Columns - Page 7

imran bakht · #61 Thursday, March 03, 2011

Davos upstaged

Ikram Sehgal ·

“Shared Norms for the New Reality,” the theme for this year’s annual meeting of the World Economic Forum (WEF) in the beautiful ski resort of Davos-Klosters, very aptly mirrors the topmost concern of many leaders today. The erosion of common values is growing in a world that is increasingly becoming more complex and interconnected, as well as undermining public trust in leadership, future economic growth and political stability. The rapidly developing events in Egypt emphasised the importance of the four thematic clusters under consideration, aiming to provide each participant with strategic insights: (1) responding to the new reality, (2) the economic outlook and defining policies for inclusive growth, (3) supporting the G20 agenda and (4) building a global risk-response mechanism.
Contrary to common perceptions, far from being a get-together of global leaders with a club of rich people to exchange notes in the daytime and have a ball at night, Davos provides a unique platform for leaders of governments, civil society, industry and the media as well as a wide spectrum of decision-makers to trade ideas on how to solve common pressing problems.
Describing all the 200-plus sessions crammed into four or five days would take more than a book. A sampling should capture the tone and tenor of the discussions.
“Insights on China” was moderated by Victor Chu. As panellists it had Liu Jiren, chairman and CEO of Neosoft Corp, Wang Boming, editor-in-chief of Caijing magazine, Wu Zhipan, executive VP and director of Peking University, and Zhang Xin, CEO of SOHO. Various political priorities, economic realities and business issues that would shape China’s growth and social dynamics, as well as various dimensions, including indigenous innovation, legal reform, real estate and the role of the media were discussed. Sessions were addressed by many heads of state and government, among them Russian president Dmitri Medvedev, French president Nicolas Sarkozy and German chancellor Angela Merkel. Former US president Bill Clinton and Microsoft’s Bill Gates were among the hundreds of celebrities who chaired discussions.
I surrendered my slot as a panellist on the “New Reality of Terrorism” session, along with Audrey Kurth Cronin, professor of strategy at the US National War College, India’s Home Minister P Chidambaram and Minhaj-ul-Quran International’s Muhammad Tahir-Ul-Qadri, for Tehrik-e-Insaf leader Imran Khan to more effectively represent Pakistan’s political stand on the subject of terrorism at its present “ground zero” location. Moderated by John Chipman of the IISS UK, terrorist methods and threats evolving nine years after 9/11 and lessons learnt thereof were discussed, revisiting root causes, new incubators and challenges.
Predictably (but disappointingly, given his Harvard education background) Chidambaram’s mindset had a single-point agenda: to focus only on religious terrorism, “cross-border terrorism” being the Indian catchword for Pakistani-based terrorist groups. A terrorist has no religion: which religion encourages killing of innocent people? Unfortunately, the Indians live in deliberate self-denial about their own home-grown terrorists: Indian prime minister Manmohan Singh has described the Naxalite menace as the greatest single threat to India.
The “India Inclusive” initiative of the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) dominated proceedings this year. The Chinese were low-key, but their presence in ever-increasing numbers, reflects their growing economic clout. The Indian private sector must be admired for leveraging the business magic of the Davos network to the hilt. It has paid rich dividends over the last two decades with Indian companies competing equally now with others on the global stage. In contrast, Pakistan had only four businessmen present and did not even send an official delegation. Even our embassy in Bern did not bother to give Davos any importance. They were probably too busy covering up the remaining evidence of the “Cotecna” case.
