The Senate Intelligence Committee is examining allegations by two former US military linguists that the super-secret National Security Agency routinely eavesdropped on the private telephone calls of American military officers, journalists and aid workers.

NSA interceptors purportedly shared some intercepts of highly personal conversations, including "phone sex."

If the allegations are true, they could re-ignite a political firestorm over the administrations post-Sept. 11 eavesdropping operations and its efforts to collect vast quantities of data about American's tax, medical and travel records; credit card purchases; e-mails and other information.

... Bush and other senior officials have repeatedly asserted that after the Sept. 11 attacks; the NSA only monitored the private communications of Americans who were suspected of links to al-Qaida or other terrorist groups without court orders.

The allegations follow the release Tuesday of a study by a government advisory group that questions how useful communications intercepts and another technique known as data mining are at ferreting out terrorist plots.

"The information sought by analysts must be filtered out of the huge quantity of data available the needle in the haystack problem," says [the] two-year, 352-page study by the National Research Council for the Department of Homeland Security. "Terrorist groups will make calculated efforts to conceal their identity and mask their behaviors, and will use various strategies such as encryption, code words, and multiple identities to obfuscate the data they are generating and exchanging," the report says.

"Even under the pressure of threats as serious as terrorism, the privacy rights and civil liberties that are the cherished core values of our nation must not be destroyed," the report warns.

via Miami Herald: Did US govt eavescrop on Americans phone calls?

Just as Pax Americana I started with a sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, Pax Americana II can be said to have started with another sneak attack, this time against the World Trade Center in Manhattan and the Pentagon in Washington DC, symbols of American economic and military power, respectively, on September 11, 2001.

In a bizarre turn of events, the neo-conservatives, who are the chief architects of Pax Americana II, actually wrote in their manifesto of September 2000 – one full year before 9/11 – that for their objectives to be accepted by the American public, they needed “a new Pearl Harbor.” Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda Islamists unwittingly provided that “new Pearl Harbor,” which became the justification for going to war against Islamic extremists.

Foremost among the neo-cons’ objectives was/is to “establish full military control of the Middle East,” which explains the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and, possibly soon, Iran. The goal, of course, is to control the oil. It is no coincidence that VP Dick Cheney used to be CEO of oil giant Halliburton, that George W. Bush was CE0 of two smaller Texas oil firms, and that Condoleeza Rice used to be connected with Chevron, (One Chevron tanker is named after her.)

Pax Americana II may achieve strategic victory if and when Osama bin Laden and/or his deputy Ayman al-Zwahiri are/is killed or captured, and the neo-cons want to achieve that victory in the weeks before the Nov. 4 presidential elections to ensure the triumph of the McCain-Palin team and, through them, the continuation of the neo-con agenda.

Read it:

Pax Americana II by Antonio C. Abaya

And, from Huffington Post, various commentaries on how the neocon agenda is harming the US:

Robert Creamer: Why the Financial Meltdown Reflects the Fundamental Failure of the Bush-McCain Economic Philosophy

The American mortgage market now provides us with another clear example of how the fundamental premise of right-wing economic thought is dead wrong. 

John Cusack: The Final Distraction: McCain/Palin Worse Than Bush

Not just more of the same -- worse than the same. The Republicans have been ruinous and most of it stems from an ideology that leaves the government in ruins. McCain has been on board hook, line and sinker. 

Mitchell Bard: Why McCain's "Fundamentals of the Economy Are Strong" Remark Was in Line with His Strategy

McCain is telling U.S. citizens that things are fine, we can drill for our own oil, and we really don't have to make any major changes to our way of doing things. Oh, and we're going to win in Iraq, too! 

Les Gara: Karl Rove in Alaska? McCain's Spin and Interference With Bi-Partisan "Troopergate" Investigation

McCain's folks have come to my small state to attack my friends, and people I respect, for political gain. In my book, that's not OK.

Palin also gave an interview to ABC News' Charles Gibson. Here is an excerpt from the FOX News transcript:

[caption id="" align="alignright" width="228" caption="Sarah Palin and ABC's Charles Gibson in Alaska"][/caption]

GIBSON: We talk on the anniversary of 9/11. Why do you think those hijackers attacked? Why did they want to hurt us?

PALIN: You know, there is a very small percentage of Islamic believers who are extreme, and they are violent, and they do not believe in American ideals. And they attacked us. And now we are at a point, here, seven years later, on the anniversary, in this post- 9/11 world, where we are able to commit to never again. The only option for them is to become a suicide bomber, to get caught up in this evil, in this terror. They need to be provided the hope that all Americans have, instilled in us, because we’re a democratic and we are a free, we’re a free-thinking society.

GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?

PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?

GIBSON: The Bush — well, what do you interpret it to be?

PALIN: His world view?

GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, annunciated September 2002, before the Iraq War.

PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell-bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made, and with new leadership, and that’s the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.

GIBSON: The Bush doctrine as I understand it is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with us?

PALIN: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligent and legitimate evidence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country.

GIBSON: Do we have the right to be making cross-border attacks into Pakistan, from Afghanistan, with or without the approval of the Pakistani government?

PALIN: As for our right to invade, we’re going to work with these countries, building new relationships, working with existing allies, but forging new also, in order to, Charlie, get to a point in this world, where war is not going to be a first option. In fact, war has got to be and military strike a last option.

GIBSON: But governor, I am asking you, do we have the right, in your mind, to go across the border, with or without the approval of the Pakistani government?

PALIN: In order to stop Islamic extremists, those terrorists who would seek to destroy America, and our allies, we must do whatever it takes, and we must not blink, Charlie. In making those tough decisions of where we go, and even who we target.

GIBSON: And let me finish with this. I got lost in a blizzard of words there. Is that a yes, that you think we have the right to go across the border, with or without the approval of the Pakistani government? To go after terrorists who are in the Waziristan area?

PALIN: I believe that America has to exercise all options in order to stop the terrorists who are hell-bent on destroying America, and our allies. We have got to have all options out there on the table.

Read the entire transcript and decide for yourself. Be sure to check out the part where she talks about perhaps going to war with Russia.

RAW DATA: Palin’s Interview With ABC News

Meanwhile, AP offers an analysis of the increasingly deceitful -- and hypocritical -- McCain campaign. I know, AP is anathema to the blog world (and should be -- look, Ma, no quoting!), but do read this one.

Again a year passed. Our generation will never forget the panic. It was such a trauma for everyone in the world, that it easily achieved 3rd place on the top list of modern history. Although the position on this list is negotiable, but I believe that it is right after Hitler's acts during world war II and after the nuke bomb in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Terrorism is not war. Terrorism is crime. I am sure those people on board of those planes and the ones in World Trade Center had nothing to do with oil or with high-level politics or with any relegion's leaders. I am sure they never heard a word about those terrorists or their families and they had nothing to do with anybody, who gave money to these people.

Now that it is September 11, emotions get stronger again. I was thinking to myself this morning:

How did the relatives of those terrorists sleep this night? What did they dream of and what did they think, when they got up this morning? What was their first thought, when they drank their cup of coffee? Do they think their son is a hero? Do they think their son is a mass murderer? Do they think about the relatives of the victims? Do they care what the relatives of the victims dreamt about this night and what their first thought was when they got up this morning and drank their cup of coffee?

Mankind...the most stupid race on the surface of this planet, when will we learn not to believe what politicians say? When do we learn not to believe what relegions and religious leaders say? When will we learn we are weapons in the deepest, darkest drawer of some weirdos' living room? When will we learn that the only value is life itself?

On September 11 2008 we feel for those, who lost their sons, their wives, their daughters, their mothers, their sisters, their brothers, their husbands, their cousins, their friends, their colleagues in this crime - which again is not a war.

By Szafi

Also, for those not thinking that far ahead, "120 Minutes That Changed America," a new special set to premiere without commercial interruption on Sept. 11, will combined amateur and professional footage to tell the story of the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, in real time.

For the full story, click here.

The focus was on the work being done in Afghanistan by the Peter M. Goodrich Foundation, addressing the fundamental needs of fragile populations, and long-term exchange students to the U.S. as a response to terrorism.

Asad told of how he and his family survived in a country in constant upheaval and how the American intervention after 9/11 saved their lives. Very moving and impossible for us to imagine what it must have been like. Sally showed a film clip of the work they are doing. and David Edwards spoke about the realities of working in Afghanistan. Good questions from the audience. Lots of discussion after the meeting was officially adjourned. Generally a very positive experience.

The library is doing a "One County, One Book" read and the book they have selected is The Kite Runner. They were cosponsors of last night's program. Schenectady has a sizeable Afghan population--refugees from the Soviet invasion.

The event was taped and will be shown on the local public access TV station. Some teens are writing up an article which they are submitting to a local paper.

