and financial support should be considered. This is the right way forward and nothing could be more positive than an oil producing country to also embrace the idea of solar and other alternate forms of energy. Interestingly, UAE is making a commitment to go Green and also is one of the countries listed as the most suitable for generating solar energy. Lets do something about this.
In the US work is underway for a 550 megawatt solar thermal generation plant in the Mojave Desert, which will provide power to over 400,000 homes. In addition Spain, Morocco, India, Iran and others have solar power generation projects underway, which produce anywhere from 30 MW to 354 MW of power. While such power plants will not be the suppliers for huge industrial consumers they will take the place of valuable conventional power generation. Just imagine if all the homes in UAE could get their power needs from alternate energy.
We also have to consider that sooner or later the use of nuclear energy will be a cleaner and more efficient way of mass power generation in the future. Thus it is not far from conceivable that in the coming years perhaps countries like UAE and Qatar will consider nuclear power plants to replace the conventional energy generation. This will mean that the current myopic view of nuclear energy will have to change, and with the right safeguards should actually be encouraged.
It is also clear that with the current concern for the environment and global warming the impetus for alternate energy sources will gather pace. It is inevitable that we will have to consider a wide variety of generation needs, and indeed the government should consider incentives for those businesses who deploy clean, safe and efficient alternate energy systems.
The current predictions are that solar power generation will become more efficient and while today it would cost 15 cents pr Kilowatt hour it is estimated that within a couple years, and as more systems are deployed, the cost will come down to 7 cents per KWh, making solar energy very competitive with the oil and gas fired traditional power generation technologies.
We are at the point where alternate energies can be sustainable and to do this we need to create an encouraging atmosphere and this where a major effort towards legislation and financial support should be considered. This is the right way forward and nothing could be more positive than an oil producing country to also embrace the idea of solar and other alternate forms of energy. Interestingly, UAE is making a commitment to go Green and also is one of the countries listed as the most suitable for generating solar energy. Lets do something about this.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Sher View: Thinkers on Iraq.
I was recently fortunate, thanks to the brilliant organization skills of my friend Pranay Gupte, to meet with some of the delegates that attended the Festival of Thinkers in Abu Dhabi. While I am not personally prone to large 'festival' type functions where presumably 'thinking' would be the order of the day, I prefer the smaller five to six people around a table conversation, I was nevertheless quite fascinated that people were, rightfully so, concerned about the Iraq war and the region. I felt genuine concern for what is happening in the region and most of all there seemed a resonance of searching for a way out of the 'mess Mr. Bush and Co' have created.
After over 34,650 violent deaths in Iraq in 2006 alone, (averaging close to 100 per day) one has to wonder what indeed are the benefits of this entire episode. But calling it an episode would be a blatant understatement, and indeed one without any remorse or feeling. Iraq is a tragedy on a scale that will haunt Arab politics and, more importantly, the social fiber for decades to come. Beyond the bombed and mutilated bodies there is a bigger price to pay for a failed state. If Saddam Hussein created the failed state of Iraq through his ruthless dictatorship, the events after the invasion of Iraq have taken the concepts of a failed state to an art form.
Iraq's embroiling mess of blood and tears and endless tragedy is also a failure of Arab Leadership, who have silently watched the piecemeal destruction not only of the Baath political apparatus but the dismantling of society to the point where life for the common Iraqi is nothing but painfully fragile. While US policymakers have recently distracted the debate to Iran and its possible nuclear ambitions, which God only knows are well founded or not, the reality is being forgotten that an unstable Iraq is in nobody's interest, and least of all Iran's. However, Iranian leadership misguided as it is also is propped up more by American pressure to remove it than by its own 'wise' policies. So long as Ahmednijedad can stand up on center stage and be seen as standing up to the US, the system within Iran cannot change him for a more moderate leadership; that is how Iran works.
I was asked often, 'how does the US solve this mess?' I do not have an answer, I have some wild guesses, but clear cut answer through the smoke of gunpowder and killings is always next to impossible. I will, in respect to the illustrious names who asked me that question venture a guess.
Iraq needs stability and it needs Arabs to provide the stability. This means that the Arab leadership should consider, with US encouragement, the creation of an Arab or Muslim peace force to go in and replace all American and their allies in Iraq. In addition a format for a large government of national reconciliation be 'nominated' by the Arab League, to stir Iraq through this transition phase. This is the only possible solution till the domestic situation can be calmed down to the point where a modicum of stability and peace comes to the war torn country. This allows the US a withdrawal from the region, allows both the Arabs and the Iranians to take a stake in the stability and peace in their own backyard and atleast sets the path for some possibilities for peace.