The Indian business community are ably supported by their government, with at least half-a-dozen ministers and Union Secretaries taking part. By being absent, our government represents its general apathy and ineptitude towards everything, except when it comes to its leaders making money for themselves.
The enduring disgrace is the private sector comprising our many rich Pakistani businessmen. While not paying taxes is a national pastime, symbolised by billionaire leader Mian Nawaz Sharif, they must contribute part of the enormous profits they pocket towards the general good of their business community brethren, emulating their Indian counterparts. WEF members like Arif Naqvi, Husain Dawood and Zakir Mahmood cannot shoulder the burden forever (Mian Mansha seldom bothers to come or send anyone).
Attempting to keep the Pakistani flag aloft with my traditional Pakistan breakfast, I hosted instead a Pakistan lunch. With neither the president nor the prime minister gracing Davos, Imran Khan graciously represented Pakistan’s viewpoint, the discussions being moderated by my son, Zarrar Sehgal, a WEF Young Global Leader (YGL). We were honoured by the presence of Ross Perot, Jr, Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz, Frederick Kempe and a host of academics and billionaires, including many Indians like Nand Khemka, the Godrejs, the Bajajs and Dhruv Sawhney among them.
Imran spoke passionately and with fervour, even though I disagree with him on some issues, particularly with respect to the “war on terror” and how to deal with terrorists (only in the brutal language that they understand), the audience responded positively. While fielding questions in the Q&A session well, Imran could not really address the question of what he would do on “his first day in office.” Blessed with plentiful charisma and untainted by corruption, Imran must now concentrate on revamping his organisation. Very few one-man shows can translate their leaders’ genuine popularity into votes.
Parents must have reason to be proud of their children/ Zarrar became a YGL on his own merit as an outstanding lawyer, not relying on the family fortune and/or heritage. Express TV anchor Manizae Jahangir did Pakistan proud by making it on her own as a YGL, not because of her mother. The first female president of SCBA, Asma Jahangir has every reason to be proud of her. Many Pakistani young men and women with merit and accomplishments are waiting in the wings to join this fairly select group, among them Mir Ibrahim Rahman, who excelled during his year at the Kennedy School of Government. Hopefully, he will become a WEF YGL soon. Our hopes rest in such young men and women. They have their work cut out for them to rescue this country out of the murky depths our generation have sunk them into.
Davos this year was upstaged by unprecedented events in the Middle East. Tunisia provided the backdrop for a people’s uprising that sent Zine El Abedine Ben Ali and his Mafia-like family scurrying for cover, the street revolt in Egypt against Hosni Mubarak was astonishing and revealing. People’s angst against the corruption that had made “either beggars or thieves” out of the great silent majority manifested itself in raw street power. The Egyptian army’s stance was a revelation. “We will not fire on the protestors. They have a right to demonstrate for their legitimate demands.” With this astonishing statement, barring the formalities, the revolution was complete. Yemen is next. Jordan could probably follow. Will the seething anger sweeping the long-suffering populations of the Muslim countries bypass Pakistan?
Asif Zardari is too smart to hang around (and that is a pun) and wait for the streets to propel him into history. Our Supreme Commander well knows, unlike Hosni Mobarak, who found out too late, what attitude the armed forces would adopt against a similar street protest.

