The 26th International Montessori Congress was held in Chennai in the first week of January. Fourteen members of the Pakistan Montessori Association and others attended this four-yearly event. The theme of the conference was Sadhana -- reflective practice, spontaneous living. Andre Roberfroid, president of Association Montessori Internationale (AMI), Amsterdam, inaugurated the congress welcoming the global Montessori fraternity, followed by Dr Silvana Quattrocchi Montanaro, AMI trainer and assistance to infancy, from Italy, who spoke on “Peace and Education”.The delegates conveyed the following message to the managing committee of the Congress by the President of Pakistan Montessori Association.“The world is going through a difficult period just now. There seems to be conflicts in many countries globally. We Montessorians believe in peace and communication to ease discord and distrust, to generate mutual trust and to work towards a better harmonious world.“It is with these sentiments that the delegates from Pakistan have come to participate in the congress as we share a strong common bond of Montessori philosophy,” said Habiba Thobani.The plenary session included speakers from Athens, Canada, USA, etc. Lynne Lawrence, executive director AMI was of the opinion that while it is true that an individual’s actions are a reflection of his personality, it is just as true that his personality is the sum total of all his actions. The best time to take advantage of their interdependence is during the formative years of childhood when the individual’s interactions with his environment, with others and with himself, can be nurtured as a whole thereby empowering the child to spend the best life he can.International seminar presenter Judi Orion said that there is ‘Sadhana’ in the child’s actions from the moment of his birth. He masters his environment through constant effort resulting in perfection of movement that seems effortless. When he is in an environment that is both nurturing and follows his natural development it can result in the creation of a human being who is sure of himself and of his place in the world.Irene Fafalios, educational consultant for Montessori schools in Athens wondered aloud about what makes a good Montessori directress? “Or would we ask ourselves what happens to adults who work with children in a Montessori Casa?” She said.Irene looked at the preparation of an adult for the task of receiving a child in a casa. Being a child-centric world, the casa demands the adult to almost forget about herself and become a part of the environment. This requires great understanding of the child’s needs and belief in the child’s powers of development. It also requires preparation of the self of a calibre that she says seems almost monastic in many respects. Irene looked at this preparation of the adult and what it means for the casa and for society itself.According to Sandra Girlato, director of training, Foundation for Montessori Education, Toronto, the potential for the progress or decline of humanity lies in education. All adults, and specifically educators, must acknowledge our universal responsibility that whatever we do as human beings has the power to transform our existence on this earth. Therefore, as the foundations for our lives are laid in childhood our children’s education must be complete in the broadest sense not only in acquiring knowledge, but in developing basic human qualities such as kindness, honesty, faith and conviction so that each child can be a builder of peace.Language is an integral part of who we are: as human beings, as individuals, as members of a human society. Baiba Krumins Grazzini, director of training, Bergamo, pointed out that language permits us to manifest our humanity, participate in society and express our individuality. Language is a gift from one generation to the rest: a song of life that traverses time and space. That changes continually and yet creates continuity. That lends identity to individuals, communities and nations.The child’s language develops spontaneously as part of the natural development, but the fullest development of the human potential for language is vitally dependent upon mindful adult help to developing life.Executive Director North American Montessori Teachers’ Association, David Kahn’s paper focused on working side-by-side with enthusiastic adult specialists who have a role in society. It inspires adolescents to want to play their part in nature, society and the global human effort. Looking at the Montessori root ideas of education and experience, indoors and out doors, practical and social life, farm and urban world settings we need to examine the international perspective on the application of Montessori principles to educational and social reform in direct relationship to community-based realities.Another session threw light on specific ages. Patricia Wallner, director, Bilingual Infant Community, Amsterdam was of the view that the first three years of a child’s life lays the foundation for all subsequent development. An understanding of the unlimited potential of the child during this period can make it possible for the adult to help him create a strong foundation for the social being he is going to be.Pamela Nunn, supervisor, Sydney Montessori Society, Lindfield said that the Montessori approach to the child, between the ages of three to six years, is to fully support the self-construction of the individual. It is during this period of time that the child is actively creating his own unique personality with all the values and knowledge necessary to function in the world.Meanwhile, Dr Jean Miller, a certified AMI consultant examiner spoke about children between the ages of six to 12. This is the time when they are developing their social and moral conscience and there is a great emphasis on working cooperatively together.Through a short talk, slides, and some readings from Dr Montessori’s writings, Dr Miller covered some of the fundamentals of “Montessori 6-12” including cosmic education, the great lessons, interrelated subject areas and the importance of the three-year age range and three-hour work cycle in a classroom.AMI was founded with the intention of disseminating Dr Montessori’s principles. The methodology is gaining popularity the world over but there are only a handful of trainers who are qualified to train the teachers who work with the children. In order to ensure that the benefits of the Montessori methodology reaches more children worldwide, AMI has been working on a more structured programme for trainers. It offers accredited courses in 35 centres around the world with new teacher trainers completing the training of trainers programme every year.The camaraderie that United Nations and the Commonwealth Heads have failed to achieve, the global Montessori family has achieved through education.In the words of Dr Maria Montessori: “Preventing conflicts is the work of politics; establishing peace is the work of education. We must convince the world of a need for a universal, collective effort to build the foundation for peace.”
By Masooma Alibhai
Courtesy: Daily Dawn Lahore
Friday, January 23, 2009
Holidays vs school days
The one thing that school-going children love most about schools are holidays … and for the children of Karachi, school, in that context, has become an absolute treat.Unannounced holidays have become an everyday norm for the people of Karachi. Strikes, protest marches, sudden violence breakouts, or simply Pakistan winning the last cricket match against India, can prompt holidays for the city.Where most of these holidays are concerned with the law and order situation of Karachi, and are thus deemed unavoidable, there are still some that are either completely unnecessary, or could have been announced earlier in the notices provided to schools by the Directorate of Private Institutions. Such steps, if taken, would help school administrations minimize the chaos and confusion that generally takes place when a holiday is announced the night before.Nargis Alavi, the principal of Habib Girls School comments: “When an unscheduled holiday is declared late in the evening, it causes a lot of confusion. Many children, who may not have seen the news, or are unsure about it, turn up at school the next day. It causes problems for teachers as well as parents. And the students are prone to call up the teachers at inconvenient hours given the utter uncertainty of the whole situation. Also the school may have scheduled an event on that particular day and rescheduling it becomes a nightmare. Recently, I had to send a written apology to the director for keeping the school open when an unscheduled holiday was declared.”Such are the complications that arise for every school when an unscheduled holiday is announced. School children may find these holidays an unexpected pleasure, but students studying on a professional basis find such holidays extremely exasperating. Asra Majeed, an ACCA student, agrees.“We have only a limited number of days to complete our syllabus, and holidays of this kind become a burden on us. There have been many a time when, even after an unscheduled holiday has been announced, our institute remained open, the teachers arrived, and some students came as well … the rest of the class suffers as a result. On the other hand, even if all the students are informed about the holiday, rescheduling another class becomes a problem, as the teachers may not find the time for it, or the students may have clashes with other classes.”Researching this article brought me to an entirely surprising piece of evidence. Apparently, unannounced holidays are only a negligible part of the situation as a whole. Tahir Javed, director of the Al-Murtaza Professional Development Centre, has researched diligently on this topic.Mr Javed and the heads of 17 other trust schools including Habib Girls School, Happy Home School, St Michael’s Convent, Gulistan Shah Abdul Latif Bhittai School for Boys and Mama Parsi School for Girls met with the Minister of Education of the Interim Government, and presented their problem. Mr Javed had some very interesting facts to share concerning his research.“One of the greatest problems of our education system is that we [the education providers] are not given enough days to even go halfway through the allotted syllabus. The Ministry of Education provides us with a list of holidays that will occur during the school year. As an example, for the year 2007, we were informed of 23 days that would be observed as holidays throughout the country including Eid days, religious and national holidays and bank holidays.“Apart from these, we were informed of the days that would be observed as winter and summer vacations. The rest, termed as school days, are the days that the Ministry of Education has allotted for the completion of the syllabus, which incidentally should take 210 days to complete after the most recent curriculum update,” he points out.“According to the Ministry of Education, all the days on which the school remains open are deemed as school days. However, only those days in which the students are actually in school should be accounted for as school days, as these are the days in which the children are actually being taught, and the syllabus is being completed.“The Ministry has counted weekends and examination periods, including the period in which a school serves as an examination centre, and the period when teachers evaluate exam papers for the students’ results in these allotted days. All of these days are counted as part of the teaching days, which is completely irrelevant. How is the school expected to carry on with its routine work when it is serving as an examination centre?” he asks.“Also, the ministry has not kept any provision for unannounced holidays … which is quite unwise keeping the law and order situation of the country in mind. Moreover, the highest authority figures are given a quota of holidays that they may announce for the city on ad hoc basis, and these are not accounted for either. Therefore, after keeping all these days in mind, we are left with about 100-150 teaching days, as compared to the 210 day schedule provided by the Ministry of Education,” explains the educationist.“Where we are not given sufficient time to complete even half of the allotted syllabus, it is a wonder how matriculation and intermediate students can cope with their examinations. When we look at the education authorities of other places, like Ontario, Canada, which annually publishes a five-year school calendar and sticks to it come rain or shine, we can see why our education system is deteriorating day by day,” he adds.Saad Shakeel, a second year intermediate student, concurs completely with Mr Javed’s statements.