--Ruth Bonn
League of Women Voters of Schenectady County

In the murky waters of Pakistan politics, Ms. Bhutto played with fire and stood up, for almost three decades, to various elements and role players that were an anti-thesis of the socialist/democratic roots of her background, education and the political party that she inherited from her father, the late Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto. Fighting one military regime after the other, and having been forced into exile on several occasions, this ‘Daughter of the East’ met her end in the most vicious and inhumane manner.

To say that it was all expected might not be untrue. Right from the day she came back from exile last October, someone, somewhere, was out to ‘get her’. Pakistan politics is a can of worms, the stakes are high, power is god, making aggressive political moves and scoring points is a sign of craftiness and intellect. Security of life is an unknown commodity. One lives there by the roll of the dice. Yes, the country is a gambler’s den! It’s a ‘glorified tribal area’. The powers that be rule with precision and incredible symmetry. No dissent is tolerated. Ms. Bhutto was a resistance – she had to exit the scene, sooner rather than later.

The lady leaves behind a rough legacy. Whereas she possessed all the charisma, the charms and the demeanors that made her the darling of the crowds, she couldn’t make it to the ‘major league’ on the two occasions that she was elected as the prime minister. Her tenures were sloppy and she handled power in a rather amateur manner.

Yes, she was a woman, and, yes, she was respected and recognized for her courage and bravery to lead a conservative Muslim nation, she lacked the enlightened tactfulness of a first-class head of government. She fell a victim of the shallowness of the political ethos and the restricted framework within which she was allowed to govern, thanks to certain constitutional amendments and the mistrust of the army generals in the political process.

Who killed Ms. Bhutto? It may be an ‘impossible adventure’ to provide a precise answer but she did have plenty of enemies! For one, the religious fanatics hated her. Taliban, al-Qaeda, the religious political outfits, all had a grudge against her. Although at one point, her government was instrumental in aiding the Afghan Taliban, she was seen as an enigma by the bearded and the turbaned. The very fact that she belonged to the ‘wrong gender’, her existence as a political leader was not acceptable.

One did come across reports that al-Qaeda had directly threatened her early this year if she dared to come back to Pakistan. The Pakistani Taliban called for suicide bombings in a blatant manner to wipe her off the political spectrum.

The Bhuttos and the military Establishment had age-old issues. Ms. Bhutto’s father had ridiculed the Pakistani army publicly a number of times back in the 70s when things did not work out well in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh). Constitutionally, he reduced the armed forces to next to nothing and tried to make peace with archenemy India.

The Bhuttos are from down south, Sindh province. The Pakistani army is predominantly from northern provinces of Punjab and NWFP. Moreover, the army suspects the loyalties of the people of Sindh and considers them anti-federation/anti-state. The Bhuttos have always walked on thin ice when it comes to dealing with the men in uniform. Zulfiqar was ousted and eventually sentenced to death by a general, Zia-ul-Haq and Benazir was never let to settle down during her two stints as prime minister.

Ms. Bhutto was a high-maintenance phenomenon for the army, a ‘revolutionary’ who probably could turn into an uncontrollable menace if given a free hand. Due to this level of skepticism, it took a good two years for the Establishment to let President Musharraf ‘talk politics’ with Ms. Bhutto. Those talks culminated in some kind of an agreement, the contents of which were never made public, thereby paving the way for her comeback to Pakistan.

Granted that everything is up in the air as far as evidence (or lack of it) is concerned, and granted too that I am not trying to develop a thesis here, but I did come across a comment on the Times of London website from a reader that said, “I know its fashionable today to blame everything on al-Qaeda, however, in this (Ms. Bhutto’s assassination) I think President Musharraf and his regime had something to do with it…”

Could Musharraf have gotten Ms. Bhutto killed? Was she adding to his insecurities? Did he feel threatened by the prospect of her becoming the prime minister and, therefore, turn into a pain in the neck?

Musharraf is a lucky man. He was a diehard supporter of the jihadis not long ago. 9/11 resulted in a remarkable turnaround of fortunes for him. From an introvert despot, he got the opportunity to become a trusted ally of the most powerful and the most influential country in the world. He’s played his game well on the domestic front and bulldozed each and every roadblock in his way. Ms. Bhutto’s presence was perhaps a bitter pill to swallow and had she been elected as prime minister, maintaining authority and command respect may not have been possible for him or the military institutions including the ISI (Inter Services Intelligence) anymore.

This does not, in any way, imply that Musharraf is the one to doubt. It may be fashionable to blame everything and anything on the fanatics these days, but it is reasonable to comprehend that the mullahs have an interest to destabilize Pakistan. They are, after all, against the country’s support in the war against terrorism.

