My contribution to Washington Posts Postglobal site
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/anwer_sher/2008/01/dear_candidates_equal_attentio_1.html
Dear Candidates: Equal Attention to the World’s Problems
The Question: The U.S. starts to choose a president this week. If you could send the candidates one message, what would it be?
What the world today needs, more than ever, is a world statesman: someone who can guide the world with empathy and compassion, not guns and missiles. The world has been brought to the brink of massive destruction, and while one cannot blame American leadership for all of the problems, America must take responsibility for what it has done wrong.
The demands on your attention will be many, some born out of a moral prerogative, others born from the pressures of the commercial world and leading the world’s largest military power. While I do not expect leaders to be perfect, I do expect them to be fair on the issues of world politics.
We wish to see an American president who is willing to be brave and balanced on the issue of Palestine and Israel, to condemn the Israeli aggression with the same tone as Palestinian suicide bombers are condemned. We wish for someone who will act on world affairs based on reason and fact, not emotion and conjecture, to bring to the forefront the values of fairness that are expected within American societies. There is no doubt that America is a great nation, with some of the finest values of freedom of speech and the rule of law, but its leadership seems to have forgotten these values and these need to be rekindled into the body politic of the nation. It is this that will win the hearts and minds of the people around the world. Asking for democracy in Iraq and and Pakistan is indeed a bold statement, but to ignore China's violations of human rights especially with respect to Tibet, or to take the pressure off of Burma, all show that its current leadership seeks selective democracy.
The world ahead of us needs understanding, not an ‘us and them’ approach. American leaders need to become the 'we', with a true worldly view. At the start of this long road to the White House, which of you will embrace this vision, and more importantly which will carry it into your term of office? The world is watching.
Saturday, January 5, 2008
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Worst Is Yet to Come For Pakistan
Original on: http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/anwer_sher/2007/12/worst_is_yet_to_come_for_pakis.html
The Question: After Benazir Bhutto's assassination on Thursday, what's next for Pakistan?
Benazir Bhutto's assassination is not only a terrible loss to the political process and the nation of Pakistan - it also shows how fragile the country is to the acts of militants. Her tragic death must be viewed in the context of Pakistan's political and security situation: this is clearly a sign of worse things to come.
First and foremost, it is highly unlikely that the elections will be held as scheduled on January 8, 2008. That might the rallying point for both Benazir's Peoples Party (under the leadership of Amin Fahim) and Nawaz Sharif's Muslim League to seek sweeping changes and a return to the rule of law. This is a huge blow to the U.S., as it backed her and General Musharraf and now will be hard-pressed to handle the political process in Pakistan.
Clearly Benazir Bhutto's killing shows the telltale signs of an al-Qaeda style attack. It sends two messages: one to the Pakistani politicians that they should soften their tone against terrorism, and another to the Americans that their political support will be hacked down from the top. This is a huge embarrassment for General Musharraf, because all his claims of victory against terrorism have come to naught. If nothing else, now that he is out of uniform one cannot rule out the Army seeking to remove him, either through constitutional means or otherwise.
There are already reports of violence in the interior of Sindh, where Benazir was very popular, and it would seem that the situation may get out of hand: people will take to the streets, blaming Musharraf for the failure to ensure security in the country. On balance, I would predict that with elections postponed it is highly possible that conspiracy theories will emerge that will weaken President Musharraf and amplify calls for his removal. In the light of civil strife, it would seem that a major change is more likely than ever.
I knew Benazir personally, and the few times we met and discussed politics, although we may have disagreed on issues, I never had a doubt that she was one of the most astute political figures in the country. Her opponent Nawaz Sharif now carries the responsibility of bringing reason into the country and may even suggest a joint government for national reconstruction.
The Question: After Benazir Bhutto's assassination on Thursday, what's next for Pakistan?
Benazir Bhutto's assassination is not only a terrible loss to the political process and the nation of Pakistan - it also shows how fragile the country is to the acts of militants. Her tragic death must be viewed in the context of Pakistan's political and security situation: this is clearly a sign of worse things to come.
First and foremost, it is highly unlikely that the elections will be held as scheduled on January 8, 2008. That might the rallying point for both Benazir's Peoples Party (under the leadership of Amin Fahim) and Nawaz Sharif's Muslim League to seek sweeping changes and a return to the rule of law. This is a huge blow to the U.S., as it backed her and General Musharraf and now will be hard-pressed to handle the political process in Pakistan.
Clearly Benazir Bhutto's killing shows the telltale signs of an al-Qaeda style attack. It sends two messages: one to the Pakistani politicians that they should soften their tone against terrorism, and another to the Americans that their political support will be hacked down from the top. This is a huge embarrassment for General Musharraf, because all his claims of victory against terrorism have come to naught. If nothing else, now that he is out of uniform one cannot rule out the Army seeking to remove him, either through constitutional means or otherwise.
