“Military Alliances Vs Economic Alliances” By Fayyaz Sheikh

Few days ago China placed its oil rigs about 200 miles off the coast of Vietnam in South China Sea and fired water cannons at Vietnam’s vessels which were trying to block it. China has territorial and maritime disputes with many of its neighbors some of which include Japan, Vietnam, Malaysia, Philippines, and Indonesia. Just a few years ago, China was enjoying cozy relations with most of its neighbors with advancing economic ties but it changed ever since its dispute with Japan flared up over Senkaku/Diaou islands, and USA started to move aggressively in the South pacific region to build new military alliances with countries surrounding China. Recently USA conducted naval exercises with Vietnam.

Our strategy of encircling China with military alliances is similar to expansion of NATO  around Russia. Will these military alliances act as a deterrent or create a paranoia that will lead to a unnecessary military conflict? The Ukraine conflict is a prelude to what is in the store for future, and if not handled properly it can lead to a bigger more disastrous war. Our Naval exercises with Vietnam did not prevent China from moving ahead to place oil rigs in South China Sea and expansion of NATO did not prevent Mr. Putin to annex Crimea.

Our weak military alliances around China and Russia may give false sense of security to these countries and which may expect more from us than we can deliver. It may induce them to act irresponsibly, take hard stand to resolve the differences peacefully and even escalate an incidence. Indirectly we may be pushing China and Russia to become allies against encirclement of their borders and push back militarily against their neighbors leading to military conflicts.    

What is the alternative?

Few year back, over Siachin and Kargil conflict, Pakistan and India were on the brink of war, but it was averted by pressure from Business leaders in India who warned about disastrous economic consequences. Economic ties and Economic independence, which was absent during Cold War, is the best deterrence to conflicts and potent incentive to resolve them peacefully. If we are concerned and want to help the countries surrounding China and Russia, we should encourage and help them to build democratic institutions as well as economic ties with China, Russia and the West.  For these countries economic alliances are much more beneficial and deterrent to armed conflict than military alliances. Unfortunately they may still be exploited by their powerful neighbor, but they will be much better off with economic ties, which will bring them prosperity, as compared to military alliances which will inevitably bring armed conflict causing loss of innocent lives, misery and economic disaster as is happening in Ukraine. Unfortunately with military conflict, these countries may become battleground for proxy war between major powers and ruining the whole country with many innocent lives lost.

For the West, expanding military alliances does not make much sense either, because it brings un-necessary responsibility and may entangle us in an armed conflict we either do not want to get involve or cannot afford to get involved. No country in the West, especially USA, is ready to send their daughters and sons to defend faraway lands. These military alliances may generate the very armed conflicts we trying to avoid.          

            

Pakistani society can be Islamic and modern, if it becomes pluralistic and multicultural

Two insurrections pose an existential threat to Pakistan. One is a long-standing guerilla struggle of the Baloch nationalists for their cultural and political rights as well as for the control of the province’s economic resources. The second rebellion is recent in origin but poses a lethal challenge to the Pakistani state. Lead by the Taliban movement known as the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), its goals are revolutionary: to take over the government and enforce their own version of Islamic Sharia laws. The TTP is intertwined with the Afghan Taliban and has links with Al Qaeda of the global Jihad.

The Taliban have exposed the military’s vulnerability by attacking such high security establishments as the army headquarters, air bases and army garrisons. Their aims extend beyond toppling the government. They have also blown up mosques and shrines of the Islamic sects that do not subscribe to their puritanical beliefs, targeted cinemas, and music stores and girls’ schools to purge ‘corrupt western culture’.

The South Asia Terrorism Portal estimates that 51,585 combatants and non-combatants have been killed since 2003. The military has lost 5,681 soldiers and officers. The injured are in the hundreds of thousands and displaced persons number in the millions. Karachi and Peshawar have suffered particularly from Taliban’s suicide bombs, targeted killings and kidnappings. But other cities have not entirely escaped. Taliban seem to have cells everywhere.