Who killed Ms. Bhutto is an open-ended question to which we will probably never be able to find an answer. However, thinking in terms of the bigger picture, what now? Where do we go from here?

Let’s face it that Ms. Bhutto with all her flaws and faults was a national leader, if not a national hero. One can safely fear that in the coming few days and weeks there will be mass-scale civil unrest in Pakistan. Firstly, it would be appropriate to postpone the general elections due to be held on January 08, 2008. As it is, the credibility of the entire election process is being seen by all and sundry with a lot of suspicion. As a mark of respect for a national leader, it may not be a bad strategy to come up with a date anytime in the future.

Secondly, Ms. Bhutto’s party, Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) has a strong powerbase in interior Sindh. It remains to be seen if the Sindhi nationalist/separatist elements will join hands with the antagonized and outraged PPP leadership and create a situation whereby the very integration of Pakistan may be jeopardized. Sindh, for all intents and purposes, serves as the country’s ‘supply-line’. All major seaports are located in the province.

A lot of nightmarish possibilities come to one’s mind when one thinks about the enormous power of the crazy religious fundamentalists. 57 suicide bomb attacks, including the one in Ms. Bhutto’s rally on December 27, have taken place in almost 52 weeks of the year 2007. This works out to be more than one suicide attack per week.

There is constant strife in the northern areas. There appears to be lack of effort to curb the fundamentalist tendencies on the part of the state machinery.

Two things are possible in this regard:

• One, that Musharraf and the military top brass don’t care and hence just likes to sit pretty, watching people dying, left, right and center. The quest is to preserve and prolong their own rule and that is about all they worry.
• The other possibility is that the major role players are involved in this brutal exercise of fundamentalism. The money/arms and ammunition channeled to Pakistan to counter terrorism is perhaps being used to encourage militancy.

Many who care have suggested that the Western countries must check and watch carefully where the money is being spent and who uses the weapons. This is not to doubt the credentials or the sense of judgment of the donors/aid givers, but, knowing the Pakistan system and how the intelligence agencies operate, it is fair to say that if the money is going toward helping the crazies, it is high time that Islamabad should be checked with an iron hand.

It is sincerely hoped that, for once, the people of Pakistan realize that extremism is crushing the very spirit of the country and hence the fundamentalists should be driven out for good. A certain degree of awareness is required to rise against the odds. It can be confidently expected that the public is fully capable of effecting a change, if equipped with the right kind of leadership.

The extension of this apprehension is the question mark about the Pakistani nuclear program. Is it in secure hands? What if the mullahs take over the controls of the nuclear installations? What if the ground realities change one day and what if chaos and mayhem breaks out with the crazies tearing apart the security mechanism of the nuclear program? We certainly need to pay attention and devote some energy and resources trying to figure out this issue.

What could hurt the most is a mutiny in the military ranks. Understood that the armed forces are a well-knit, disciplined unit, what cannot and should not, however, be counted out is the fact that there are elements sympathetic to the superfluous and distorted principles of Islam. Waging a ‘holy war’ in the name of religion is something the soldiers may not refrain from doing.

Not that Ms. Bhutto was the best choice or the right choice, but her death will certainly create a deeper crisis of leadership in Pakistan. The greatest misfortune of that country is lack of a committed and dedicated leadership. The offshoot of this crisis has been, over the years, wrong decisions taken both by the uniformed and the political leadership and those decisions are biting the nation in the rear end now. The irony is that the same faces are still in power!

The other major political figure, Nawaz Sharif, could turn out to be a beneficiary under the given set of circumstances. In fact, given his background, being a yes-man of the Establishment, he can be an ideal fit. However, he represents the ultra-right and is by no means a moderate.

Musharraf’s strategy of isolating the major political forces for several years has resulted in the draconic situation that we see in Pakistan today. The monster of fundamentalism has left the country and its people paralyzed and doomed.

Pakistan is miles and miles away from the Establishment of a civil society. The involvement of toxic Islam has only polluted the environment and has taken the nation away from any prospects of prosperity and a healthy future for the generations to come. There seems to be no way out.

The December 27 event will leave an indelible mark on Pakistan’s history. The assassination of Benazir Bhutto has possibly heralded an end of the Bhutto dynasty in Pakistan politics. Ms. Bhutto is a loss to the nation in a way that she was endowed with a solid educational background coupled with the ability to orchestrate public opinion and unite the masses. One fact, however, remains indisputable – Pakistan is a mystery that has baffled even the best of political analysts! There is never a dull day in that nation’s life and making any predictions is can turn out to be nothing but a sheer exercise in futility!