There are already reports of violence in the interior of Sindh, where Benazir was very popular, and it would seem that the situation may get out of hand: people will take to the streets, blaming Musharraf for the failure to ensure security in the country. On balance, I would predict that with elections postponed it is highly possible that conspiracy theories will emerge that will weaken President Musharraf and amplify calls for his removal. In the light of civil strife, it would seem that a major change is more likely than ever.
I knew Benazir personally, and the few times we met and discussed politics, although we may have disagreed on issues, I never had a doubt that she was one of the most astute political figures in the country. Her opponent Nawaz Sharif now carries the responsibility of bringing reason into the country and may even suggest a joint government for national reconstruction.
Saturday, December 22, 2007
The Kite Runner
‘Kite Runner’ Threats Reveal Afghanistan’s Hypocrisy
(this is my post to Postglobal Washington Posts online blog where I am a panelist)
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/anwer_sher/2007/12/kite_runner_threats_reveal_afg.html
and the main page is on http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/
The Question: The producers of the movie "The Kite Runner" had to evacuate three boy actors from Afghanistan because they were involved in a scene portraying homosexual rape. Who's at fault here: the movie producers who exposed the boys to danger, or the Afghan culture that threatens them?
I am a Pathan from the tribal areas of Pakistan, so perhaps this question poses difficult issues. From a modern perspective there is no doubt that the lack of tolerance, especially on artistic expressions, has been a matter of concern for people like me. I question whether the Afghans who have threatened the actors are suggesting that homosexuality doesn't happen in Afghanistan, or whether they are suggesting that exposing its existence is a crime. The reality is that homosexuality has been prevalent in Afghan culture for centuries, and proliferated especially during the Taliban years when contact between women and men was very difficult. In The Kite Runner, the homosexual rape is the contentious issue especially because a boy who later grows up to be a Taliban official commits it. The portrayal highlights the fact that often in Afghan society during times of war, captured enemy men were sodomized. As British officers from the Afghan wars would say: ‘Better to put a bullet through your own head then be taken prisoner.’
Clearly the reaction towards the actors is not acceptable, but we have to understand that such a reaction was pretty much expected, even though the film was made outside Afghanistan. There are a number of taboo issues for these societies; homosexuality is clearly one of them, even though a famous Pashtu poet wrote elaborate poems praising boys over men. This is indeed the hypocritical side of society, and in times such as this they will take the religious view that homosexuality is a sin – just like the Catholics and conservative Christians would react to the idea of same-sex marriages. The difference, and a fundamental one, is that here it is not the homosexuals who are being threatened, but the actors who portrayed the characters. This is where the lack of tolerance shows up.
On the other hand, the filmmakers have much to answer for: from reportedly paying the key actors only $18,000 (the going rate for a small side role in a regular Paramount movie, perhaps), to not anticipating that the response from within Afghan would threaten the safety of the actors. One of the actors, Zekaria Ibrahmi, (who plays Amir as a child) had expressed his desire to study and live in the U.S. Perhaps that wish should have been built into the contract, to ensure the actors were safe.
The sad part is that as a modern thinking Pathan, I can see both sides of the equation. While I vehemently disagree with fundamentalism and intolerance, I also understand that this reaction should have been expected – and the filmmakers should have had a contingency plan.
(this is my post to Postglobal Washington Posts online blog where I am a panelist)
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/anwer_sher/2007/12/kite_runner_threats_reveal_afg.html
and the main page is on http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/
The Question: The producers of the movie "The Kite Runner" had to evacuate three boy actors from Afghanistan because they were involved in a scene portraying homosexual rape. Who's at fault here: the movie producers who exposed the boys to danger, or the Afghan culture that threatens them?
I am a Pathan from the tribal areas of Pakistan, so perhaps this question poses difficult issues. From a modern perspective there is no doubt that the lack of tolerance, especially on artistic expressions, has been a matter of concern for people like me. I question whether the Afghans who have threatened the actors are suggesting that homosexuality doesn't happen in Afghanistan, or whether they are suggesting that exposing its existence is a crime. The reality is that homosexuality has been prevalent in Afghan culture for centuries, and proliferated especially during the Taliban years when contact between women and men was very difficult. In The Kite Runner, the homosexual rape is the contentious issue especially because a boy who later grows up to be a Taliban official commits it. The portrayal highlights the fact that often in Afghan society during times of war, captured enemy men were sodomized. As British officers from the Afghan wars would say: ‘Better to put a bullet through your own head then be taken prisoner.’
Clearly the reaction towards the actors is not acceptable, but we have to understand that such a reaction was pretty much expected, even though the film was made outside Afghanistan. There are a number of taboo issues for these societies; homosexuality is clearly one of them, even though a famous Pashtu poet wrote elaborate poems praising boys over men. This is indeed the hypocritical side of society, and in times such as this they will take the religious view that homosexuality is a sin – just like the Catholics and conservative Christians would react to the idea of same-sex marriages. The difference, and a fundamental one, is that here it is not the homosexuals who are being threatened, but the actors who portrayed the characters. This is where the lack of tolerance shows up.