“When our first-year intermediate examinations came up, more than half of our syllabus was left incomplete. This was in no way the fault of our teachers, who conducted classes regularly, and tried to cover as much work as was possible, in each class. We simply did not have enough days to complete the approved syllabus. Many students took extra tuitions to complete the unfinished course, while others, including myself, had to do so, on our own.”The situation seems quite unfair for the students … and costly for the parents. When parents pay abominably high prices for their children’s education, they expect that their children will at least learn as much as is required by regular standards in a given year. With such a vast syllabus, and not enough days available in which to complete it, children are bound to look for extra tuitions, thus taking another toll on their parents’ pockets.It is a norm for many schools to compensate unannounced holidays (given due to the law and order situation of the city) by calling students on weekends, extending the hours of a normal school day, or cutting short a part of the vacations. However, this presents another problem.“We remained open most of the winter vacation this year in order to compensate for the days lost due to the unusually high number of unannounced holidays since the term started,” says Mr Javed.“It is important that our students complete their allotted syllabus. However, we have received at least a couple of calls from the Directorate of Education asking why we have kept the school open when they scheduled holidays for this period. It is a sad fact, that in this country, we are asked to apologise for imparting education to students, and any school may announce day/s off for any number of reasons ranging from good performance of the school in an inter-school sports event to the school getting flooded in the rain, and not be asked to give explanations.”It is true that schools that call students on scheduled holidays are given warnings and may have to give fines for further breaches. It comes as a surprise that our Ministry of Education is more concerned about the holidays as compared to the teaching days. A serious reality check is in order here -- the ministry needs to make up a school year calendar for the schools to follow, and that facilitates the completion of the allotted curriculum.It is evident that our schedule is based more on ad-hoc notions than hard facts and relevant research. The ministry either has to cut down the syllabus to fit in the teaching days provided, or cut down the holidays to accommodate the vast syllabus. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out which measure will be popular with school-going children. By Tahreem Wasti
Courtesy: Daily Dawn Lahore
Courtesy: Daily Dawn Lahore
List of Academic Award nominees
Best Picture: Slumdog Millionaire, Milk, Frost/Nixon, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button and The ReaderBest Actor in a Leading Role:Richard Jenkins (The Visitor), Sean Penn (Milk) Frank Langella (Frost/Nixon), Mickey Rourke (The Wrestler), Brad Pitt (The Curious Case of Benjamin Button)Best Actress in a Leading Role: Kate Winslet (The Reader), Meryl Streep (Doubt), Anne Hathaway (Rachel Getting Married), Angelina Jolie (Changeling), Melissa Leo (Frozen River)Best Actor in a Supporting Role: Heath Ledger (The Dark Knight), Josh Brolin (Milk), Philip Seymour Hoffman (Doubt), Robert Downey Jr (Tropic Thunder), Michael Shannon (Revolutionary Road)Best Actress in a Supporting Role: Penelope Cruz (Vicky Cristina Barcelona), Viola Davis (Doubt), Marisa Tomei (The Wrestler), Taraji P. Henson (The Curious Case of Benjamin Button), Amy Adams (Doubt)Best Director: Danny Boyle (Slumdog Millionaire), David Fincher (The Curious Case of Benjamin Button), Stephen Daldry (The Reader), Gus Van Sant (Milk), Ron Howard (Frost/Nixon).—AFP
Return of foreign armies tests Congo’s Kabila
By Joe Bavier
KINSHASA: After inviting two foreign armies back into Congo to fight armed groups, President Joseph Kabila must convince his people they will not stay too long and that civilians are not caught in the crossfire.Kinshasa’s politicians, newspapers and diplomats greeted the arrival of over 3,000 Rwandan soldiers in neighbouring eastern Congo, where they are meant to take part in operations to hunt Rwandan Hutu rebels, with astonishment, suspicion and concern.A Ugandan-led multinational strike on anti-Ugandan rebels based in another remote corner of Congo has led to over 600 civilian deaths in reprisal attacks since it was launched in mid-December.Ugandan and Rwandan armies have entered Congo and backed Congolese rebel factions several times over the last 15 years, ostensibly to hunt their own rebels. Congo has accused them of also plundering gold, diamonds and timber.The current operations highlight Kabila’s weakness and failures to pacify the lawless, mineral-rich east, after winning 2006 polls meant to usher in an era of stability after years of war and chaos.“Kabila’s going out on a limb. There are a lot of political risks,” said Jason Stearns, an independent Congo analyst.“In a worst-case scenario, in six months’ time the (Rwandan Hutu) FDLR, (Congolese Tutsi) CNDP, and (Ugandan) Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) could all still be there, as well as the Rwandans and Ugandans,” he said.The Ugandan-led attack on the LRA rebels in the far northeast was supposed to last a month but is not over yet.Rebel leaders escaped an initial aerial bombardment, dispersed and have been accused of reprisal massacres.The cooperation with Rwanda is a radical shift from the past, when the two countries traded accusations that each was supporting the other’s rebels. It stems from diplomatic initiatives to end fighting last year between Congo’s army and the CNDP.Operations against the Rwandan Hutu FDLR are scheduled to last 10-15 days, but analysts warn this is unlikely to be long enough to hunt down the estimated 6,000 fighters.Some of the Hutu force took part in the 1994 slaughter of 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus in Rwanda and this has been used to justify numerous Tutsi-led military operations in Congo.The Congolese army’s own failures against armed groups in the east have forced Kabila to seek the help of the foreign armies, who have long criticised him for not tackling their rebels.“Rwandan troops arrive in Kivu – Kinshasa trapped,” read a Wednesday headline in Kinshasa daily Le Potentiel.By 2003, both Uganda and Rwanda had officially withdrawn their soldiers under intense international pressure, and relations with Kinshasa are improving, but many ordinary Congolese accuse their neighbours of continued meddling.“My reaction is first of all astonishment,” Vital Kamerhe, speaker of the national assembly and a leading member of Kabila’s political party, told UN-sponsored Radio Okapi.“We are wondering what our population, which is only now getting over past Rwandan aggression, feels about this.”Opposition politicians also slammed the two plans.“We denounce the policy of the government which allows neighbouring countries to come and resolve their political problems on Congolese soil,” said Thomas Luhaka, executive secretary of the opposition Movement for the Liberation of Congo.“We denounce the lack of transparency of our government. We want to know the content of this deal.”The lack of information has led to civilians, from Kinshasa in the west to Goma in the east and Dungu, near the remote Sudanese border, to question how long the armies will stay.“(Kabila) needs to say something so that he doesn’t look like he’s concealing the truth,” Stearns said.Civilians have borne the brunt of most of Congo’s violence, which has killed over five million people since 1998. Previous operations against the FDLR have resulted in massacres.The UN, which has in the past backed Congo’s army but has become increasingly critical of abuses and has been kept out of current plans, said over 3,000 Rwandans were in Congo.“If this operation is a sign of improved relations (between Congo and Rwanda) then it could be a good thing. But no one has the capacity to control reprisals and there are serious risks of negative fallout,” warned one Western diplomat.—Reuters
KINSHASA: After inviting two foreign armies back into Congo to fight armed groups, President Joseph Kabila must convince his people they will not stay too long and that civilians are not caught in the crossfire.Kinshasa’s politicians, newspapers and diplomats greeted the arrival of over 3,000 Rwandan soldiers in neighbouring eastern Congo, where they are meant to take part in operations to hunt Rwandan Hutu rebels, with astonishment, suspicion and concern.A Ugandan-led multinational strike on anti-Ugandan rebels based in another remote corner of Congo has led to over 600 civilian deaths in reprisal attacks since it was launched in mid-December.Ugandan and Rwandan armies have entered Congo and backed Congolese rebel factions several times over the last 15 years, ostensibly to hunt their own rebels. Congo has accused them of also plundering gold, diamonds and timber.The current operations highlight Kabila’s weakness and failures to pacify the lawless, mineral-rich east, after winning 2006 polls meant to usher in an era of stability after years of war and chaos.“Kabila’s going out on a limb. There are a lot of political risks,” said Jason Stearns, an independent Congo analyst.“In a worst-case scenario, in six months’ time the (Rwandan Hutu) FDLR, (Congolese Tutsi) CNDP, and (Ugandan) Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) could all still be there, as well as the Rwandans and Ugandans,” he said.The Ugandan-led attack on the LRA rebels in the far northeast was supposed to last a month but is not over yet.Rebel leaders escaped an initial aerial bombardment, dispersed and have been accused of reprisal massacres.The cooperation with Rwanda is a radical shift from the past, when the two countries traded accusations that each was supporting the other’s rebels. It stems from diplomatic initiatives to end fighting last year between Congo’s army and the CNDP.Operations against the Rwandan Hutu FDLR are scheduled to last 10-15 days, but analysts warn this is unlikely to be long enough to hunt down the estimated 6,000 fighters.Some of the Hutu force took part in the 1994 slaughter of 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus in Rwanda and this has been used to justify numerous Tutsi-led military operations in Congo.The Congolese army’s own failures against armed groups in the east have forced Kabila to seek the help of the foreign armies, who have long criticised him for not tackling their rebels.“Rwandan troops arrive in Kivu – Kinshasa trapped,” read a Wednesday headline in Kinshasa daily Le Potentiel.By 2003, both Uganda and Rwanda had officially withdrawn their soldiers under intense international pressure, and relations with Kinshasa are improving, but many ordinary Congolese accuse their neighbours of continued meddling.“My reaction is first of all astonishment,” Vital Kamerhe, speaker of the national assembly and a leading member of Kabila’s political party, told UN-sponsored Radio Okapi.“We are wondering what our population, which is only now getting over past Rwandan aggression, feels about this.”Opposition politicians also slammed the two plans.“We denounce the policy of the government which allows neighbouring countries to come and resolve their political problems on Congolese soil,” said Thomas Luhaka, executive secretary of the opposition Movement for the Liberation of Congo.“We denounce the lack of transparency of our government. We want to know the content of this deal.”The lack of information has led to civilians, from Kinshasa in the west to Goma in the east and Dungu, near the remote Sudanese border, to question how long the armies will stay.“(Kabila) needs to say something so that he doesn’t look like he’s concealing the truth,” Stearns said.Civilians have borne the brunt of most of Congo’s violence, which has killed over five million people since 1998. Previous operations against the FDLR have resulted in massacres.The UN, which has in the past backed Congo’s army but has become increasingly critical of abuses and has been kept out of current plans, said over 3,000 Rwandans were in Congo.“If this operation is a sign of improved relations (between Congo and Rwanda) then it could be a good thing. But no one has the capacity to control reprisals and there are serious risks of negative fallout,” warned one Western diplomat.—Reuters
Devilish Threesome
By Cyril Almeida