Taliban’s aims extend beyond toppling the government

The state cannot collect taxes from the rich and influential, enforce laws and provide basic services. Electricity outages have crippled industries and made daily life unbearable. Almost one-third of the population lives on less than $1.25 a day. Pakistan has become a country of ‘hollow institutions’ where instruments of a modern state exist in form, but they fail to perform their mandated functions.

The enigma of Pakistan is that its state is imploding but its society is resilient and people entrepreneurial. The society is modernizing fast. Almost 27% of households in the largest province, Punjab, have motorcycles. There are about 100 TV channels and 650 registered newspapers and magazines in Pakistan. About 70 percent of the population has cell phones, filtering down among the poor of this low-income country. The stock exchange has been on a tear, setting new records in prices and trade. Real estate is booming. Cities are choked with traffic.

Fashion shows, literary festivals and music competitions give a cosmopolitan sheen to alistscities of Karachi, Lahore and Islamabad-Rawalpindi. About 12-13 billion dollars are remitted annually by Pakistani expatriates, buoying up the consumer culture. A visitor to Pakistan would be dazzled by the palatial houses and overflowing restaurants. Yet it is a country where death stalks everyday and poverty drives people to suicide. People have become fatalistic in the face of violence and disorder.

Why has Pakistan come to this? Of course there are the usual explanations: political instability, democratic deficit, recurrent military rules, deviation from its ideology, corrupt and poor administration. And then there are theories of blaming others, Indian conspiracies, American perfidy, Jewish hostility, international attempts to neutralize the only Muslim nuclear power and so on. Underlying them are deeper and enduring conditions that have torn Pakistan apart, but are not open to discussion.

Pakistan is besieged by moral and intellectual crises. Its imagined culture is based on ideas and beliefs that offer little guidance for the lived life. Pakistan’s state has continually retreated in the face of the Islamic clergy, thereby yielding to them the authority to forge moral narratives. Pakistan’s ruling elite adopted the strategy of ‘playing along’ with the Mullahs, hoping to appease them politically without facing up to the consequences of their promises. Even the Taliban were initially nurtured by the state as an instrument of Jihad in Indian Kashmir and for maintaining influence in Afghanistan. They are now bringing Jihad home.

Pakistan’s successive constitutions have been documents of contradictory goals. They promise democracy, freedom, equality and social justice, while envisaging bringing laws and social life in line with the requirements of particular interpretations of Islam. Islamic teachings admit of many interpretations, liberal, orthodox, modernist, fundamentalist and sectarian. The authority to interpret Islamic provisions has been conceded to Mullahs and traditionalists. In the contest for the power of agency, the liberal Islam has lost to the fundamentalist certainties of those who have the pulpits.

While the Islamic political parties have repeatedly failed in elections, they captured the universities and shaped the school curriculums in the1960s and 70s. Generations of engineers, doctors, teachers and military men, albeit the educated classes, have grown up on a diet of orthodox Islamic ideas and rituals. The Islamization of personal beliefs stands in contrast with the modernization of lifestyles. Individuals bridge this chasm by rationalizing their own lifestyle as the reflection of the ‘real’ Islam.

The Taliban have grown out of this ideological conundrum. The Islamic political parties and the clergy savor the prospect of the Taliban ushering them to power.

Despite past failed peace agreements, Pakistan’s government is again negotiating with the TTP. Most of the political parties and religious bodies favor peace negotiations. They argue that the Taliban, ‘are our brethren’, why not negotiate with them, as even the US and the Afghan leaders have been courting the Afghan Taliban. The TTP has suddenly become a stakeholder in national affairs. By negotiating with the Taliban, the government has unwittingly changed the political map of Pakistan. Islamic parties and Mullahs have become power brokers by becoming interlocutors for the Taliban.

The state has not protected free speech. Since the 1970s, Islamic student organizations have been allowed to violently repress alternative viewpoints in universities and colleges. Educational curriculums have been turned into indoctrination tools of orthodox religiosity. Over the years Islamic scholars of liberal leanings have been hounded out, while the state stood as a mute witness. General Zia’s regime sanctified these practices. In Pakistan, the state intervenes in religion to support the orthodox narrative.