On the other hand, the filmmakers have much to answer for: from reportedly paying the key actors only $18,000 (the going rate for a small side role in a regular Paramount movie, perhaps), to not anticipating that the response from within Afghan would threaten the safety of the actors. One of the actors, Zekaria Ibrahmi, (who plays Amir as a child) had expressed his desire to study and live in the U.S. Perhaps that wish should have been built into the contract, to ensure the actors were safe.
The sad part is that as a modern thinking Pathan, I can see both sides of the equation. While I vehemently disagree with fundamentalism and intolerance, I also understand that this reaction should have been expected – and the filmmakers should have had a contingency plan.
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Sher View: Clinton Library Funding
The Washington Post yesterday has raised the issue of foreign, which should imply all foreign sources, but names mostly Middle Eastern sources, and implied there was something sinister about the donations to the former presidents' presidential library. For Senator Obama to also be mentioned that the wishes to bring in strict legislation to donations for such foundations shows that both the Washington Post and Senator Obama are way off the mark. First why question donations from the Middle East only, surely the British and European donors also appear on the list, indeed why not also question US donors too, after all they would have a greater vested interest to use donations for a political cause.
Most importantly, why would someone want to 'bribe or influence' a former President of the US? I can see it being an issue funding a presidential hopeful as being a major issue, (not that US special interest groups don't do that), but why would I pay say $10 million for a lovely library to a man who is no more in office, other than out of goodwill or friendship?
Secondly this is an old issue, as far as I see it dead and buried but brought up by Washington Post perhaps to support the Obama cause, consider the Post seems to like the Obama camp more than anyone else.
Thirdly, instead of celebrating such donations as a triumph of understanding and diplomacy its being looked down up either because the source of funding is not politically convenient or sounds sinister enough for respectable numbers to behave like weekend rags. Come on guys this was not like the Middle East funding some clandestine subversive group within America.
Fourthly, the Middle East donates alot of money to alot of causes, when you produce a daily cash flow of billions and need to only spend a fraction of that money, you do have alot of people lining up for donations. If reporters want to really do their homework then do mention the donations made elsewhere by these same Middle Eastern personalities. I know from personal experience, being an ex banker, that the late Sh Zayed of Abu Dhabi alone funded two major hospitals, one airport, a whole road network system in two towns, and a rural development program in Pakistan that ran into billions. Many will find fault with that, so if he then also gave say a million dollars to an EX presidents library big deal.
Finally, political motives could abound anywhere, the reality is that be fair, name all donors, and suggest the motives from all parties, and don't just bash the Middle East.
I marvel at the ability of the human mind to take something good and twist it into something sinister.
Most importantly, why would someone want to 'bribe or influence' a former President of the US? I can see it being an issue funding a presidential hopeful as being a major issue, (not that US special interest groups don't do that), but why would I pay say $10 million for a lovely library to a man who is no more in office, other than out of goodwill or friendship?
Secondly this is an old issue, as far as I see it dead and buried but brought up by Washington Post perhaps to support the Obama cause, consider the Post seems to like the Obama camp more than anyone else.
Thirdly, instead of celebrating such donations as a triumph of understanding and diplomacy its being looked down up either because the source of funding is not politically convenient or sounds sinister enough for respectable numbers to behave like weekend rags. Come on guys this was not like the Middle East funding some clandestine subversive group within America.
Fourthly, the Middle East donates alot of money to alot of causes, when you produce a daily cash flow of billions and need to only spend a fraction of that money, you do have alot of people lining up for donations. If reporters want to really do their homework then do mention the donations made elsewhere by these same Middle Eastern personalities. I know from personal experience, being an ex banker, that the late Sh Zayed of Abu Dhabi alone funded two major hospitals, one airport, a whole road network system in two towns, and a rural development program in Pakistan that ran into billions. Many will find fault with that, so if he then also gave say a million dollars to an EX presidents library big deal.
Finally, political motives could abound anywhere, the reality is that be fair, name all donors, and suggest the motives from all parties, and don't just bash the Middle East.
I marvel at the ability of the human mind to take something good and twist it into something sinister.
Friday, November 23, 2007
Sher View: The deed is done.
Indeed the deed is done. The General has got the endorsement from the Judges he appointed, announced the election date, and before December 1st 2007 will have shed the military uniform and seemingly all will be well. His good friend President George W Bush has said while the emergency is not something the US is elated about, 'General Musharraf has done a lot for democracy.' A truly puzzling statement. But then what Mr. G W Bush thinks of the General is not important, what the people of Pakistan will feel is more crucial.