--Ahson Saeed Hasan

Having said that, it appears that the Middle East peace process is perhaps never going to advance any further if left to the whims and wishes of the politicians and certain interest groups that may apparently stand for peace but are actually afraid to take any bold measures in that direction. What has transpired is a failure of such meetings and summits held for a region that is regarded as perhaps the one of the most explosive regions in the world.

Despite these ‘understandable hiccups’ and fruitless junkets, there are perhaps still some bodies and individuals that genuinely yearn for reconciliation and better understanding of issues. I was pleasantly surprised to read an article written by Bassem Eid, founder and director the Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group based in east Jerusalem.

Titled as ‘It need not be a clash’, and published recently, Eid has talked about certain extremely pertinent issues and perceptions that subvert chances of finding common grounds and thereby work on getting rid of the glitches within the structural framework.

Although I am not too enlightened vis-à-vis the writer’s background, I must say that I am rather impressed by the analysis and his expression of desire to achieve peace in the region.

Eid writes:

In recent years, the relationship between the Arab world and the West has been framed in terms of a fundamental conflict of interests, values and goals. The West, with its capitalist markets and liberal cultural standards, is viewed as being the antithesis of the Arab world, with its conservative social values and centrally-overseen markets.

Eid believes that the differences between Western-style capitalism and Middle-Eastern style socialism are exaggerated. He in fact points out to some similarities between the two, such as the one that involves the strict protection of state sovereignty.

Eid mentions Samuel Huntington’s ‘Clash of Civilizations’ (first articulated in the early 90s) theory according to which it is believed that there is an increasing danger and threat of violence arising between countries and cultures that base their tradition on religious faith and dogma.

The writer, in the context of the discussion, challenges the theory and argues that ‘the ideologies of the Western and Arab states are not mutually exclusive, nor are they doomed to play out Huntington's theoretical model. As the late Edward Said argued in his "Clash of Ignorance" essay in 2002, Huntington's line demonstrates that the most pressing problem of Arab-Western relations is not a clash of civilizations, but a clash of mistaken perceptions.’

Eid argues that in the realm of foreign policy:

perceptions always play a key role in negotiations between powers. For example, nations tend to perceive their own actions as "necessary" and "defensive," while viewing the actions of other nations as "unnecessary" and "belligerent." And this is the foundation of Arab-Western misconceptions. It is the magnitude of the Jihad vs. McWorld question, namely border-crossing capitalism versus splintering factionalism, as Benjamin Barber termed it in his 2003 book, which sets the relationship between West and Arabia apart.

‘Thus mistaken perceptions’, according to Eid, ‘encompass every area of life, including the economic, political, cultural and social realms’.

Eid extends his argument further and brings in the ‘us’ vs. ‘them’ phenomenon. The writer is convinced that it is this very struggle that leaves the West in a perpetual state of apprehension and fear. Ignorance of the Middle Eastern way of life coupled with the absence of a balanced exchange of information has resulted in the greater misunderstandings and distortion of perceptions on both sides of the divide.

Here’s what I think is the most important part of Eid’s article:

Perception is key. In the Arabic-speaking world, there are groups which take a radical stance, and consider themselves in a clash against Western civilization. There are also radicals in the West who view the Arab states as a violent enemy. However, there are those on both sides who are able to identify their own misconceptions and who strive to work toward a greater level of understanding. In this sense, often the characterization of Arab-Western relations depends on the leadership of the nations involved, and their perceptions as influenced by history and the media.

And the last few words are full of hope and light: The opportunity for cooperation does exist. As human beings, Arabs and Westerners share bonds that can transcend cultural, economic, or religious differences, the challenge is to look beyond the initial rejection of an opinion or idea and try to understand what motivates the other side. In this way, clashes can become misunderstandings, and in time misunderstandings can be transformed into partnerships.

Idealistic as all this may sound, it appears that there are saner elements in the Arab world who think on the ‘out-of-the-ordinary’ lines, are willing to step away from the beaten track and are honestly interested in ‘fixing’ the problem.

One cannot but agree with Bassem Eid that perceptions are paramount and they are vital in creating the ‘grudnorms’ and views, thereby translating and orchestrating into policies that make or break the eventual network of links and ties that exist amongst nations.

Talking about perceptions, I would hasten to add my two cents! I remember that in the days and weeks that followed the 9/11 attacks, I felt, like millions around the world, absolutely disgusted about the fact that in the name of religion a certain group of people would kill and maim thousands of innocent souls who had come out of their homes to earn livelihood. It shattered my internal peace and negatively impacted my creative ability to grasp the realization that mankind can stoop to such a level of atrocious behavior.