NOW that the torch has been passed from the Decider to the Professor, get ready to grapple with some seriously complex logic emanating from the White House. Exhibit A: Obama’s Afghan policy.Ground zero for President Obama’s war against a “far-reaching network of violence and hatred” — a sophisticated, and more accurate, way of describing Bush’s ‘war on terror’ — is Afghanistan. But he’s not thinking in terms of ‘victory’, just a “hard-earned peace”.He means business, and is expected to back up his words with 30,000 more American soldiers in Afghanistan — to add to the 32,000 Americans and a similar number assembled by the international community already there.But Afghanistan will not be peaceful while militants are traipsing around in Fata and crossing the border into Afghanistan. Ergo, militant sanctuaries must be eliminated in Fata and cross-border infiltration curbed.Obama isn’t gun shy — notoriously, and steadfastly, he vowed throughout the campaign to go after “high-value terrorist targets” in Pakistan — but the Americans’ Fata strategy cannot be executed unilaterally without causing Pakistan’s cities and towns to erupt. It’s no good solving one problem by creating an even bigger one.Which means using Pakistani personnel in Fata. But those personnel ultimately get their marching orders from the Pakistan Army, which isn’t sold on the idea of turning its back on yesterday’s enemy, India, to turn on yesterday’s allies, the jihadi networks.So here’s what Obama’s got in mind: ease Pakistan’s, read the security establishment’s, read the Pakistan Army’s, worries about India and it will be more willing to focus on the militants. Obama’s message to Pakistan isn’t ‘India good, militants bad’ — it’s more ‘everyone can be a winner’. The clincher? Renewed American interest in Kashmir, which Obama’s nominee for UN ambassador, Susan Rice, lumped together with the Balkans, East Timor, Liberia, Cyprus and the Golan Heights as a threat to international peace and security.Here’s where it gets really complicated: India is allergic to any mention of outside interference in Kashmir since, well, Simla. Kennedy got involved in the 60s but both sides dug in their heels and the multiple rounds of talks were dead long before the last meeting was held.If American interference wasn’t welcome before, the Indians find Obama’s logic to do so now even more galling. One of the signature foreign policy successes of the Bush administration was to de-hyphenate its relations with India and Pakistan, i.e. deal with one country without being overly cautious about what the other would make of it. The Indo-US civilian nuclear deal epitomised de-hyphenation: the Bush administration made it clear that Pakistan should not expect anything similar, even though some have warned that the deal has sparked a nascent arms race with Pakistan turning to China as a counterweight.Obama talking about Kashmir has alarmed India that the new president wants to re-hyphenate America’s relations with South Asia’s sullen neighbours. Privately, the Indians are more than alarmed — they are downright furious. It isn’t hard to figure out why: in India’s eyes, Pakistan’s jihad policy in Kashmir is paying off. Dangling Kashmir as a carrot rather than using it as a stick to beat Pakistan upsets Indians because they believe it rewards us for being bad and a general menace to our neighbours.The collective blood pressure of India probably rose by ten points when Obama, in an interview with Time magazine, asked of India, “You guys are on the brink of being an economic superpower, why do you want to keep messing with this?” ‘This’ being Kashmir.But it wasn’t politic for an aspiring global power to tick off the presumptive leader of the current global power, so India bit her lip. Nevertheless, murmurs of unfairness and betrayal floated around in the media — and Kashmir stayed on the lips of the Obama camp.Eventually, however, the Indians found a proxy to savage and, in doing so, make clear their position on foreign involvement in Kashmir. Enter the hapless David Miliband, UK foreign secretary and now the first casualty of Obama’s Kashmir talk.Last week, Miliband penned an opinion piece for the Guardian and one sentence particularly riled the Indians: “Although I understand the current difficulties, resolution of the dispute over Kashmir would help deny extremists in the region one of their main calls to arms, and allow Pakistani authorities to focus more effectively on tackling the threat on their western borders.”While prudence dictates American presidents are treated with deference in India, UK foreign secretaries aren’t so lucky. (In 1997, Robin Cook’s comments on third-party mediation on Kashmir were the catalyst for an infamous withering attack by the Indian PM, I.K. Gujral, who denounced Britain as “a third-rate power nursing illusions of grandeur of its colonial past”.)Miliband’s trip to India was overshadowed by brutal condemnation in the media and by politicians, but, given what he said is very much in line with what Obama has said, he was just a whipping boy for the man the Indians dare not vent their spleen against publicly.Yet, Obama isn’t naive; he acknowledged in the Time interview that Kashmir is a “potential tar pit diplomatically”. Fact is, the Americans have some leverage with India.A report published by the Asia Society suggests the “US relationship with India will be among our most important in the future.” The report sets out ‘Vision 2012’ and advocates securing India’s leadership in multilateral institutions and expanding economic and security cooperation. In short, the US could offer India a seat at the highest table of them all — that of power exercised at the global level.As for Obama’s much-vaunted regional Afghan policy, the Asia Society’s Task Force cautions India to not view it as re-hyphenation; “rather, it is the way to perceive the dense background against which our military and reconstruction efforts unfold.”The Task Force, however, isn’t optimistic that India will relent on its Kashmir dogma. “The United States has been wise not to try to mediate” on a “point of extraordinary tension”, i.e. Kashmir. Instead, the Task Force suggests the Obama administration should encourage the resumption of the composite dialogue.“Realism need be our guide. India and Pakistan are deeply divided. It will not be possible to overcome suspicion and long-standing habits of competition and confrontation. We can only aspire to mitigate their negative effects.”All this in a report entitled ‘Delivering on the promise: Advancing US relations with India’.Obama’s Afghan policy isn’t a pipe dream. But powerful forces, both in America and India, will want to bury the Kashmir piece of his elaborate jigsaw. It will take the very shrewdest of Pakistani and American minds to prevent that from happening.cyril.a@gmail.com
NOW that the torch has been passed from the Decider to the Professor, get ready to grapple with some seriously complex logic emanating from the White House. Exhibit A: Obama’s Afghan policy.Ground zero for President Obama’s war against a “far-reaching network of violence and hatred” — a sophisticated, and more accurate, way of describing Bush’s ‘war on terror’ — is Afghanistan. But he’s not thinking in terms of ‘victory’, just a “hard-earned peace”.He means business, and is expected to back up his words with 30,000 more American soldiers in Afghanistan — to add to the 32,000 Americans and a similar number assembled by the international community already there.But Afghanistan will not be peaceful while militants are traipsing around in Fata and crossing the border into Afghanistan. Ergo, militant sanctuaries must be eliminated in Fata and cross-border infiltration curbed.Obama isn’t gun shy — notoriously, and steadfastly, he vowed throughout the campaign to go after “high-value terrorist targets” in Pakistan — but the Americans’ Fata strategy cannot be executed unilaterally without causing Pakistan’s cities and towns to erupt. It’s no good solving one problem by creating an even bigger one.Which means using Pakistani personnel in Fata. But those personnel ultimately get their marching orders from the Pakistan Army, which isn’t sold on the idea of turning its back on yesterday’s enemy, India, to turn on yesterday’s allies, the jihadi networks.So here’s what Obama’s got in mind: ease Pakistan’s, read the security establishment’s, read the Pakistan Army’s, worries about India and it will be more willing to focus on the militants. Obama’s message to Pakistan isn’t ‘India good, militants bad’ — it’s more ‘everyone can be a winner’. The clincher? Renewed American interest in Kashmir, which Obama’s nominee for UN ambassador, Susan Rice, lumped together with the Balkans, East Timor, Liberia, Cyprus and the Golan Heights as a threat to international peace and security.Here’s where it gets really complicated: India is allergic to any mention of outside interference in Kashmir since, well, Simla. Kennedy got involved in the 60s but both sides dug in their heels and the multiple rounds of talks were dead long before the last meeting was held.If American interference wasn’t welcome before, the Indians find Obama’s logic to do so now even more galling. One of the signature foreign policy successes of the Bush administration was to de-hyphenate its relations with India and Pakistan, i.e. deal with one country without being overly cautious about what the other would make of it. The Indo-US civilian nuclear deal epitomised de-hyphenation: the Bush administration made it clear that Pakistan should not expect anything similar, even though some have warned that the deal has sparked a nascent arms race with Pakistan turning to China as a counterweight.Obama talking about Kashmir has alarmed India that the new president wants to re-hyphenate America’s relations with South Asia’s sullen neighbours. Privately, the Indians are more than alarmed — they are downright furious. It isn’t hard to figure out why: in India’s eyes, Pakistan’s jihad policy in Kashmir is paying off. Dangling Kashmir as a carrot rather than using it as a stick to beat Pakistan upsets Indians because they believe it rewards us for being bad and a general menace to our neighbours.The collective blood pressure of India probably rose by ten points when Obama, in an interview with Time magazine, asked of India, “You guys are on the brink of being an economic superpower, why do you want to keep messing with this?” ‘This’ being Kashmir.But it wasn’t politic for an aspiring global power to tick off the presumptive leader of the current global power, so India bit her lip. Nevertheless, murmurs of unfairness and betrayal floated around in the media — and Kashmir stayed on the lips of the Obama camp.Eventually, however, the Indians found a proxy to savage and, in doing so, make clear their position on foreign involvement in Kashmir. Enter the hapless David Miliband, UK foreign secretary and now the first casualty of Obama’s Kashmir talk.Last week, Miliband penned an opinion piece for the Guardian and one sentence particularly riled the Indians: “Although I understand the current difficulties, resolution of the dispute over Kashmir would help deny extremists in the region one of their main calls to arms, and allow Pakistani authorities to focus more effectively on tackling the threat on their western borders.”While prudence dictates American presidents are treated with deference in India, UK foreign secretaries aren’t so lucky. (In 1997, Robin Cook’s comments on third-party mediation on Kashmir were the catalyst for an infamous withering attack by the Indian PM, I.K. Gujral, who denounced Britain as “a third-rate power nursing illusions of grandeur of its colonial past”.)Miliband’s trip to India was overshadowed by brutal condemnation in the media and by politicians, but, given what he said is very much in line with what Obama has said, he was just a whipping boy for the man the Indians dare not vent their spleen against publicly.Yet, Obama isn’t naive; he acknowledged in the Time interview that Kashmir is a “potential tar pit diplomatically”. Fact is, the Americans have some leverage with India.A report published by the Asia Society suggests the “US relationship with India will be among our most important in the future.” The report sets out ‘Vision 2012’ and advocates securing India’s leadership in multilateral institutions and expanding economic and security cooperation. In short, the US could offer India a seat at the highest table of them all — that of power exercised at the global level.As for Obama’s much-vaunted regional Afghan policy, the Asia Society’s Task Force cautions India to not view it as re-hyphenation; “rather, it is the way to perceive the dense background against which our military and reconstruction efforts unfold.”The Task Force, however, isn’t optimistic that India will relent on its Kashmir dogma. “The United States has been wise not to try to mediate” on a “point of extraordinary tension”, i.e. Kashmir. Instead, the Task Force suggests the Obama administration should encourage the resumption of the composite dialogue.“Realism need be our guide. India and Pakistan are deeply divided. It will not be possible to overcome suspicion and long-standing habits of competition and confrontation. We can only aspire to mitigate their negative effects.”All this in a report entitled ‘Delivering on the promise: Advancing US relations with India’.Obama’s Afghan policy isn’t a pipe dream. But powerful forces, both in America and India, will want to bury the Kashmir piece of his elaborate jigsaw. It will take the very shrewdest of Pakistani and American minds to prevent that from happening.cyril.a@gmail.com
Tension less, alienation more