Yes indeed the General was doing fine for democracy up to a year or so back, then the proverbial 'drunk with power' syndrome got to the man. Locking up political opponents, firing a Judge for alleged corruption without referring the case to the judiciary to try their own, and mishandling the siege of a mosque a few hundred meters from the Presidential residence in Islamabad all started a response from the General that has not made sense. In an interview to BBC the General tried to justify his actions and asked 'you think I just went mad in the last few months?'. The truth is Yes sir you have gone pretty mad. Here is why.
Building democracy by tearing up the constitution, locking up over 3,000 lawyers and human rights activists and rewriting the rules to protect your position is NOT Democracy. Interestingly Benazir Bhutto in championing 'democracy' cut her deals, then the general reneged and she did a hasty U turn and now might well contest the election as the sole main political leader if Nawaz Sharif is not allowed to contest the election. Under the new rules Mr. Sharif has to be personally present to file his nomination papers, so it is likely he will convince his Saudi hosts to let him return. Perhaps this was one of the reasons General Musharraf visited King Abdullah in Riyadh to either ask the Saudis not to let former PM back, but is more likely that he was trying to ask them to get Mr. Sharif agree to not demand the general's removal as President if he, in return, is allowed to return.
The Americans have again got this wrong, as if their main purpose is to fight terrorism and restore democracy then the way forward is rather simpler than backing just the General and Benazir Bhutto. They should engage in a contact with Mr. Nawaz Sharif and indeed the religious political parties in getting them to agree that Washington will support a full free election in return all political parties must agree to reduce violence within Pakistan. This is also in the interests of all the political parties, as terrorism within the country takes the political initiative away from the party leadership. Ms Bhutto and General Musharraf, now out of uniform, will not be able to deal with terrorism on their own.
If full and free elections are held and all parties are allowed to contest then this is what is likely, Sind province will go to Benazir's political party, Punjab to Nawaz Sharif, the North West Frontier Province to the MMA (a coalition of religious political parties) and Baluchistan to the Baluchi nationalist parties. Only the PML of Nawaz Sharif can deal with the groups who will win in NWFP and Baluchistan, and it is in these provinces that the problems of militancy and terrorism exist. This is why I have always argued that the country needs a government of national reconstruction where all parties are encouraged to form a collective government. Backing only one or two horses in this complex race will never be a fruitful bet and hence the dialogue has to be more broad based.
For the US hence the option has to be a neutral encouragement for free elections after they have had contacts with all political parties. It would seem while there will be legal and political resentments to the generals 'election' as the President, there is a chance that if free elections are allowed and all are allowed to participate then perhaps the chances are that this sordid deed will be buried in the need for national interest.
Yes indeed the General was doing fine for democracy up to a year or so back, then the proverbial 'drunk with power' syndrome got to the man. Locking up political opponents, firing a Judge for alleged corruption without referring the case to the judiciary to try their own, and mishandling the siege of a mosque a few hundred meters from the Presidential residence in Islamabad all started a response from the General that has not made sense. In an interview to BBC the General tried to justify his actions and asked 'you think I just went mad in the last few months?'. The truth is Yes sir you have gone pretty mad. Here is why.
Building democracy by tearing up the constitution, locking up over 3,000 lawyers and human rights activists and rewriting the rules to protect your position is NOT Democracy. Interestingly Benazir Bhutto in championing 'democracy' cut her deals, then the general reneged and she did a hasty U turn and now might well contest the election as the sole main political leader if Nawaz Sharif is not allowed to contest the election. Under the new rules Mr. Sharif has to be personally present to file his nomination papers, so it is likely he will convince his Saudi hosts to let him return. Perhaps this was one of the reasons General Musharraf visited King Abdullah in Riyadh to either ask the Saudis not to let former PM back, but is more likely that he was trying to ask them to get Mr. Sharif agree to not demand the general's removal as President if he, in return, is allowed to return.
The Americans have again got this wrong, as if their main purpose is to fight terrorism and restore democracy then the way forward is rather simpler than backing just the General and Benazir Bhutto. They should engage in a contact with Mr. Nawaz Sharif and indeed the religious political parties in getting them to agree that Washington will support a full free election in return all political parties must agree to reduce violence within Pakistan. This is also in the interests of all the political parties, as terrorism within the country takes the political initiative away from the party leadership. Ms Bhutto and General Musharraf, now out of uniform, will not be able to deal with terrorism on their own.
If full and free elections are held and all parties are allowed to contest then this is what is likely, Sind province will go to Benazir's political party, Punjab to Nawaz Sharif, the North West Frontier Province to the MMA (a coalition of religious political parties) and Baluchistan to the Baluchi nationalist parties. Only the PML of Nawaz Sharif can deal with the groups who will win in NWFP and Baluchistan, and it is in these provinces that the problems of militancy and terrorism exist. This is why I have always argued that the country needs a government of national reconstruction where all parties are encouraged to form a collective government. Backing only one or two horses in this complex race will never be a fruitful bet and hence the dialogue has to be more broad based.