As it was, I had little or no religious beliefs anyway beforehand, my faith in God’s existence and His will to do good for humanity was somewhat precipitating. Having experienced the passing away of both my parents that same year did not really help matters. In fact, I felt even more miserable.

In this condition of frustration and sorrow I met an elderly religious Jewish gentleman, named Kriss, who was always willing to ‘talk it out’ with me. We would converse for hours together and I would appreciate listening to his stories of commonsense and his brilliant hold of political history. Slowly and gradually, Kriss made me walk back to the path of faith and change my views about God and His ways. I would never forget Kriss’s words when he said that ‘religion may be what we make or mould but faith is what is eternal’.

Today, several years later, Kriss is my elder, my mentor and perhaps one of a handful number of people who I can trust for advice and guidance. Long story short, my lack of information, experience and the failure to ‘connect’ were throwing me off literally into some kind of a narrow tunnel that lead me absolutely nowhere. Kriss held my hand and gave me back my faith in life and its Creator.

Carol is another individual who has shown me how to probe and dig deep into situations to find the good and the positive and to bridge the gap between reality and fiction. The lady’s resoluteness and focus to lend a helping hand to those in need is a lesson for those who get ‘distracted’ by worldly matters. Having known her for years now, I can write countless number of pages with respect to her deeds in the most testing times of our lives. She is a torchbearer of patience, perseverance and a superb perception-builder.

The bottom-line is that perception holds the key. Bassem Eid’s conception that those involved in the Middle East muddle need to learn and communicate well makes excellent sense. If politicians have failed, the people can always introduce the much the needed energy and impetus necessary to make the peace process work.

Statesmen like Yitzhak Rabin are no longer amongst us and it seems that those engaged at the highest levels of negotiations are too weak and unassertive to ‘make things happen’. The Middle East quagmire will need a lot many mighty-hearted Kriss’s and the Carol’s to clear the haze and introduce fresh perceptions in the minds of all concerned.

I am sure Bassem Eid is not just a lone voice in the wilderness. There must be many more like him. What we need to do is to pay heed to their message and help perceive matters in an appropriate manner. Perceptions are like an artist’s impression of a painting – they are how well they are presented to the audience and how the audience feels about the message conveyed. If the priorities and the modus operandi are put in order, the perceptional ambiguities can be overcome and peace in the Middle East may no longer be an illusive dream.

--Ahson Saeed Hasan

My brother Jeffrey Brian Gardner was killed at the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. Jeff worked for the insurance company, Marsh & McLennan. As busy as he was, he always found time to volunteer. He put his fix-it and handicraft skills to good use volunteering for Habitat for Humanity overseas and in Newark, New Jersey.

He spent several vacations in Latin America with Habitat for Humanity’s International Global Village program. When he was murdered on September 11, 2001, he was planning to head back to lead a team of Habitat volunteers in El Salvador.

My family established a scholarship fund to enable college students to volunteer internationally, just as Jeff had. On a small scale, we tried to help those who have the interest and ability to volunteer internationally but who simply lack the financial wherewithal to do so. Now there is legislation in place that can provide this on a large scale.

The Global Service Fellowship Program Act (Senate Bill 1464 and House Bill 3698) has been introduced as part of efforts to confront terrorism, and is part of a comprehensive strategy to broaden and strengthen opportunities to serve our nation through global volunteerism.

Many talented individuals who want to serve their country abroad may not be able to commit to two years of Peace Corps service. The fellowship also strongly supports initiatives to expand volunteer opportunities for talented individuals who may wish to serve but are unable because of economic constraints.

As an organization, Our Voices Together is part of a growing number of people who recognize that, in the fight against terrorism, the contributions of ordinary citizens are critical to creating a safer, more compassionate world.

Last week, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said:

“if we are to meet the myriad challenges around the world in the coming decades, this country must strengthen other important elements of national power both institutionally and financially …One of the most important lessons of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is that military success is not sufficient to win: economic development, institution-building and the rule of law, promoting internal reconciliation, good governance, providing basic services to the people, training and equipping indigenous military and police forces, strategic communications, and more – these, along with security, are essential ingredients for long-term success.”

We all know that Secretary Gates’ list of important elements in national security – economic development, basic services, transparency, and more – are functions of civil society, and the fuel for a healthy civil society is volunteerism.

The Global Service Fellowships legislation certainly recognizes this connection.