After over 34,650 violent deaths in Iraq in 2006 alone, (averaging close to 100 per day) one has to wonder what indeed are the benefits of this entire episode. But calling it an episode would be a blatant understatement, and indeed one without any remorse or feeling. Iraq is a tragedy on a scale that will haunt Arab politics and, more importantly, the social fiber for decades to come. Beyond the bombed and mutilated bodies there is a bigger price to pay for a failed state. If Saddam Hussein created the failed state of Iraq through his ruthless dictatorship, the events after the invasion of Iraq have taken the concepts of a failed state to an art form.
Iraq's embroiling mess of blood and tears and endless tragedy is also a failure of Arab Leadership, who have silently watched the piecemeal destruction not only of the Baath political apparatus but the dismantling of society to the point where life for the common Iraqi is nothing but painfully fragile. While US policymakers have recently distracted the debate to Iran and its possible nuclear ambitions, which God only knows are well founded or not, the reality is being forgotten that an unstable Iraq is in nobody's interest, and least of all Iran's. However, Iranian leadership misguided as it is also is propped up more by American pressure to remove it than by its own 'wise' policies. So long as Ahmednijedad can stand up on center stage and be seen as standing up to the US, the system within Iran cannot change him for a more moderate leadership; that is how Iran works.
I was asked often, 'how does the US solve this mess?' I do not have an answer, I have some wild guesses, but clear cut answer through the smoke of gunpowder and killings is always next to impossible. I will, in respect to the illustrious names who asked me that question venture a guess.
Iraq needs stability and it needs Arabs to provide the stability. This means that the Arab leadership should consider, with US encouragement, the creation of an Arab or Muslim peace force to go in and replace all American and their allies in Iraq. In addition a format for a large government of national reconciliation be 'nominated' by the Arab League, to stir Iraq through this transition phase. This is the only possible solution till the domestic situation can be calmed down to the point where a modicum of stability and peace comes to the war torn country. This allows the US a withdrawal from the region, allows both the Arabs and the Iranians to take a stake in the stability and peace in their own backyard and atleast sets the path for some possibilities for peace.
Monday, October 22, 2007
Sher Value: Thought and Action
As the ink on these pages begins to dry out, hundreds of delegates to the Festival of Thinkers will have commenced the proceedings of the gathering, which brings together Nobel Laureates, powerful media personalities and people who have made a difference. While the Festival of Thinkers conjures the image of a hall full of people sitting in exaggerated poses, hand under chin, contemplating and pondering, the reality is that it sets a wonderful stage for bringing together people on a platform from where if nothing, understanding will emerge.
We do live in a fragile world, where issues from global warming to man made political disasters are threatening large populations of humanity. There is a greater effort being made to destroy what humanity has rather than build something for the future. It is therefore all the more important that efforts like this Festival serve not only as a platform for bringing people together for discussions, but also to move the mind set into action, into creating concrete accountable action plans for change.
Today there are hundreds of alliances and foundations for bringing change and welfare to humanity and earth, and they all are carving out a nice, positive role. What we need to consider is to move the envelope of experience further out, and think of such a platform as the Festival of Thinkers to become the aggregator of these alliances under a banner of ‘humane thought’. Such a collective will serve a huge purpose to aggregate alliances, charities and foundations to bring about structural changes in the body of society and economic and eco systems to allow for sustainable recovery. The most vital element today is coordinating the efforts of so many noble minded alliances and charities into a concerted policy of action .
Some years back I recall with the earthquake in Pakistan there were tons of agencies, charities and foundations pouring in aid, and resources to help in the earthquake devastated areas but it cannot be over looked that a large number of these relief efforts were actually duplicating themselves, causing actually a waste in the system of care. The Festival therefore allows people of a diverse range of cultures, educations and attitudes to sit together an work out an agenda of social change which will be followed up and not merely left behind on the delegates tables to be cleaned out the next day.
We live in a world where we need understanding, compassion and empathy. We need to understand why we have, mostly in the past 100 years, undone the quality of life that our future generations could have enjoyed. We have to pause at this moment and create the synergy that is needed between thought, business and compassion. Our model of tomorrow cannot be politically utilitarian; neither can it be economically and socially myopic because the results of these will be catastrophic. A Festival of Thinkers must create an idiom of thought which will force us to make a difference.
We do live in a fragile world, where issues from global warming to man made political disasters are threatening large populations of humanity. There is a greater effort being made to destroy what humanity has rather than build something for the future. It is therefore all the more important that efforts like this Festival serve not only as a platform for bringing people together for discussions, but also to move the mind set into action, into creating concrete accountable action plans for change.
Today there are hundreds of alliances and foundations for bringing change and welfare to humanity and earth, and they all are carving out a nice, positive role. What we need to consider is to move the envelope of experience further out, and think of such a platform as the Festival of Thinkers to become the aggregator of these alliances under a banner of ‘humane thought’. Such a collective will serve a huge purpose to aggregate alliances, charities and foundations to bring about structural changes in the body of society and economic and eco systems to allow for sustainable recovery. The most vital element today is coordinating the efforts of so many noble minded alliances and charities into a concerted policy of action .