For the US hence the option has to be a neutral encouragement for free elections after they have had contacts with all political parties. It would seem while there will be legal and political resentments to the generals 'election' as the President, there is a chance that if free elections are allowed and all are allowed to participate then perhaps the chances are that this sordid deed will be buried in the need for national interest.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Sher View: Counting the General's days
Through interviews given in the presidential palace in Islamabad to carefully selected foreign journalists, President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan has been valiantly trying to present himself as a champion of democracy and free media. To underscore that point, the veteran general has been donning not his army uniform but has appeared in mufti – smart charcoal-grey suits, and sober shirts and muted ties. Of course, those televised images were mostly seen by foreign viewers, and not by his fellow 160 million Pakistanis. The indigenous media remain muzzled – which is to be expected in light of the fact that the general has suspended Pakistan's Constitution and pretty much imposed martial law. Pakistani journalists have been kept away from their president.
To his credit, Mr. Musharraf has kept a straight face through these interviews. His phlegmatic visage notwithstanding, he must surely know that his days in office are numbered – that the end to his rule may come as early as this weekend when John Negroponte, the Deputy Secretary of State of the United States, arrives in Islamabad to give President Musharraf the news that Washington is unfastening its embrace of the general. Of course, the encounter will be preceded by some due diligence on Mr. Negroponte's part; in fact, he has already been in touch with elements within the current administration, and with members of the civilian opposition. By the time Secretary Negroponte relays the unwelcome news to President Musharraf, the scenario for political succession would have been tidily worked out.
Such a scenario may include the return to Pakistan of Nawaz Sharif, the former prime minister whom Musharraf overthrew in a bloodless coup in 1999 and bundled off to exile to Saudi Arabia. When Mr. Sharif gamely tried to return home some weeks ago, he was not allowed back into his own country. There's little question in my mind that the U.S. has not been talking with Mr. Sharif. Unlike his political opponent Benazir Bhutto – who was prepared to make a Faustian pact with Mr. Musharraf in a power-sharing arrangement under which he would continue as president and she would become prime minister – Mr. Sharif not only wants Mr. Musharraf to relinquish Pakistan's presidency but also leave the army altogether. (The general said yesterday that he may do the latter but not the former.)
My political and business sources tell me that the chancelleries of Europe have been open to the idea of a return by Mr. Sharif. Indeed, some European leaders have privately encouraged the Bush Administration to widen its dialogue with Pakistani constituencies beyond Ms. Bhutto and her Pakistan People's Party. They have emphasized that she does not – yet – have support from the street; specifically, Pakistan's students have not rallied to her cause. It's nice to have lawyers agitating in her behalf, but let it be noted that the Pakistan's agents of change historically have been students: Generals Mohammed Ayub Khan and Yahya Khan – both military dictators – were forced to yield power only after protests led and manned by students became so massive that the "voice" of the street could not be ignored.
General Musharraf has shown few signs of acknowledging this history. I can't blame him, of course – after all, who wants to raise intimations of one's own political mortality? What the general did not say in his media interviews has been at least as important – if not more – than the predictable words he uttered. He did say that his political rival Ms. Bhutto was under house arrest to "protect" her from terrorist attacks. But he neglected to mention that Imran Khan, an iconic hero of cricket who turned to politics, was being manhandled and arrested under Pakistan's draconian anti-terrorist measures. Mr. Khan's crime was to lead a student protest against the imposition of the emergency, which is normally the right of any person under a democracy. Could it be that General Musharraf is scared that the charismatic Mr. Khan will be the rallying figure for the country's youthful population?
General Musharraf would do well to study his own nation's history. Almost three decades ago, Benazir Bhutto's father Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto appeared on national television when faced with rising protests against his increasingly dictatorial rule. With arrogance that was barely concealed, he said that the seat of power he sat upon was much stronger than people imagined. In less than a month after that speech, General Zia ul-Haq – then chief of the army – deposed him in a military coup.
As I watched President Musharraf's interviews from my vantage point in Dubai, I could not help but think that while the general talked of saving Pakistan he seemed to be oblivious to the fact that it needs saving from his own authoritarian actions – actions that clearly don't have an agenda beyond political survival. Indeed, his assertion that national elections have been historically held in Pakistan came across as scarcely credible in view of the fact that the polls were conducted under the barrel of the gun and emergency powers of the army. History may not be the general's forte, but surely he must know that one of those elections – in 1988 – was held when General Zia was killed mysteriously in a plane crash. Military dictators don't necessarily retire or fade away in Pakistan. And while I certainly don't wish General Musharraf ill, it wouldn't be hyperbole to say that his termination as president could come with extreme prejudice.