The Senate Bill cites research done by Terror Free Tomorrow, an organization in the Our Voices Together network. The House Bill quotes the bipartisan 9/11 Commission recommendation to "rebuild the scholarship, exchange and library programs that reach out to young people and offer them knowledge and hope."

These are people-to-people or citizen diplomacy initiatives. They include international volunteer programs.

The Global Service Fellowships legislation is timely! Let’s help them understand why our volunteers are one of those national instruments in which we must invest.As I mentioned, I have important personal reasons for supporting this effort. The Jeffrey Brian Gardner Memorial Scholarship has provided overseas opportunities for hundreds of college student volunteers to work side by side with residents of communities in need, building homes, trust, friendships – and hope – just as Jeff had done.

International volunteers, like my brother, provide that source of hope, one person at a time. Let’s make sure Congress knows this too.

--Eric Gardner

“I think in the evolution of any religion that all of what is beautiful becomes easily corrupted. Instead of worship of the Almighty, we evolve into worship of the codification, the rituals, the institutions, the demagoguery, the separatism, and sadly, the sense of superiority we think our religion endows. In other words, we begin to worship ourselves. We are the ones we were warned about. And there we begin to descend into everything we thought we hated. Indeed, we represent hatred more than the expression of a loving and merciful God who wishes only that we communicated that love to others. I have long thought that what the Muslim world needed was a Reformation.”

Astoundingly challenging as it may sound, the issue of Islamic fundamentalism is by no means easy to grapple with. It is, for sure, more of a story of hatred than love. Hence when folks who were or still remain a part of the problem start pointing fingers, instead of deliberating upon reforming themselves, one does get a bit rattled with respect to the entire activity.

We all know that when it comes to taking responsibility, the oil rich Arabs tend to adopt hands off policy or, better still, like to stay away from the scene. However, something exceptional happened recently – not that an Arab sheikh took responsibility but actually shifted responsibility from the Saudi kingdom’s involvement in terrorism to some self-created, non-existent characters and role-players.

In early October, the grand mufti (the topmost religious scholar) of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh Abd Al-'Aziz bin Abdallah Aal Al-Sheikh, announced in the form of a fatwa (religious edict) that the kingdom’s young men were being brainwashed and misled by suspicious elements and that they had fallen into wrong hands, thereby ending up being a part of the fallacious exercise that has come to be known as jihad in the modern day terminology.

Flabbergasted with the comments, I searched for the script of the fatwa to get a sense of what was blurted out by ‘honorable’ mufti. According to MEMRI (the Middle East Media Research Institute), the mufti states that setting forth to wage jihad without proper authorization is a serious transgression. The mufti said that youth Saudis who do so are being misled by ‘suspicious elements’ from both the East and the West who are exploiting them for their own aims and causing serious damage to Saudi Arabia, Islam and Muslims.

Below I reproduce excerpts of the fatwa:

"Out of concern for our youth, and in order to give advice to the Muslim imams (heads of mosques) and the Muslim public, I have resolved to issue (the following statement). For several years now, we have been faced (with a phenomenon) of our youth going out from Saudi Arabia with the intention of engaging in jihad for the sake of Allah. These young people are full of enthusiasm and religious zeal, but lack sufficient religious knowledge to be able to discern between truth and falsehood - which is why they succumb to temptation and fall into traps set for them by suspicious elements. They have become a pawn in the hands of foreign apparatuses, which are toying with them in the name of jihad, and are using them to accomplish their own shameful aims and getting what they want by (perpetrating) foul operations that could not be further from the religion.

"This (phenomenon) has reached the point where our youth have become a commodity bought and sold by elements in both the East and the West, with the aim of fulfilling their own objectives and goals - and only Allah knows the extent of the damage that (these operations) are causing Islam and its people.

"In the past, we and others have warned against leaving the country (i.e. Saudi Arabia) for this purpose (i.e. jihad), since the situation was not apparent, the conditions were complicated, and (the sources of authority) were not clear. These young people's rebellion against their rulers and their 'ulama, as well as their leaving the country in order to engage in the so-called jihad outside Saudi Arabia, have caused great evil, including the following:

"1. Disobedience of their rulers and causing them harm, which is a grave sin, as the Prophet said: 'He who obeys an amir - it is as if he obeyed me, and he who does not obey an amir - it is as if he did not obey me'... The evidence for the prohibition on rebelling against a ruler is abundant.