A 47-YEAR-OLD woman, Amita Uddaiya, has disclosed that she was flown out from Mumbai to the US for questioning by ‘white men’.Two days later, she was flown back and was asked to say that she had gone to Satara, a place not very far from Mumbai. Amita had seen six terrorists arriving in the fishermen colony on the seaside. They were part of a group of 10 who attacked Mumbai.Surprisingly, no one from the media has followed up on the whisking away of Amita. Nor has the government come out with any explanations. Local police have rubbished her story. But she has stuck to it. Many questions remain unanswered — why did she go? Who forced her to undertake the journey? What did she tell her husband, who was in hospital, before she left? It is apparent that it was a hush-hush job which was in the knowledge of the powers that be. That America needed her was clear, probably to prepare the dossier on the perpetrators of the Mumbai carnage. Was there something more than what meets the eye?America’s Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is known for such covert operations. Taking away Amita is not beyond them. But why was she flown all the way to America? Probably, the FBI has its most sophisticated equipment to interrogate, record and what not. This establishes one thing that the FBI enjoys a carte blanche in India. I would not be surprised if the agency has its network in the country; some with New Delhi’s consent but mostly without it. Not long ago, the agency sought permission to open its office in India. I do not know whether Amita’s is an isolated case but it is the only one that has come to light. There may have been more. The question is not that of numbers, but that of sovereignty. Has America extended similar facilities to India? This is not related to the extradition treaty. This is related to the extra-constitutional authority which America has come to wield throughout the world. I hope President Barack Obama, known for clean methods, puts an end to FBI’s mechanisations. In his inaugural speech, he said: “Our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please.”In the past, whenever I read about Pakistan handing over its nationals to America — the number so far is nearly 500 — I explained to myself that a beleaguered country, financially and democratically weak, was unable to resist the pressure. How could India with its traditions of defiance and dissent act like a hapless state? Was the necessity of building diplomatic pressure on Pakistan so much that we had to surrender the independence of institutions? If this is the price we had to pay to get Washington on our side, it is much too much.If we, claiming to lead the non-aligned movement, begin to behave like a supplicant nation, small and weak countries would have no reprieve from big powers. It looks as if we are being sucked into the American orbit of influence, without even realising it. The India-US nuclear treaty was responsible for it. The world even saw us voting against the age-old friend Iran at a crucial meeting concerning the International Atomic Energy Agency. We have lowered our tariffs to enable subsidised goods from the West to compete with our indigenous products. Thousands of small entrepreneurs have gone out of business and many shops have shutdown.Permission given to foreign newspapers to print their facsimile edition from India, with 100 per cent equity may not disturb our press. But it indicates a change in policy. Former prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru did not allow The New York Times to have its facsimile edition from India in the fifties. Such things were considered a blemish on India’s independent identity and avoided.While framing Indian foreign policy, Nehru wrote to Krishna Menon, then India’s high commissioner to the UK: “how naïve the Americans are in their policy. It is only their money and their power that carries them through, not their intelligence or any other quality.” When the new US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says that America wants to strengthen political and economic ties with India, she should realise that we are looking for friends, not masters.Whether or not it was Washington’s pressure, Islamabad has changed its stance in the last few days. The dossier which was ‘mere information’ has become ‘useful and good.’ Pakistan could have done the same thing without bringing Richard Boucher into the picture. Now he looks like the whistle-blower. America has become a court of appeal for both India and Pakistan. Had Islamabad addressed New Delhi’s fears earlier, its loss of faith in Pakistan would not have been so much as it is today. No doubt, tension has lessened but the feeling of alienation has increased. In Mumbai the fallout has been irrational. Pakistani artists, staging their plays to packed houses, were forcibly ousted from the city. Fortunately, these artists also saw how the common man reacted. People came up to them to say that they were sorry for what the Shiv Senaiks had done. Happily, the story was different in New Delhi where another Pakistani troupe received deafening applause. Again, Mumbai witnessed some policemen visiting bookshops to tell owners to remove works of Pakistani authors from their shelves. No explanation was available from the government. Did it order such a search or did the policemen, contaminated as some of them are, do so on their own?The cultural vandalism is, however, an indication of the mood of the people. There have been very few voices of condemnation. We say that music knows no borders or that terrorism has no religion. But when prejudice takes over, such observations mean little. The Mumbai attack has drastically cut the number of liberals in India and exposed peacemakers. Some human rights activists on both sides are trying to repair the relationship. I hope they succeed.How to pick up the thread from the Mumbai carnage is the question. Now that Asif Ali Zardari’s government has assured India that it would bring perpetrators to book, the confidence will start building. But the probe should be authentic and transparent. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has said that India wants the whole thing to be out; from the beginning to the end. If done, this may falsify the impression in India that Pakistan always gets away with whatever it does.If Islamabad is once again seen indulging in window dressing, the distrust will deepen. Even if there is no conflict, there will be no peace. Even if there is no hostility, there will be no harmony. Such a situation is neither conducive for India nor Pakistan.
By Kuldip Nayar
The writer is a leading journalist based in Delhi.
By Kuldip Nayar
The writer is a leading journalist based in Delhi.
Democracy in Muslim world
Is Islam antithetical to democracy and vice versa is a question that seems to have generated a lot of debate inside and outside the Muslim world.On this issue opinions are clearly divided between some of the western scholars and media gurus and their counterparts in the Muslim world. In fact, the entire debate has become so confusing that it has blurred reality.American neo-conservatives such as Daniel Pipes, for instance, argue that Islam and democracy do not fit in together. Such a notion is based on the empirical evidence that most Muslim countries have monarchies or some kind of authoritarian rule. In fact a set of scholars — Bernard Lewis, Daniel Pipes, Martin Indyk and Samuel Huntington — has been categorised as essentialists. These scholars argue that Islam offers a set of symbols and slogans, which is meant to muster support within the community, but then is also the cause of problems that the Muslim world is then accused of.In other words, the lack of democracy or hostility towards the West is part of Islam’s value system. This argument is countered by what Michael Salla classifies in his Third World Quarterly article as the ‘contingencists’; such as John Espisito, who argue that it is not fair to bracket all Muslim countries in an ‘Islamic world’.Obviously, numerous scholars from the Muslim world go into an overdrive arguing the opposite. Their argument is that majority of citizens of the Islamic world are actually as fond of democracy as anyone else in the Muslim world. Such a statement is at best reactive, which does not appreciate the evolution of the concept of governance in Islamic history.The other day, I had a chance to watch a debate on one of the Pakistani channels organised by the Pakistan Institute for Legislative Development and Training (Pildat). The four speakers seemed to say different things but were making a similar point — democracy as a principle is acceptable in the Muslim world.Unfortunately, the debate went on for an hour without really defining democracy which is not just about holding elections or a matter of one-man-one-vote, but it is about a political system where both the majority and minority have sufficient space to negotiate their interests. The electoral process, like accountability and the rule of law, is a component of the democratic philosophy or process. Elections, in fact, are one of the essential tools of such a system and nothing more.One of the speakers in the programme tried his best to argue that Muslims all over the world were keen on democracy and that there was no difference between the West and the East in its peculiar conceptualising of the concept. Such an argument is indeed false. It is true that Muslims like their views to be reflected in policies. But what is also a fact is that the conceptualising of liberal democracy, which is based on the notion of constitutional government, majority rule, freedom of key institutions such as media and a free market economy, and a multiparty system, are part of a tradition that can at best be associated with the historical experience of the West.Liberal democracy grew in the West as a result of certain historical experiences which allowed a set of countries to arrive on carving a social contract between the state and society that depended on the primacy of the individual in the socio-political system and de-linking of religion from politics.Islamic political philosophy cannot claim such an historical experience. The social contract between the citizen and the state in the Muslim world is still undergoing an evolutionary process. A glance at the Islamic political philosophy shows that most political scientists have encouraged an acceptance of authoritarian rule to avoid societal crisis and conflict. It was not until the 20th century philosophers such as Syed Qutb and Ali Shariati began to talk about affirmative action against authoritarian regimes and systems that we hear anything about challenging the monarch. Of course, both scholars are distinct due to their philosophies.Muslim philosophers such as Ghazali or those before him advocated an acceptance of authoritarian leadership for avoiding chaos in the state and society. This argument is understandable considering the chaos in the early years of Islamic history, especially the period of the four Caliphs. This is not to argue that Muslim political philosophy supports authoritarian rule, hence, Islam is antithetical to democratic principles. But what is a fact is that the evolution of the concept of governance has followed a different trajectory. In fact, the concept is still evolving. The fact of the matter is that people in the Muslim world want good governance which includes accountability and rule of law. In fact, the growing significance of militant force in different Muslim countries or the focus of political Islam in the eyes of the common Muslim is driven by his/her desire for justice, equitable distribution of resources and better opportunities for upward mobility.Another important fact is that most of the Muslim world is still recovering from the historical experience of colonisation which is the main cause for authoritarian rule in these countries. Thus, what the common people protest against is not necessarily western civilisation but the nexus between the West and their authoritarian elite which is the source of the overall dictatorial environment. Since the existing elite is an agent of the old colonial system, people tend to support equally authoritarian militant structures which should not be construed as a fondness for dictatorial systems.This is one dimension. The other is that a social contract carved on modern lines to fit the needs of the present times is missing mainly due to the scant debate on organising governance structures. The temptation of many to refer to the historical experience of 1400 years ago is driven by the desire for justice and fair play in state-society relations. So, while it is true that Muslims are no different from the rest of the world in their desire for good governance, improved political structures, which might resemble the democracy of the western world, are missing precisely because of the absence of a structured discourse on a new social contract.The caliphate, which circulated around the leader of the Muslim ummah’s accountability towards the people via the tribal system, was workable in a city-state kind of a structure. However, it might not be possible today to have a small shura or a group of elders deliver governance. Hence, a new social contract is required for which a dialogue within the Islamic world, especially amongst the philosophers, is a dire need of the present times.The writer is an independent strategic and political analyst. By Ayesha Siddiqa
Courtesy: Daily Dawn Lahore
Courtesy: Daily Dawn Lahore
Obama’s world
By the time you read this, Barack Obama will have been sworn in as the 44th president of the United States. Although his swearing came as the result of an amazing exercise in democracy, his inauguration was as full of pomp and ceremony as any royal coronation. However, the American president wields more power than any king.