Presently journalists who express liberal views are attacked. Mullahs issue Fatwas with impunity declaring other sects as apostates liable to be killed. Blasphemy laws have led to mob justice. Christians, Ahmadis, and Hindus as minorities get no protection from the state. The state has surrendered its responsibility to protect people from the zealots’ violence. Self-censorship is the rule for survival.

Pakistani society and state are unsustainable by the extant narratives of the Islamic order. But liberal Islamic ideas and secular narratives have been practically banished. The expediency politics of the ruling classes, both political and military, has suppressed alternative viewpoints.

Pakistan’s society can be Islamic and modern, if it becomes pluralistic and multicultural. To attain that, the state has to forcefully implement the constitutionally promised freedom of thought and expression and provide security for open inquiry. No one should be allowed to threaten others for their views and issue Fatwas of death. Coercive powers should be reserved for the due process of the state.

An article in Friday Times, Pakistan by Prof. Qadeer

Submitted by Sohail Rizvi

0

 

Salman Rushdie on Indian Elections

A 10 minute video on Indian elections, Democracy, freedom of speech and religion. A worth watching video. While watching video, one cannot help but think of situation in Burma. I hope all these fears are wrong, because sometime serious responsibility changes a person and governance is different from political rhetoric. If present extremism is not tamed, it can have serious consequences not only  for the whole Indian sub-continent, but possibly beyond the sub-continent. Click link below to watch video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfKd-4oCZ4o

Posted by F. Sheikh

 

 

Why Privacy Matters, even if you have ‘nothing to hide’

By Daniel J. Solove in Chronicle Review.

One may not agree with all its contents, but it is worth reading article on common phrase ” I have nothing to hide”. Some excerpts from the article; ( F. Sheikh)

The nothing-to-hide argument pervades discussions about privacy. The data-security expert Bruce Schneier calls it the “most common retort against privacy advocates.” The legal scholar Geoffrey Stone refers to it as an “all-too-common refrain.” In its most compelling form, it is an argument that the privacy interest is generally minimal, thus making the contest with security concerns a foreordained victory for security.

Commentators often attempt to refute the nothing-to-hide argument by pointing to things people want to hide. But the problem with the nothing-to-hide argument is the underlying assumption that privacy is about hiding bad things. By accepting this assumption, we concede far too much ground and invite an unproductive discussion about information that people would very likely want to hide. As the computer-security specialist Schneier aptly notes, the nothing-to-hide argument stems from a faulty “premise that privacy is about hiding a wrong.” Surveillance, for example, can inhibit such lawful activities as free speech, free association, and other First Amendment rights essential for democracy.

One such harm, for example, which I call aggregation, emerges from the fusion of small bits of seemingly innocuous data. When combined, the information becomes much more telling. By joining pieces of information we might not take pains to guard, the government can glean information about us that we might indeed wish to conceal. For example, suppose you bought a book about cancer. This purchase isn’t very revealing on its own, for it indicates just an interest in the disease. Suppose you bought a wig. The purchase of a wig, by itself, could be for a number of reasons. But combine those two pieces of information, and now the inference can be made that you have cancer and are undergoing chemotherapy. That might be a fact you wouldn’t mind sharing, but you’d certainly want to have the choice.

Yet another problem with government gathering and use of personal data is distortion. Although personal information can reveal quite a lot about people’s personalities and activities, it often fails to reflect the whole person. It can paint a distorted picture, especially since records are reductive—they often capture information in a standardized format with many details omitted.

The nothing-to-hide argument focuses on just one or two particular kinds of privacy problems—the disclosure of personal information or surveillance—while ignoring the others. It assumes a particular view about what privacy entails, to the exclusion of other perspectives.

It is important to distinguish here between two ways of justifying a national-security program that demands access to personal information. The first way is not to recognize a problem. This is how the nothing-to-hide argument works—it denies even the existence of a problem. The second is to acknowledge the problems but contend that the benefits of the program outweigh the privacy sacrifice. The first justification influences the second, because the low value given to privacy is based upon a narrow view of the problem. And the key misunderstanding is that the nothing-to-hide argument views privacy in this troublingly particular, partial way. Click below for full article; 

https://chronicle.com/article/Why-Privacy-Matters-Even-if/127461/

( Posted By F. Sheikh )