The general is cornered. His tough-talking interviews are not going to placate the protests against him. Perhaps what Imran Khan was trying with the students causes the most concern to the military, and it is not surprising that he would be dubbed a terrorist – not because he was planning terrorist acts but because he was igniting the fuse General Musharraf's army would worry most about.
While the protests continue – accompanied by a chorus of threats from Western capitals about cutting aid – General Musharraf himself must be worried about that his political slippage. The idea of him stepping down is now not only an anathema but would be political suicide from his perspective. Though he has tried to play down the situation by promising elections, and even saying that he would relinquish his army post but remain president, he must dread John Negroponte's forthcoming visit. Under the circumstances, how warm will Mr. Musharraf's hospitality be to his hangman?
President Musharraf could simply ignore Mr. Negroponte's "advice" as the meddling by a foreign power in the domestic affairs of a sovereign state, albeit one that traditionally has been a geopolitical ally of the United States, and one whose partnership is central to Washington's war on global terrorism. Mr. Musharraf rules under the Provisional Constitutional Order – in effect, a military diktat to sanction the emergency – and he and his friends are putting immense pressure of the judges of the provincial High Courts of Pakistan's four provinces to take a new oath of office. This would reinstate the High Courts, allowing the federal government to keep the nation's Supreme Court suspended. This, the general hopes, will give him some legitimacy beyond the dubious provisions of the Provisional Constitutional Order. Reports have been pouring in that each of the judges of the High Courts are visited a number of times a day to pressure them into taking the new oath.
Secretary Negroponte recognizes that there can be no return to even a semblance of normalcy in Pakistan while General Musharraf is still at the helm. This would be the ideal time for one to be fly on the wall of the Pakistan Military Headquarters where the Joint Chief of Staffs must be meeting. It is not beyond imagination to think that pressure from within the army must be mounting on General Musharraf to step down, and allow the smooth transition to civilian rule. Indeed, there's the precedent of General Aslam Beg in 1988 arguing an identical point; it would not be unlikely to see some of the Corp Commanders – the equivalent of the joint chiefs of staff -- trying to impress this position on general Musharraf. This is all the more possible considering that the general has claimed he allows "full democracy and expression of views" by his army officers.
If, as expected, Mr. Negroponte makes it clear to General Musharraf that the US position with respect to him has changed, it would mean not only a change in Pakistan's governance. It would send a strong signal that will allow a change – whether from internal pressures of the army or as a result of America wanting to be an honest broker for democracy – allowing an interim government where a return to democracy will be possible. It is also possible that since two of general's closest advisors are his former military secretary -- now heading the Inter Services Intelligence -- and his wife's relative -- who heads the Military Intelligence -- the chances are he could be fed information he wants to hear rather than what needs to be heard by President Musharraf. In other words, the general and his cabal will all be living in a fool's paradise.
While the general may feel he and his cabal have the situation under control, it is clear that having promising elections but keeping politicians either locked up or in exile can hardly be salutary to President Musharraf's cause. Nor will such continued condition be perceived as a sane act of a man supposedly committed to the fashioning of a democrat system in Pakistan, however daunting the task. Perceptions do matter in the daily life of individuals and institutions, and of nations. Right now, General Musharraf's army is seen as hostage takers of the country rather. President Musharraf would rather have himself and his uniformed caudillo be seen as brave saviors. And while he can dictate governance for the moment, unfortunately for him Mr. Musharraf cannot reshape perceptions that are solidifying that the time has come for him to leave with his dignity – and neck – intact.
To his credit, Mr. Musharraf has kept a straight face through these interviews. His phlegmatic visage notwithstanding, he must surely know that his days in office are numbered – that the end to his rule may come as early as this weekend when John Negroponte, the Deputy Secretary of State of the United States, arrives in Islamabad to give President Musharraf the news that Washington is unfastening its embrace of the general. Of course, the encounter will be preceded by some due diligence on Mr. Negroponte's part; in fact, he has already been in touch with elements within the current administration, and with members of the civilian opposition. By the time Secretary Negroponte relays the unwelcome news to President Musharraf, the scenario for political succession would have been tidily worked out.
Such a scenario may include the return to Pakistan of Nawaz Sharif, the former prime minister whom Musharraf overthrew in a bloodless coup in 1999 and bundled off to exile to Saudi Arabia. When Mr. Sharif gamely tried to return home some weeks ago, he was not allowed back into his own country. There's little question in my mind that the U.S. has not been talking with Mr. Sharif. Unlike his political opponent Benazir Bhutto – who was prepared to make a Faustian pact with Mr. Musharraf in a power-sharing arrangement under which he would continue as president and she would become prime minister – Mr. Sharif not only wants Mr. Musharraf to relinquish Pakistan's presidency but also leave the army altogether. (The general said yesterday that he may do the latter but not the former.)