Although Obama has come to office after a gruelling campaign, he will discover that the hard part starts now. His in-tray is as full as that of any modern president; thousands of leading writers, columnists and assorted pundits around the world have shot off their memos to the president-elect; and domestic and world events have already dictated a massive agenda. But as Obama is about to discover, the powers of the president are severely circumscribed.
The reality of the presidency is a far cry from the absolute power many outside the United States assume it to embody. The checks and balances written into the constitution prevent the executive from assuming authority over the legislature or the judiciary. The media, too, plays a strong role in keeping the president under constant scrutiny, and citizens’ groups, lobbies and elected state officials all combine to provide a deterrent to a president who tries to accumulate absolute power.
However, there is a bigger consideration than these legal and institutional checks and balances: ambition. As soon as a president is sworn for his first term, his gaze shifts to the next one. Although the formal electoral campaign is a couple of years away, the new incumbent is already calculating his chances, and begins doing whatever he can to ensure another four years in the White House. This electoral calculus further limits the president’s freedom of action. So if he or she wishes to follow a controversial new policy, it is likely to happen at the start of the second, and last, term. Free from the pressure of vested interests, as well as from political ambition, the president can truly make a difference if he or she chooses to.
It is important to understand these constraints as we draw up our own wish lists for President Obama. In a local newspaper, I recently came across an article titled ‘What the Obama presidency means for Sri Lanka’. I am sure this article has appeared in various forms in different countries across the world. The US casts such a long shadow that it’s quite legitimate to ask at the start of a new administration: what’s in it for us?
Over the last year, much has been made of Obama’s Muslim heritage. Many American voters have been put off, while huge numbers of foreigners have been intrigued by what this might mean, especially in his interaction with the Muslim world. Whatever the future might bring, one thing is for sure: Obama’s knowledge and insight will prevent rulers in the Islamic world from any notion of exploiting political correctness while dealing with him. During the Israeli assault on Gaza, the Secretary-General of the Arab League said on TV that it was Israel’s continuing occupation of the West Bank and Gaza that was preventing democratic reforms in the Arab world. Considering there is not a single full-fledged democracy in this moribund organization with the exception of Lebanon, this remark was clearly self-serving nonsense. We can rest assured that Obama will see through it, and ignore such rhetoric.
The reality is that the ongoing economic and banking crises in the United States will demand most of Obama’s time and political capital. Beyond setting broad outlines, he is unlikely to devote much time to problems in the Middle East, or the Pakistan-Afghan border. And given what we know about the new Secretary of State, she will not bring any new thinking to global issues. Hillary Clinton may be intelligent and hard working, but she is not known for lateral thinking.
Another item on Obama’s agenda is sure to be the environment. Here he will have to balance his campaign pledges with the requirements of an ailing economy. But what was urgent when oil was touching $150 per barrel might not be as pressing now, when its price is hovering around $40. Nevertheless, Obama’s ambitious energy plans dovetail neatly with the need to create new jobs. So we may well see the start of the movement away from our dependence on oil, with all its implications for the environment, as well as for OPEC. Considering that there is a broad consensus on the need to reduce carbon emissions, the political climate is right to face down the oil lobby.
Closer to home, it is likely that there will be a major re-think of Washington’s relationship with Islamabad. Richard Holbrooke, the recently-named special envoy to the region, is an energetic, well-informed diplomat who will have the ear of both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. It is likely that the United States will press for greater regional cooperation to tackle the menace of the Taliban and assorted extremists. In any case, Obama is sure to place far greater emphasis on education and other social sector programmes in Pakistan and Afghanistan than Bush did.
The reality of Obama’s presidency is that so far, his appointments have been very cautious and conservative, and totally out of step with his promise of change. Reaching into the pool of Clinton-era diplomats, bankers and politicians, he has filled his cabinet with safe names. This might ensure continuity, but it does not translate into the kind of transformation so many of his supporters voted for.
The best news is that Obama is not Bush. While his predecessor was able to bulldoze through policies and legislation on the back of the fear he and his neo-cons whipped up in the wake of 9/11, Obama is likely to behave in a far more restrained and collegial manner. He will work to rebuild alliances and partnerships damaged during the Bush presidency, and proceed abroad with less arrogance and contempt for international organizations like the UN.
So all in all, while we may not get the magically transformed world so many had dreamed of during Obama’s campaign, we will hopefully get a more civilised world where one country does not ride rough-shod over others. Above all, we will get a United States where miracles are possible.
Although Obama has come to office after a gruelling campaign, he will discover that the hard part starts now. His in-tray is as full as that of any modern president; thousands of leading writers, columnists and assorted pundits around the world have shot off their memos to the president-elect; and domestic and world events have already dictated a massive agenda. But as Obama is about to discover, the powers of the president are severely circumscribed.
The reality of the presidency is a far cry from the absolute power many outside the United States assume it to embody. The checks and balances written into the constitution prevent the executive from assuming authority over the legislature or the judiciary. The media, too, plays a strong role in keeping the president under constant scrutiny, and citizens’ groups, lobbies and elected state officials all combine to provide a deterrent to a president who tries to accumulate absolute power.
However, there is a bigger consideration than these legal and institutional checks and balances: ambition. As soon as a president is sworn for his first term, his gaze shifts to the next one. Although the formal electoral campaign is a couple of years away, the new incumbent is already calculating his chances, and begins doing whatever he can to ensure another four years in the White House. This electoral calculus further limits the president’s freedom of action. So if he or she wishes to follow a controversial new policy, it is likely to happen at the start of the second, and last, term. Free from the pressure of vested interests, as well as from political ambition, the president can truly make a difference if he or she chooses to.
It is important to understand these constraints as we draw up our own wish lists for President Obama. In a local newspaper, I recently came across an article titled ‘What the Obama presidency means for Sri Lanka’. I am sure this article has appeared in various forms in different countries across the world. The US casts such a long shadow that it’s quite legitimate to ask at the start of a new administration: what’s in it for us?
Over the last year, much has been made of Obama’s Muslim heritage. Many American voters have been put off, while huge numbers of foreigners have been intrigued by what this might mean, especially in his interaction with the Muslim world. Whatever the future might bring, one thing is for sure: Obama’s knowledge and insight will prevent rulers in the Islamic world from any notion of exploiting political correctness while dealing with him. During the Israeli assault on Gaza, the Secretary-General of the Arab League said on TV that it was Israel’s continuing occupation of the West Bank and Gaza that was preventing democratic reforms in the Arab world. Considering there is not a single full-fledged democracy in this moribund organization with the exception of Lebanon, this remark was clearly self-serving nonsense. We can rest assured that Obama will see through it, and ignore such rhetoric.
The reality is that the ongoing economic and banking crises in the United States will demand most of Obama’s time and political capital. Beyond setting broad outlines, he is unlikely to devote much time to problems in the Middle East, or the Pakistan-Afghan border. And given what we know about the new Secretary of State, she will not bring any new thinking to global issues. Hillary Clinton may be intelligent and hard working, but she is not known for lateral thinking.
Another item on Obama’s agenda is sure to be the environment. Here he will have to balance his campaign pledges with the requirements of an ailing economy. But what was urgent when oil was touching $150 per barrel might not be as pressing now, when its price is hovering around $40. Nevertheless, Obama’s ambitious energy plans dovetail neatly with the need to create new jobs. So we may well see the start of the movement away from our dependence on oil, with all its implications for the environment, as well as for OPEC. Considering that there is a broad consensus on the need to reduce carbon emissions, the political climate is right to face down the oil lobby.
Closer to home, it is likely that there will be a major re-think of Washington’s relationship with Islamabad. Richard Holbrooke, the recently-named special envoy to the region, is an energetic, well-informed diplomat who will have the ear of both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. It is likely that the United States will press for greater regional cooperation to tackle the menace of the Taliban and assorted extremists. In any case, Obama is sure to place far greater emphasis on education and other social sector programmes in Pakistan and Afghanistan than Bush did.
The reality of Obama’s presidency is that so far, his appointments have been very cautious and conservative, and totally out of step with his promise of change. Reaching into the pool of Clinton-era diplomats, bankers and politicians, he has filled his cabinet with safe names. This might ensure continuity, but it does not translate into the kind of transformation so many of his supporters voted for.
The best news is that Obama is not Bush. While his predecessor was able to bulldoze through policies and legislation on the back of the fear he and his neo-cons whipped up in the wake of 9/11, Obama is likely to behave in a far more restrained and collegial manner. He will work to rebuild alliances and partnerships damaged during the Bush presidency, and proceed abroad with less arrogance and contempt for international organizations like the UN.
So all in all, while we may not get the magically transformed world so many had dreamed of during Obama’s campaign, we will hopefully get a more civilised world where one country does not ride rough-shod over others. Above all, we will get a United States where miracles are possible.
Pak-Afghan region requires wider strategy: Obama
WASHINGTON: US President Barack Obama on Thursday said extremists in Pakistan and Afghanistan posed a grave threat that his new administration would tackle as a single problem under a wider strategy.
In announcing a special envoy to the region, Obama said the situation was 'deteriorating' and that the war in Afghanistan could not be separated from the volatile border area with Pakistan, where Al-Qaeda and Taliban elements have regrouped.
'This is the central front in our enduring struggle against terrorism and extremism. There, as in the Middle East, we must understand that we cannot deal with our problems in isolation,' Obama told employees of the State Department.
Obama, saying US strategy would be carefully reviewed, announced the appointment of seasoned diplomat Richard Holbrooke as a special representative to Pakistan and Afghanistan — where the Taliban have come back from their ouster by US-led forces in 2001 to wage a bloody insurgency.
'There is no answer in Afghanistan that does not confront the Al-Qaeda and Taliban bases along the border, and there will be no lasting peace unless we expand spheres of opportunity for the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan,' Obama said.
'This is truly an international challenge of the highest order.'
As a candidate, Obama accused his predecessor of taking his 'eye off the ball' by invading Iraq. He has vowed to send more combat troops to Afghanistan and reiterated Thursday he would place a higher priority on the region.