Some years back I recall with the earthquake in Pakistan there were tons of agencies, charities and foundations pouring in aid, and resources to help in the earthquake devastated areas but it cannot be over looked that a large number of these relief efforts were actually duplicating themselves, causing actually a waste in the system of care. The Festival therefore allows people of a diverse range of cultures, educations and attitudes to sit together an work out an agenda of social change which will be followed up and not merely left behind on the delegates tables to be cleaned out the next day.
We live in a world where we need understanding, compassion and empathy. We need to understand why we have, mostly in the past 100 years, undone the quality of life that our future generations could have enjoyed. We have to pause at this moment and create the synergy that is needed between thought, business and compassion. Our model of tomorrow cannot be politically utilitarian; neither can it be economically and socially myopic because the results of these will be catastrophic. A Festival of Thinkers must create an idiom of thought which will force us to make a difference.
Sunday, October 7, 2007
Sher Value: Good Business or Bad Business?
Living in an ever shrinking world we are no longer isolated from the events that happens miles away. The famines of Africa, the effects of the Tsunami, the plight of children around the world, are all now in our face, and thanks to some TV channels, 24 hours a day. This is truly the ‘nano-second’ age and in such and age there are two options; either do something, or simply turn off the TV.
Over a decade ago, as a young CEO of a bank I was asked as to the reasons the bank supported causes like the WWF, the Arabian Leopard Trust, MSF and many others, and I recall saying if business cannot accept a social agenda for the betterment of people and earth then its not good business. I recall it was around 1992 when I had said that and most other CEO’s called to tell me I was losing the plot of running a bank. Perhaps plots are meant to be lost, perhaps we need a vision to make a difference.
Both Dubai and Abu Dhabi have launched high profile drives to raise money, and more importantly, awareness, to causes that concern the human condition. While Dubai had started a program of care towards education around the world, Abu Dhabi has taken up the challenge of a broader format, and in both cases the response from the public has been over whelming. I read somewhere that the US government spends over US$ 1 billion at the Pentagon a DAY! Now factor that into health and education around the world and instead of swords we create pens and clinics, I have no doubt the world will not only be a better place but a safer place.
So then why is the message of ‘good business’ so hard to get, because simply put it is putting your profits into social good which in turn brings you more expansion as the market place becomes better and vibrant. Perhaps because the near term gain is more important, cutting down forests for a profit seems better to some then perhaps creating forests that will replace what we mow down.
Indeed man has wrecked more havoc on man himself than nature and in it bad business, has never played a glorious role other than to further its own cause. The resulting impact has been that only now the big business companies are beginning to become ‘energy companies’ rather than simply ‘oil companies’ and with oil at $80 a barrel alternate energy and clean energy becomes an item on their agenda.
Then there is the bad business of governments, where conscious is abandoned for gain, where India’s oil minister signs three oil explorations contracts with the Burmese military junta the same day the streets are filled with Buddhist monks being shot at, where the issues of climate change are pushed aside into the rubbish pile where other agendas of social change lay buried. Good business and good government are getting together to make a difference and that’s the good news.
Over a decade ago, as a young CEO of a bank I was asked as to the reasons the bank supported causes like the WWF, the Arabian Leopard Trust, MSF and many others, and I recall saying if business cannot accept a social agenda for the betterment of people and earth then its not good business. I recall it was around 1992 when I had said that and most other CEO’s called to tell me I was losing the plot of running a bank. Perhaps plots are meant to be lost, perhaps we need a vision to make a difference.
Both Dubai and Abu Dhabi have launched high profile drives to raise money, and more importantly, awareness, to causes that concern the human condition. While Dubai had started a program of care towards education around the world, Abu Dhabi has taken up the challenge of a broader format, and in both cases the response from the public has been over whelming. I read somewhere that the US government spends over US$ 1 billion at the Pentagon a DAY! Now factor that into health and education around the world and instead of swords we create pens and clinics, I have no doubt the world will not only be a better place but a safer place.
So then why is the message of ‘good business’ so hard to get, because simply put it is putting your profits into social good which in turn brings you more expansion as the market place becomes better and vibrant. Perhaps because the near term gain is more important, cutting down forests for a profit seems better to some then perhaps creating forests that will replace what we mow down.
Indeed man has wrecked more havoc on man himself than nature and in it bad business, has never played a glorious role other than to further its own cause. The resulting impact has been that only now the big business companies are beginning to become ‘energy companies’ rather than simply ‘oil companies’ and with oil at $80 a barrel alternate energy and clean energy becomes an item on their agenda.
Then there is the bad business of governments, where conscious is abandoned for gain, where India’s oil minister signs three oil explorations contracts with the Burmese military junta the same day the streets are filled with Buddhist monks being shot at, where the issues of climate change are pushed aside into the rubbish pile where other agendas of social change lay buried. Good business and good government are getting together to make a difference and that’s the good news.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)