My political and business sources tell me that the chancelleries of Europe have been open to the idea of a return by Mr. Sharif. Indeed, some European leaders have privately encouraged the Bush Administration to widen its dialogue with Pakistani constituencies beyond Ms. Bhutto and her Pakistan People's Party. They have emphasized that she does not – yet – have support from the street; specifically, Pakistan's students have not rallied to her cause. It's nice to have lawyers agitating in her behalf, but let it be noted that the Pakistan's agents of change historically have been students: Generals Mohammed Ayub Khan and Yahya Khan – both military dictators – were forced to yield power only after protests led and manned by students became so massive that the "voice" of the street could not be ignored.
General Musharraf has shown few signs of acknowledging this history. I can't blame him, of course – after all, who wants to raise intimations of one's own political mortality? What the general did not say in his media interviews has been at least as important – if not more – than the predictable words he uttered. He did say that his political rival Ms. Bhutto was under house arrest to "protect" her from terrorist attacks. But he neglected to mention that Imran Khan, an iconic hero of cricket who turned to politics, was being manhandled and arrested under Pakistan's draconian anti-terrorist measures. Mr. Khan's crime was to lead a student protest against the imposition of the emergency, which is normally the right of any person under a democracy. Could it be that General Musharraf is scared that the charismatic Mr. Khan will be the rallying figure for the country's youthful population?
General Musharraf would do well to study his own nation's history. Almost three decades ago, Benazir Bhutto's father Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto appeared on national television when faced with rising protests against his increasingly dictatorial rule. With arrogance that was barely concealed, he said that the seat of power he sat upon was much stronger than people imagined. In less than a month after that speech, General Zia ul-Haq – then chief of the army – deposed him in a military coup.
As I watched President Musharraf's interviews from my vantage point in Dubai, I could not help but think that while the general talked of saving Pakistan he seemed to be oblivious to the fact that it needs saving from his own authoritarian actions – actions that clearly don't have an agenda beyond political survival. Indeed, his assertion that national elections have been historically held in Pakistan came across as scarcely credible in view of the fact that the polls were conducted under the barrel of the gun and emergency powers of the army. History may not be the general's forte, but surely he must know that one of those elections – in 1988 – was held when General Zia was killed mysteriously in a plane crash. Military dictators don't necessarily retire or fade away in Pakistan. And while I certainly don't wish General Musharraf ill, it wouldn't be hyperbole to say that his termination as president could come with extreme prejudice.
The general is cornered. His tough-talking interviews are not going to placate the protests against him. Perhaps what Imran Khan was trying with the students causes the most concern to the military, and it is not surprising that he would be dubbed a terrorist – not because he was planning terrorist acts but because he was igniting the fuse General Musharraf's army would worry most about.
While the protests continue – accompanied by a chorus of threats from Western capitals about cutting aid – General Musharraf himself must be worried about that his political slippage. The idea of him stepping down is now not only an anathema but would be political suicide from his perspective. Though he has tried to play down the situation by promising elections, and even saying that he would relinquish his army post but remain president, he must dread John Negroponte's forthcoming visit. Under the circumstances, how warm will Mr. Musharraf's hospitality be to his hangman?
President Musharraf could simply ignore Mr. Negroponte's "advice" as the meddling by a foreign power in the domestic affairs of a sovereign state, albeit one that traditionally has been a geopolitical ally of the United States, and one whose partnership is central to Washington's war on global terrorism. Mr. Musharraf rules under the Provisional Constitutional Order – in effect, a military diktat to sanction the emergency – and he and his friends are putting immense pressure of the judges of the provincial High Courts of Pakistan's four provinces to take a new oath of office. This would reinstate the High Courts, allowing the federal government to keep the nation's Supreme Court suspended. This, the general hopes, will give him some legitimacy beyond the dubious provisions of the Provisional Constitutional Order. Reports have been pouring in that each of the judges of the High Courts are visited a number of times a day to pressure them into taking the new oath.
Secretary Negroponte recognizes that there can be no return to even a semblance of normalcy in Pakistan while General Musharraf is still at the helm. This would be the ideal time for one to be fly on the wall of the Pakistan Military Headquarters where the Joint Chief of Staffs must be meeting. It is not beyond imagination to think that pressure from within the army must be mounting on General Musharraf to step down, and allow the smooth transition to civilian rule. Indeed, there's the precedent of General Aslam Beg in 1988 arguing an identical point; it would not be unlikely to see some of the Corp Commanders – the equivalent of the joint chiefs of staff -- trying to impress this position on general Musharraf. This is all the more possible considering that the general has claimed he allows "full democracy and expression of views" by his army officers.