Obama said Holbrooke 'will help lead our effort to forge and implement a strategic and sustainable approach to this critical region.'
'My administration is committed to refocusing attention and resources on Afghanistan and Pakistan and to spending those resources wisely.'
But the new president gave a stark assessment of the conditions in Afghanistan and its border with Pakistan, warning 'that the American people and the international community must understand that the situation is perilous and progress will take time.'
He said violence was up sharply in Afghanistan and that 'Al-Qaeda and the Taliban strike from bases embedded in rugged tribal terrain along the Pakistani border.'
'And while we have yet to see another attack on our soil since 9/11, Al-Qaeda terrorists remain at large and remain plotting.'
US intelligence agencies suspect Osama bin Laden and other Al-Qaeda figures are operating out of the mountainous border region of Pakistan near Afghanistan.
Holbrooke, best known for forging a peace agreement in 1995 that ended bloodshed in Bosnia, said that Afghanistan and Pakistan were two 'distinct' countries entwined by history and ethnic ties.
'This is a very difficult assignment as we all know,' said Holbrooke, once dubbed the 'Bulldozer' for his no-holds-barred negotiating style in the Balkans.
Obama said that the US diplomatic effort would include working with NATO allies and other states in the region, which could include central Asian countries and India.
In announcing a special envoy to the region, Obama said the situation was 'deteriorating' and that the war in Afghanistan could not be separated from the volatile border area with Pakistan, where Al-Qaeda and Taliban elements have regrouped.
'This is the central front in our enduring struggle against terrorism and extremism. There, as in the Middle East, we must understand that we cannot deal with our problems in isolation,' Obama told employees of the State Department.
Obama, saying US strategy would be carefully reviewed, announced the appointment of seasoned diplomat Richard Holbrooke as a special representative to Pakistan and Afghanistan — where the Taliban have come back from their ouster by US-led forces in 2001 to wage a bloody insurgency.
'There is no answer in Afghanistan that does not confront the Al-Qaeda and Taliban bases along the border, and there will be no lasting peace unless we expand spheres of opportunity for the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan,' Obama said.
'This is truly an international challenge of the highest order.'
As a candidate, Obama accused his predecessor of taking his 'eye off the ball' by invading Iraq. He has vowed to send more combat troops to Afghanistan and reiterated Thursday he would place a higher priority on the region.
Obama said Holbrooke 'will help lead our effort to forge and implement a strategic and sustainable approach to this critical region.'
'My administration is committed to refocusing attention and resources on Afghanistan and Pakistan and to spending those resources wisely.'
But the new president gave a stark assessment of the conditions in Afghanistan and its border with Pakistan, warning 'that the American people and the international community must understand that the situation is perilous and progress will take time.'
He said violence was up sharply in Afghanistan and that 'Al-Qaeda and the Taliban strike from bases embedded in rugged tribal terrain along the Pakistani border.'
'And while we have yet to see another attack on our soil since 9/11, Al-Qaeda terrorists remain at large and remain plotting.'
US intelligence agencies suspect Osama bin Laden and other Al-Qaeda figures are operating out of the mountainous border region of Pakistan near Afghanistan.
Holbrooke, best known for forging a peace agreement in 1995 that ended bloodshed in Bosnia, said that Afghanistan and Pakistan were two 'distinct' countries entwined by history and ethnic ties.
'This is a very difficult assignment as we all know,' said Holbrooke, once dubbed the 'Bulldozer' for his no-holds-barred negotiating style in the Balkans.
Obama said that the US diplomatic effort would include working with NATO allies and other states in the region, which could include central Asian countries and India.
Obama to review Afghan situation
WASHINGTON, Jan 22: US President Barack Obama has promised to soon undertake a full review of the situation in Afghanistan so as to develop a ‘comprehensive’ policy for the entire region.In a meeting with his national security team on Wednesday, Mr Obama also took the first steps towards withdrawing US troops from Iraq, telling his generals to prepare for a responsible “military drawdown” from the country.In a statement after the meeting, Mr Obama said: “In the coming days and weeks, I will also visit the Department of Defence to consult with the Joint Chiefs on these issues, and we will undertake a full review of the situation in Afghanistan in order to develop a comprehensive policy for the entire region.”He said: “I asked the military leadership to engage in additional planning necessary to execute a responsible military drawdown from Iraq.”Gen David Petraeus, the commander of US forces in the Middle East and Afghanistan, also attended the White House meeting. The general had not attended such briefings since the Nov 4 election.Ryan Crocker, the US Ambassador to Iraq, and Gen Raymond Odierno, the top military officer in Iraq, joined via video conference.As a candidate for president, Mr Obama pledged to withdraw US combat troops from Iraq over a 16-month period.A statement by Mr Obama issued by the White House after Wednesday’s meeting, however, made no mention of a timeframe.“The meeting was productive and I very much appreciated receiving assessments from these experienced and dedicated individuals,” Mr Obama said in his statement.
Obama orders closure of Guantanamo
WASHINGTON, Jan 22: President Barack Obama signed executive orders on Thursday to close the Guantanamo Bay detention centre and directed the Central Intelligence Agency to shut its network of secret prisons.The orders rewrite rules for the detention of terrorism suspects, and require all US personnel to follow the US Army Field Manual while interrogating detainees.The orders also require an immediate review of the 245 detainees still held at the naval base in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, to determine if they should be transferred, released or prosecuted.This is his third move in two days, all aimed at reversing the unpopular policies of his predecessor George W. Bush.On Tuesday, only hours after his inauguration, President Obama had ordered a freeze on new or proposed regulations at all government agencies and departments.On Wednesday, US military judges, acting on Mr Obama’s directive, suspended trials for terrorist suspects at Guantanamo for 120 days pending a review of the military tribunals.On Thursday, Mr Obama acted again and began to dismantle Mr Bush’s strategy for dealing with terror suspects in US custody. The moves show that the new president is wasting no time in reversing his predecessor’s legacy.With three executive orders and a presidential directive signed in the Oval Office, Mr Obama also started reshaping how the United States prosecutes and questions Al Qaeda, Taliban and other terror suspects.The centrepiece order would close the much-maligned US prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, within a year.Another order ends a CIA programme that kept terrorism suspects in secret custody for months or years, a practice that has brought fierce criticism from foreign governments and human rights activists.The order also prohibits the CIA from using coercive interrogation methods, requiring the agency to follow the same rules used by the military in interrogating terrorism suspects.The manual explicitly prohibits threats, coercion, physical abuse and ‘waterboarding’, a technique that creates the sensation of drowning and has been termed a form of torture by critics. The technique has been used on prisoners at Guantanamo.Mr Obama also created a task force that would have 30 days to recommend policies on handling terror suspects to be detained in the future. Specifically, the group would look at where those detainees should be housed since Guantanamo is closing.He directed the Justice Department to review the case of Qatar native Ali Al-Marri, the only enemy combatant currently held on US soil. The review will look at whether Al-Marri has the right to sue the government for his freedom, a right the Supreme Court already has given to Guantanamo detainees.The directive will ask the high court for a stay in Al-Marri’s appeals case while the review is ongoing. The government says Al-Marri is an Al Qaeda sleeper agent.An estimated 245 men are being held at the US naval base in Cuba, most of them detained for years without charge.The orders issued on Thursday, however, leave unresolved complex questions. They do not explain whether, where and how many of the Guantanamo detainees are to be prosecuted.They also allow Mr Obama to reinstate the CIA’s detention and interrogation operations in the future, if major suspects like Osama bin Laden or his top lieutenants are captured.Congressional aides, briefed by administration officials, said the White House is considering another proposal to add more aggressive interrogation techniques to the US Army Field Manual. By Anwar Iqbal
Thursday, January 22, 2009
On to the rubbish heap you go
SURPRISE, surprise, who else do we talk about but George Walker Bush, the Forty-Third President of the United States of America, God be praised.The finest cartoonist in the whole wide world, the Guardian’s Steve Bell, got him just right: as a chimpanzee with an over-deployed muzzle, mouth always open; too-pointy ears and eyes much too close together. And, of course, the stupidest look ever on his face.One of his funniest was the cartoon in which he shows an aircraft carrier as part of an American navy battle group with three war planes flying overhead heading towards the Iranian coast. The aircraft and the carrier all had that same chimp (read Dubya) look, including the eyes and the ears. I laughed until I cried.But what wasn’t funny is the tears that Dubya brought to the world, as he did to his own country, as he went bumbling and stumbling about in his own, and setting the rest of the world alight with the fires of hate and malice, and cruelty and heartlessness of a very special kind. With a grade of idiocy, of course, that bordered on insanity. And the lies; all the lies told not only by himself, but by his handlers and keepers too, as they hurtled towards the ignominy that is theirs today.Just look at the shameless arrogance and extreme stupidity of the man when he said a day after Hurricane Katrina, that devastated New Orleans: “We’ve got a lot of rebuilding to do ... The good news is — and it’s hard for some to see it now — that out of this chaos is going to come a fantastic Gulf Coast, like it was before. Out of the rubbles of Trent Lott’s house — he’s lost his entire house — there’s going to be a fantastic house. And I’m looking forward to sitting on the porch, heehaw.” That was President Bush, touring hurricane damage in Mobile, Alabama on Sept 2, 2005. It is another matter of course that New Orleans is, even three years and more after Katrina, not half the place it used to be.Just look at the shameless way in which Valerie Plame, a CIA employee and wife of former ambassador and good man, Joseph Wilson, was “outed” by Dick ‘The Sneer’ Cheney’s people just because Ambassador Wilson blew holes in the administration’s story that Iraq had bought uranium yellowcake from Niger for its weapons of mass destruction programme.The way the so-called ‘patriotic’ Bushies threw caution to the winds even when it came to their own CIA reminded one (and reminds one to this day!) of the shenanigans of our own establishment which too has painted people not aligned to itself in colours of its own choosing. All the time, please note, doing as it pleases, even at the cost of the country. They are true brother and sister, one as bad as the other.More and more people in America — the world had already made up its mind years ago — think Dubya was the worst US president ever. I quote a 2006 Siena College poll of 744 professors that reported the following results: “George W. Bush has just finished five years as president. If today were the last day of his presidency, how would you rank him? The responses were: Great: two per cent; Near Great: five per cent; Average: 11 per cent; Below Average: 24 per cent; Failure: 58 per cent.” Afghanistan was not yet completely out of control and the economic collapse was three years away!!But whenever we rail against Dubya we must also take to account those who acquiesced in his and his administration’s crimes against humanity: the Arab sheikhlets and our own commando leading. What makes the situation even more painful is that many of his collaborators are now crawling out of the woodwork in opposition to him and his handiwork.This is what ýKhalifa ibn Salman Al Khalifah, the prime minister of Bahrain, has to say now: that the US war on terror has destabilised the region with the war on terror advocated by the White House bolstering violence and terrorism in Afghanistan and Iraq.In his own words: “The objective (of the war on terror) was to reinstate security and stability in Afghanistan and Iraq and purge terrorism. The current situation, however, runs counter to that goal.”He is not alone. The former head of Britain’s domestic intelligence agency, Dame Stella Rimington, said on Saturday that the response to the Sept 11, 2001 attacks had been a “huge overreaction”.She is not alone either. David Miliband, the British foreign secretary, has weighed in too, in the words of The (London) Times: “The foreign secretary attacked the legacy of George Bush yesterday, branding the outgoing President’s War on Terror a ‘misleading and mistaken’ doctrine that had united extremists against the West.