imran bakht · #62 Thursday, March 03, 2011

The Afghan conundrum

Zafar Hilaly ·

General Kayani’s visits to Kabul; the good rapport between Karzai and Zardari; efforts by an active Pakistani ambassador in Kabul to mollify, if not befriend, the powerful Ahmed Shah Masud faction that dominates in Kabul; the visit of the Afghan High Peace Council to Islamabad; the formation of a high powered Joint Pak-Afghan Commission to negotiate peace and, not least, the grudging acceptance by Washington of Pakistan’s pre eminent importance to the outcome in Afghanistan all, admittedly, offer a better prospect for peace than has existed before. And, yes, the mists of suspicion and acrimony that have blanketed Pak-Afghan relations appear to be lifting somewhat.
It is no less true that Musharaf’s departure has been a boon for relations. The Commando’s aggressive attitude, his brusque nay offensive manner, the sneer that he reserved for Karzai when talking to or about him though well received at home understandably caused umbrage in Kabul. Karzai may be an American ‘stooge’ but he retains a mite of pride and many a time that is all that stooges have left, which is a good reason not to prod them where it hurts. Kayani’s temperament, in contrast, is better suited to handle the sensitivities of key Afghans like Karzai.
However all these gains are no where near as decisive to the improved atmospherics as Karzai’s own changed attitude towards his American mentors. Faced with incessant criticism and pressure exerted by the likes of Ambassador Eickenberry, General Petraeus and the late Holbrooke, who made no bones that America would be better off without him, Karzai is now openly defiant. But rather than personal antipathy, the primary cause for Karzai’s frustration is the maddening fixation that the US military has on winning which Karzai, equally adamantly, believes is not possible. Nor does he believe that his country can any longer afford to bear the cost in lives and suffering. Warring, therefore, he says, must be accompanied by a strategy of engaging with the Taliban and immediately, rather than later. It’s a replay of the old Vietnam conundrum. American generals craving victory, ask for more time and troops while the politicians want out, and pronto, from an unpopular war.
By taking on the Americans, Karzai is dangerously close to burning his boats with them, so much so that it is now a toss up whether the Americans ‘get him,’ first, like they did Diem in Vietnam, or a Taliban suicide bomber. In any case his days appear numbered.
The souring of Karzai’s relations with Washington has not been a bad thing for Pakistan. It has forced Karzai to seek a better understanding with Pakistan and to join in a search for a negotiated settlement rather than an outright military victory which Petraeus unrealistically craves. A united front, if they can forge one, should help both in persuading Washington to heed their advice rather than to plough its lonely furrow, as is its wont. An added blessing for Pakistan is the opportunity it affords to persuade Karzai to abandon his strategy of leaning overly on India or hatching conspiracies with India that endangers Pakistan’s security.
Karzai has had a lot of time to weigh the cost-benefit outcome of playing off India against Pakistan and benefiting from both. It must have occurred to him that playing such a game in a civil war situation when a negotiated settlement is inconceivable without cultivating better ties with Pakistan is foolhardy. He must know that Pakistan’s support can never be wholehearted unless its military’s fears regarding India are addressed.
In that sense the current Afghan war holds many a lesson for Pakistan too. In the past our effort to ward off the strategic threat posed by India has led to ham-handed interference in Afghanistan’s internal affairs. It should have dawned on our military that Pakistan’s security interests are best served not by helping the Taliban to regain their lost power but rather by facilitating reconciliation among the major ethnic groups and through closer economic cooperation with Kabul. Instead our policy of exclusively promoting the Taliban only alienated friends (Iran) and further antagonised opponents without increasing our clout with the Afghan Taliban.
Unfortunately, all the positive gains flowing from Karzai’s change of heart and Pakistan’s more skilful handling of the Pak-Afghan dynamic will likely be lost because of the tricky question of accommodating the Afghan Taliban in a future Afghan set up but more so because the two main protagonists, America and the Taliban, continue to harbour delusions which make prospects of a settlement remote, if not, frankly, impossible.
In the case of the US, its populace has been wrongly spooked into believing that if US forces depart altogether then another 9/11 like attack on mainland America will occur and hence, the need for a fairly substantial US military presence in Afghanistan even after combat operations cease in 2014. In support of this proposition a huge base building American surge is underway. Billions are being expended on constructing military airports and encampments. One forward operation base in Paktita province alone will have a storage space for one million pounds of ammunition and related infrastructure.
Needless to say such a malign presence, as opposed to benign and economically beneficial long term US political and civilian involvement, will Afghanistan will be unacceptable to the Taliban. In due course, it may also arouse suspicions in Pakistan. But what it will certainly do is to ensure that the war continues and so too the destabilisation and further radicalisation of Pakistani society.
The Taliban’s strategy appears no less myopic. They have yet to abandon their ambition of regaining their pre 9/11 dominance and that means their totalitarian ideology as well. They forget that even if the US were to depart the forces that are being trained and expanded to defend Kabul’s writ will be more formidable, both in size and capability and also in terms of external political support, than the rag tag warlord led militias they were able to defeat. Nor are the Taliban willing to concede that they are by no means as popular among the Afghan pushtuns and that the ten years that have elapsed since their ouster have brought about changes in Afghan society that would make their ideology much less acceptable than it might have been during the chaos of the 1990s.
Faced, therefore, with a situation in which American phobias are pitted against Taliban obstinacy and fanaticism, the future offers nothing but further instability and violence in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Only a settlement based on a complete American withdrawal from Afghanistan and the creation of an effective mechanism for compliance will peace return, however, this seems as far removed from reality today as improbable fiction.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Roedad Khan Columns	AATISH	News & Articles	10	Saturday, October 17, 2009 10:32 AM
British Boer Wars 1889 to 1902 in Africa	Rana Munawar Farooq	Topics and Notes	1	Friday, May 15, 2009 08:42 PM
SQL (Structured Query Language)	Janeeta	Computer Science	0	Saturday, January 19, 2008 01:25 PM
Data Base Design Glossary:	Najabat	Computers and Technology	0	Monday, November 27, 2006 02:58 PM