If, as expected, Mr. Negroponte makes it clear to General Musharraf that the US position with respect to him has changed, it would mean not only a change in Pakistan's governance. It would send a strong signal that will allow a change – whether from internal pressures of the army or as a result of America wanting to be an honest broker for democracy – allowing an interim government where a return to democracy will be possible. It is also possible that since two of general's closest advisors are his former military secretary -- now heading the Inter Services Intelligence -- and his wife's relative -- who heads the Military Intelligence -- the chances are he could be fed information he wants to hear rather than what needs to be heard by President Musharraf. In other words, the general and his cabal will all be living in a fool's paradise.
While the general may feel he and his cabal have the situation under control, it is clear that having promising elections but keeping politicians either locked up or in exile can hardly be salutary to President Musharraf's cause. Nor will such continued condition be perceived as a sane act of a man supposedly committed to the fashioning of a democrat system in Pakistan, however daunting the task. Perceptions do matter in the daily life of individuals and institutions, and of nations. Right now, General Musharraf's army is seen as hostage takers of the country rather. President Musharraf would rather have himself and his uniformed caudillo be seen as brave saviors. And while he can dictate governance for the moment, unfortunately for him Mr. Musharraf cannot reshape perceptions that are solidifying that the time has come for him to leave with his dignity – and neck – intact.
Sher Value: Oil to score a century!
Crude oil prices will, most probably, breach the $100 per barrel mark, and perhaps by an easier stride from the mid nineties where it stands perched today. However, there is more to the issue of oil prices than just watching it in the nervous nineties, its perhaps the most fabulous story on commodities. Between 1999 and 2006 the price of oil moved from $10 to $60, and between 2006 and now, the end of 2007 it has moved from $60 to $96, and for once none of these increases can be blamed on the OPEC or any political or economic maneuvering of the oil cartel. To put this rise in perspective assume a country exporting 2 million barrels of oil a day in 1999 was earning US$20 million per day, and today the same country is earning US$192 million per day!
To understand this phenomenal rise we have to look at the massive demand for energy that growth in India and China have been witnessing. China’s demand for oil has more than tripled in these seven odd years. There is little evidence that this global demand will slow down and a world recession, while possible, will have to be quite severe to bring this engine to a halt.
As OPEC ministers meet in Saudi Arabia it is not only clear that an output increase is not on the cards but surprisingly some members are arguing that perhaps it is time to dump the dollar as the reference pricing currency. While a continued fall in the greenback value will hurt the purchasing power of oil earnings, and the market will price in ‘compensatory increases’ for the price of oil. This is partially responsible for the recent up ticks as oil inches towards the 100 mark.
However, the price of oil is not only about demand and supply, but also is related to future demand and future supply. As demand has been growing we have to remember that oil reserves are growing at less that .75% per year. In the past two decades new reserves have been discovered at the rate of about 3% per year. What this means is that if oil demand has grown by an average of 12% a year over the past decade then new reserves have only been created at one fourth that level clearly implying that into the future there will be serious supply constraints. While high oil prices will spur on new oil explorations, the cycle of discovery to actual oil production does take a few years to achieve.
Long term economic modeling will suggest that a recession on a world wide scale may perhaps be the best thing to calm things down, the simple truth is that the engines that are pumping away in the emerging markets, and consumer led demand will be hard to reign in. The US was consuming 16 million barrels a day in the 1970’s and today its consuming 22 million barrels but the growth has been elsewhere. Try and imagine if every Chinese and Indian move to own an automobile, scary thought right?
To understand this phenomenal rise we have to look at the massive demand for energy that growth in India and China have been witnessing. China’s demand for oil has more than tripled in these seven odd years. There is little evidence that this global demand will slow down and a world recession, while possible, will have to be quite severe to bring this engine to a halt.
As OPEC ministers meet in Saudi Arabia it is not only clear that an output increase is not on the cards but surprisingly some members are arguing that perhaps it is time to dump the dollar as the reference pricing currency. While a continued fall in the greenback value will hurt the purchasing power of oil earnings, and the market will price in ‘compensatory increases’ for the price of oil. This is partially responsible for the recent up ticks as oil inches towards the 100 mark.
However, the price of oil is not only about demand and supply, but also is related to future demand and future supply. As demand has been growing we have to remember that oil reserves are growing at less that .75% per year. In the past two decades new reserves have been discovered at the rate of about 3% per year. What this means is that if oil demand has grown by an average of 12% a year over the past decade then new reserves have only been created at one fourth that level clearly implying that into the future there will be serious supply constraints. While high oil prices will spur on new oil explorations, the cycle of discovery to actual oil production does take a few years to achieve.
Long term economic modeling will suggest that a recession on a world wide scale may perhaps be the best thing to calm things down, the simple truth is that the engines that are pumping away in the emerging markets, and consumer led demand will be hard to reign in. The US was consuming 16 million barrels a day in the 1970’s and today its consuming 22 million barrels but the growth has been elsewhere. Try and imagine if every Chinese and Indian move to own an automobile, scary thought right?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)