“Speaking in Mumbai, David Miliband said that the idea of a war on terror gave a false notion ‘of a unified, transnational enemy, embodied in the figure of Osama bin Laden and the organisation of Al Qaeda’. He suggested that the phrase had ‘inadvertently sustained Al Qaeda’s propaganda’ and risked magnifying the threats faced. ‘The more we lump terrorist groups together, the more we play into the hands of those seeking to unify groups with little in common,’ he added.”Somebody correct me if I am wrong but isn’t Bahrain the headquarters of the US’s Fifth Fleet? Again, wasn’t Master Miliband an important member of Tony Blair’s cabal at the time that he was ‘poodling’ to Dubya? So why didn’t the two speak up before America wrought what it did? A lot of good their saying what they are saying now will do anyone, particularly countries such as ours that have been enveloped in the flames of hate as a direct result of Dubya’s foolish policies.You are reading this on the very day that Barack Obama takes oath as the 44th president of the United States of America. People tell me nothing will change; that Obama will be ensnared by the American establishment into continuing with Dubya’s disastrous policies if only because America cannot be seen to fail so quickly. They say America will not change, for it is an imperial power.My answer to these sceptics is that America has already changed. What greater change could there be in America the Beautiful than a black man getting elected to the presidency? My answer to the sceptics is that Obama at the very least has a brain in his head, and a smart one at that. At least he knows where on the world map lies the country of Afghanistan, and who the president of Pakistan is. He at least knows that Indonesia and Malaysia are countries.While there will always be an American Enterprise, Obama will at least bring some sense to it. More than anything else, I am a great believer in faces: I like his, for it is a kind face, and a thoughtful one. I am hopeful that he will make the world a better place.May God guide you, Mr President, to always do the right thing. And on to the rubbish heap of history with you, Master Dubya.kshafi1@yahoo.co.uk
By Kamran Shafi
By Kamran Shafi
Memo to Barack Obama: don’t stop now
DEAR Mr President,Welcome to the centre of the world stage. You have, over the past couple of years, made it more than clear that you can talk the talk: your oratorical skills have been demonstrated time and again, offering the starkest possible contrast with the inarticulateness of your predecessor.The time has now come to walk the walk. There have been indications that you intend to hit the ground the running. So much the better, given the extent of the terrain you need to cover.You couldn’t possibly be unaware, of course, of all the hopes invested in you. During the transition, your popularity among your compatriots exceeded that of any previous president-elect. To a certain extent, this is a reflection of exceptionally troubled times, as well as of the contempt inspired by the inadequate man who has occupied the presidential perch for the past eight years.I know you would be disinclined to diss George W in public. Your civility throughout the campaign was noteworthy, and it was vindicated by your triumph. One must hope, though, that you fully understand exactly where and how the Bush administration erred, otherwise it will be impossible to repair the damage.Nor should the magnitude of the Bush administration’s follies or the extent of its criminality blind anyone to what has gone wrong over a much longer period of time. For instance, growing disparities of wealth and the crisis in healthcare are trends that have been exacerbated in the past eight years, but they have existed for considerably longer, and one of the reasons why your recruitment of so many Clinton administration veterans as aides has caused a certain amount of consternation is that in the eight years that followed the deplorable Reagan-Bush era, precious little was done to banish most of the ills associated with Ronnie the Unreasonable and George the Elder.You are coming to your job equipped with a huge stimulus package, although some constructive critics have pointed out that it may not be large enough to make an appreciable difference. Most Americans are willing to be patient. They don’t expect you to be carrying a magic wand. As Hendrik Hertzberg pointed out in The New Yorker last week, what they “anticipate is not miracles but competence” — a quality that has lately been conspicuous by its absence from American governance. They will be hoping for far more than corporate bailouts.It would be futile to expect significant structural changes: the capitalist context, with the profit motive as its driving force, is not about to be transcended, and it is unlikely that the next crisis can be pre-empted by overcoming the present one. But that doesn’t mean there is no room for manoeuvre. I think you realise that it is both absurd and unconscionable for the world’s richest country not to offer each and every one of its citizens access to a high level of education and healthcare. And they should be offered free to those who cannot afford them. Free enterprise is all very well, but some things are too important to be left to the market.Nor are egalitarian instincts a prerequisite for recognising that there’s something unutterably obscene about billionaires coexisting with homelessness in “one nation under God”.You displayed some redistributive tendencies during the campaign — to the consternation of John McCain and Joe the Plumber — but it’ll be a pleasant surprise if you go beyond a spot of tinkering at the margins.Certain other things are more easily done. The proposed closure of Guantanamo Bay is most welcome, but it must be hoped that all the civil liberties stripped away in the name of preserving freedom and the American way of life will be restored without delay. Such measures would, of course, constitute only a small step towards addressing the issue of America’s international image, a problem that in its present form stretches back to the Truman presidency, although it was undoubtedly aggravated during the Bush years.But then, American voters have already taken a giant leap in this respect: by electing you president, they have unleashed a veritable tidal wave of international goodwill. And it is only in the run-up to your inauguration that your domestic approval ratings matched the global figures.The hopes and aspirations of billions of non-Americans add to the burden of expectations, but they also offer you a platform for making a difference. Perhaps the most important thing you can do in this respect is to live up to your promise of ending the mentality that leads to war: an idea that has grabbed your imagination since your college days. I’m not sure how that can be achieved without dismantling the military-industrial complex that Dwight Eisenhower presciently warned against, but do your best. Even limited success would be a great service to civilisation.Your consistent opposition to the stupid war in Iraq lent credibility to your candidacy. There isn’t a great deal of opposition to your stated determination to win the war in Afghanistan (and, if necessary, Pakistan). You need to think again. Where exactly is the US-Nato military presence leading that region? What makes the Taliban hydra-headed? Since 1945, has American military intervention anywhere in the world produced palatable consequences? The noble American whose birthday was marked on Monday described his nation, in 1967, as the greatest purveyor of violence in the world. What’s changed since then? An African-American leader is taking up residence in the White House: a tremendous achievement that was inconceivable four decades ago. Yet the US remains the leading source of violence.There’s plenty of room here, Mr President, for change we can believe in. Don’t hesitate to talk to Iran or Hamas: whether or not any good comes of it, it won’t do any harm. Ignore the Miami mafia and restore relations with Havana: you may even pick up some useful tips on universal education and healthcare. Embrace Hugo Chavez: he’ll prove to be an entertaining friend. And, for heaven’s sake, stop subsidising Israel’s war machine. Any true well-wisher of Israel would push it towards a just and sustainable peace, instead of allowing themselves to be bullied by its venal and belligerent leaders.You are thoughtful and open to ideas, Mr Obama. You boast excellent communication skills. Your pragmatism, hopefully, is tempered with idealism. You mustn’t give satisfaction to those who once derided you as a dangerous radical but are now claiming you won’t try anything very different from the unimaginative mountebank you are replacing. You have made history by reaching the White House. Please don’t stop there.mahir.worldview@gmail.com
By Mahir Ali
By Mahir Ali
Obama’s talisman
BARACK Obama is an avowed admirer of Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi. That their fanatical compatriots murdered both his heroes represents a deep and unyielding battle-line that ought to weld South Asia and America into a common struggle against racial and religious bigotry.This resolve was evident in the inaugural speech the new American leader delivered in Washington DC on Tuesday.Gandhi’s killers accused him of appeasing Muslims, while Pakistani ideologues slandered him as their dangerous enemy. In fact, the founders of Pakistan accused Gandhi of being a leader of Hindus so as to deprive him of his secular credentials. This was a canard and ironical too. Gandhi was assassinated by an upper caste Hindu.King’s killers structured a similar mythology to justify his cruel death. By 1967, the civil rights leader had become the country’s most prominent opponent of the Vietnam War, and a staunch critic of overall US foreign policy, which he deemed militaristic. In his “Beyond Vietnam” speech delivered on April 4, 1967 — a year to the day before he was murdered — King called the United States “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today.”Time magazine called the speech “demagogic slander that sounded like a script for Radio Hanoi,” and the Washington Post declared that King had “diminished his usefulness to his cause, his country, his people.” The fact that Barack Obama’s inauguration as America’s first black president was conducted under unprecedented security flowed from the fear of white supremacist plotters stalking him.American TV commentators acknowledged the threat to Obama (and, with him to the syncretic idea he symbolised) came as much from within the national boundaries as from outside the United States. This in spite of the fact that the venue of his oath was jam-packed with the widest range of cheerleaders and ordinary fans, who included “Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus and non-believers”, a bouquet the new president celebrated as the cultural patchwork that made America strong.This is the mantra that India publicly celebrates too, both as a legal contract and as moral precept. In translating the ideal into practice, however, the state can be perceived as using underhand methods of tokenism and democratically veneered subterfuge to perpetuate an inequality, which may not be too different from what its colonial equivalent was. Election campaigns brazenly champion a Hindu card or a Muslim card, the Dalit card and so forth. At least since 1991, the cumulative outcome is then handed over to the highest corporate bidder.It is hardly a surprise that Indian tycoons today are able to openly bid for their favourite politicians, the front-runners being those that most vehemently denounce the tenets of democracy. In this they have mentors in the American business behemoths. The nexus between American industry and Nazi Germany is all too well known. Naturally, they would be uncomfortable with both of Obama’s heroes or the influence they wield on him.But Obama offered hope. His inaugural speech showed glimpses of Gandhi’s musings that he had scribbled as a “talisman” in 1948, days before being killed at a prayer meeting in Delhi. The “talisman” says: “Whenever you are in doubt, or when the self becomes too much with you, apply the following test. Recall the face of the poorest and the weakest man whom you may have seen, and ask yourself, if the step you contemplate is going to be of any use to him. Will he gain anything by it? Will it restore him to a control over his own life and destiny? In other words, will it lead to swaraj [freedom] for the hungry and spiritually starving millions? Then you will find your doubts and your self melt away.”Obama’s vision looked similarly eclectic in its appeal to “all other peoples and governments” who watched him the other day. “From the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more… To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world’s resources without regard to effect.”The new president rejected the false choice between America’s “security” and America’s core “ideals”. It is tempting to see it as a critique of the Bush regime’s “Guantanamo Bay policy”, or as a veiled tribute to Martin Luther King’s anti-war speech he gave exactly a year before his death. “Perhaps the more tragic recognition of reality took place when it became clear to me that the war was doing far more than devastating the hopes of the poor at home,” said King.“It was sending their sons and their brothers and their husbands to fight and to die in extraordinarily high proportions relative to the rest of the population. We were taking the black young men who had been crippled by our society and sending them 8,000 miles away to guarantee liberties in Southeast Asia which they had not found in southwest Georgia and East Harlem.”Obama talked of inadequacy, if not uselessness, of “power” to provide “security”. He talked of criticality of “justness” of cause, of global “peace” linked to “dignity”, of engaging the “allies” and “former enemies” alike.There was perhaps one critical issue missing from his speech: Israel’s bestiality in Gaza. Gandhi’s major statement on the Palestine and the Jewish question, on the other hand, appeared in his widely circulated editorial in the Harijan of Nov 11, 1938.He started by sympathising with the Jews, who as a people were subjected to inhuman treatment and persecution for a long time. But Gandhi asserted, “My sympathy does not blind me to the requirements of justice. The cry for the national home for the Jews does not make much appeal to me. The sanction for it is sought in the Bible and in the tenacity with which the Jews have hankered after their return to Palestine. Why should they not, like other peoples of the earth, make that country their home where they are born and where they earn their livelihood?”It was also an implied critique of the nascent idea of Pakistan as a religion-based state. Obama may be no Gandhi, or Martin Luther King. It is good enough that he has emerged as the best bet on offer in a long, long time.The writer is Dawn’s correspondent in Delhi.jawednaqvi@gmail.com
By Jawed Naqvi
By Jawed Naqvi
Obama’s world
By the time you read this, Barack Obama will have been sworn in as the 44th president of the United States. Although his swearing came as the result of an amazing exercise in democracy, his inauguration was as full of pomp and ceremony as any royal coronation. However, the American president wields more power than any king.Although Obama has come to office after a gruelling campaign, he will discover that the hard part starts now. His in-tray is as full as that of any modern president; thousands of leader writers, columnists and assorted pundits around the world have shot off their memos to the president-elect; and domestic and world events have already dictated a massive agenda. But as Obama is about to discover, the powers of the president are severely circumscribed.The reality of the presidency is a far cry from the absolute power many outside the United States assume it to embody. The checks and balances written into the constitution prevent the executive from assuming authority over the legislature or the judiciary. The media, too, plays a strong role in keeping the president under constant scrutiny, and citizens’ groups, lobbies and elected state officials all combine to provide a deterrent to a president who tries to accumulate absolute power.However, there is a bigger consideration than these legal and institutional checks and balances: ambition. As soon as a president is sworn for his first term, his gaze shifts to the next one. Although the formal electoral campaign is a couple of years away, the new incumbent is already calculating his chances, and begins doing whatever he can to ensure another four years in the White House. This electoral calculus further limits the president’s freedom of action. So if he or she wishes to follow a controversial new policy, it is likely to happen at the start of the second, and last, term. Free from the pressure of vested interests, as well as from political ambition, the president can truly make a difference if he or she chooses to.It is important to understand these constraints as we draw up our own wish lists for President Obama. In a local newspaper, I recently came across an article titled ‘What the Obama presidency means for Sri Lanka’. I am sure this article has appeared in various forms in different countries across the world. The US casts such a long shadow that it’s quite legitimate to ask at the start of a new administration: what’s in it for us?Over the last year, much has been made of Obama’s Muslim heritage. Many American voters have been put off, while huge numbers of foreigners have been intrigued by what this might mean, especially in his interaction with the Muslim world. Whatever the future might bring, one thing is for sure: Obama’s knowledge and insight will prevent rulers in the Islamic world from any notion of exploiting political correctness while dealing with him. During the Israeli assault on Gaza, the Secretary-General of the Arab League said on TV that it was Israel’s continuing occupation of the West Bank and Gaza that was preventing democratic reforms in the Arab world. Considering there is not a single full-fledged democracy in this moribund organization with the exception of Lebanon, this remark was clearly self-serving nonsense. We can rest assured that Obama will see through it, and ignore such rhetoric.The reality is that the ongoing economic and banking crises in the United States will demand most of Obama’s time and political capital. Beyond setting broad outlines, he is unlikely to devote much time to problems in the Middle East, or the Pakistan-Afghan border. And given what we know about the new Secretary of State, she will not bring any new thinking to global issues. Hillary Clinton may be intelligent and hard working, but she is not known for lateral thinking.Another item on Obama’s agenda is sure to be the environment. Here he will have to balance his campaign pledges with the requirements of an ailing economy. But what was urgent when oil was touching $150 per barrel might not be as pressing now, when its price is hovering around $40. Nevertheless, Obama’s ambitious energy plans dovetail neatly with the need to create new jobs. So we may well see the start of the movement away from our dependence on oil, with all its implications for the environment, as well as for OPEC. Considering that there is a broad consensus on the need to reduce carbon emissions, the political climate is right to face down the oil lobby.Closer to home, it is likely that there will be a major re-think of Washington’s relationship with Islamabad. Richard Holbrooke, the recently-named special envoy to the region, is an energetic, well-informed diplomat who will have the ear of both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. It is likely that the United States will press for greater regional cooperation to tackle the menace of the Taliban and assorted extremists. In any case, Obama is sure to place far greater emphasis on education and other social sector programmes in Pakistan and Afghanistan than Bush did.The reality of Obama’s presidency is that so far, his appointments have been very cautious and conservative, and totally out of step with his promise of change. Reaching into the pool of Clinton-era diplomats, bankers and politicians, he has filled his cabinet with safe names. This might ensure continuity, but it does not translate into the kind of transformation so many of his supporters voted for.The best news is that Obama is not Bush. While his predecessor was able to bulldoze through policies and legislation on the back of the fear he and his neo-cons whipped up in the wake of 9/11, Obama is likely to behave in a far more restrained and collegial manner. He will work to rebuild alliances and partnerships damaged during the Bush presidency, and proceed abroad with less arrogance and contempt for international organizations like the UN.So all in all, while we may not get the magically transformed world so many had dreamed of during Obama’s campaign, we will hopefully get a more civilised world where one country does not ride rough-shod over others. Above all, we will get a United States where miracles are possible.
By Irfan Husain
By Irfan Husain
Obama seeks ‘new way forward’ with Muslim world
WASHINGTON, Jan 20: “To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect,” said Barack Husain Obama after he took oath as America’s 44th president.Over two million people watched as Mr Obama, as America’s first African-American president, etched his name on “the hard stone of history”, in the words of Congresswoman Dianne Feinstein who introduced him.And four miles ahead of Mr Obama — over the heads of the people who had come to see history unfold — shimmered the steps of the Lincoln Memorial.It was on these steps, on Aug 28, 1963, that civil rights leader Martin Luther King had shared his dreams with another generation of Americans for an America free of racism.And beyond those steps is the memorial for the man — Abraham Lincoln — who abolished slavery.Mr Obama remembered both. “Our founding fathers faced with perils that we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations,” he said.And the crowd cheered. Many of the people had spent the night in the open, braving subzero temperature on the green fields of Washington National Mall, which starts from the US Capitol, halts midway for the Washington Memorial and rolls down to the Lincoln Memorial. They were here all night to listen to Mr Obama. Many cried openly as he came to take oath, others were seen wiping off their tears discreetly. But all seemed happy to welcome a change that they hope will not only change America but also usher in a new era of peace and prosperity to the rest of the world.“We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and non-believers,” said Mr Obama. “We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; united not by religion, race or language but by our freedom.”While he extended a hand of peace to the Muslim world, he also heralded a warning to the militants.“To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict or blame their society’s ills on the West, know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy,” he said.“To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.”He also promised to work with the poor nation help elevate their poverty.“To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds,” he said.Mr Obama also had a word of advice for other prosperous nations. “And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to the suffering outside our borders, nor can we consume the world’s resources without regard to effect,” he said. “For the world has changed, and we must change with it.”Mr Obama also remembered that all was not well either with America or with the rest of the world and that his nation expected him to, first of all, end its economic woes.“Yet, every so often the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms,” he said. “Homes have been lost, jobs shed, businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly, our schools fail too many, and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.”He warned: “These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. Less measurable, but no less profound, is a sapping of confidence across our land; a nagging fear that America’s decline is inevitable, that the next generation must lower its sights.”But America’s first black president promised to overcome these problems with the help of his nation.“Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real, they are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this America: They will be met,” he said.The ceremony began with the arrival of the guests, among them three former presidents, Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton, followed by the outgoing president George W. Bush.Some of them, particularly Mr Clinton, received a standing ovation from the crowd but the cheers were not very loud for the two Bushes.Then came the vice president-elect, Joe Biden and his family followed by Mr Obama’s children and then Michelle Obama in a stunning Isabel Toledo dress.As they were seated, Congresswoman Feinstein, invited Rick Warren of the Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California, to bless the ceremony.After a song by Aretha Franklin, who also sang at President Bill Clinton’s first inauguration, Mr Biden was sworn in by Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens.The third musical interlude featured composer John Williams, violinist Itzhak Perlman, cellist Yo-Yo-Ma, pianist Gabriela Montero and clarinetist Anthony McGill.Then Mr Obama and John Roberts, the US Supreme Court’s Chief Justice, took centre stage. The swearing-in duties were Justice Roberts’ first, making him the 14th chief justice to swear in a president.Mr Obama, placing his hand on Abraham Lincoln’s inaugural Bible, recited the same oath as his 43 predecessors: “I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