"2. It has been found that many of the young people who left to engage in what they thought to be jihad violated their rightful oath of allegiance (bay'a) to the ruler of this pure country - an oath regarding which there is a consensus among all the figures of authority. (Violating this oath) is forbidden, and is a grave sin...

"3. (These young people) have been easy prey for anyone seeking to corrupt the country and to exploit their (religious) zeal - to the point where they have become walking bombs, killing themselves to accomplish the political and military aims of suspicious elements.

"4. (These young people) have been exploited by outside elements in order to shame this pure country, to inflict damage and suffering upon it, to let its enemies prevail over it, and to justify their greed regarding it. All this is extremely dangerous, because the actions of (these young people) harm the Muslim nation - this damage harms (our) peaceful and serene country (Saudi Arabia). By their actions, (these young people) are weakening the country and its people."

This fatwa, as various media sources pointed out, comes against the backdrop of the involvement of Saudi nationals in the 9/11 attacks on United States, participation in terrorist operations in Iraq and in the Nahr Al-Bared refugee camp incident in Lebanon.

Theoretically, whatever the mufti said makes an excellent reading. In fact, it’s sounds like a lecture in enlightened moderation. However, if one analysis the fatwa, its more or less a case of kettle calling the pot black! Certain words and phrases used by the reverend mufti seem to suit the Saudis better than any other nation on this planet!

The mufti says that the Saudi youth are full of enthusiasm and religious zeal. Point accepted. But, it is one’s understanding that the Saudi educational curriculum teaches nothing but hatred against the non-Muslims. Right from the day a child enters school, there is an emphasis on the downtrodden, parochial concepts of religion dating back to the times when perhaps Islam was still in its initial stages and perhaps also when the Muslims were using oppressive measures to bring people in to the fold of the religion. The very incompatibility of the kingdom’s educational system with the modern times is one huge factor that ‘urges’ its youth to have a go at those who don’t seem to fit their description of Islam.

Who is the mufti referring to as the ‘suspicious elements’ from both the East and the West who are exploiting them (the Saudi youth) in order to accomplish their own aims’? This statement sounds delusional and at crossroads with reality! It’s always been the Saudi keenness to propagate their brand of Islam in various regions of the world. Every Tom, Dick and Harry knows that the Saudi money created the Taliban movement. The country of Pakistan stands destroyed and infested by terrorism today only because of the Saudi involvement. Osama Bin Laden has serious connections with the Saudi royal family. More than 90 percent of those responsible for 9/11 attacks were from Saudi Arabia. Is that not enough to make the mufti scratch his head and ponder about the fact that the kingdom is standing on a rather rickety, in fact, defective edifice? Is it not time yet to reform?

Furthermore, no one country in the West wants to incite terrorism. In fact the West is running for cover from the fundamentalists, who have created havoc in Europe and the United States. The mufti needs to clarify as to what exactly he’s implying by the ‘suspicious elements’.

The mufti says that the Saudi youth have become a pawn in the hands of foreign apparatuses, which are toying with them in the name of jihad, and are using them to accomplish their own shameful aims and getting what they want by (perpetrating) foul operations that could not be further from the religion.

What foreign apparatuses are being referred to here? Trying to locate as to who calls the shots within the Saudi structural framework is an impossible adventure. However, it appears that some ‘higher source’ asked the mufti to issue this fatwa. Of late, there has been an intense public debate vis-à-vis the kingdom’s participation and links to the atrocious terrorist groups. Can such defensive tactics exonerate the Saudi authorities from the acts and omissions committed by its nationals? Hell no!

What the influential figures of the religion of Islam, such as the reverend mufti, need to do is that instead of launching irrational onslaughts against the world at large, they must work for reconciliation. No civilized nation will indulge in contaminating the minds of the Saudi youth, especially at a time when education, economic prosperity and environment are the high priority issues, especially in the West. The 9/11 hijackers were adult, grown up men who were very well of the obnoxiously hideous trickery they were about to commit and hence one doesn’t see any foreign apparatus turning them into some kind pawns referred to by the mufti in his fatwa.

The mufti must advise his rulers, i.e. the Saudi royals to reform their way of conduct, their style of governance, and adopt an open-minded approach toward the ‘less fortunate’ nations. May be, stop meddling in the affairs of poorer Muslim countries engaging themselves in unwholesome pursuits. They need to shun the insecurity of their minds.

Or perhaps, approach religion from a non-political perspective. Mind you, Saudi Arabia is NOT a pure country. It’s human rights record is known to all and sundry. It’s perhaps not even worth discussing the tantalizingly brutal nature of the penal code that is in force in the kingdom. More than anything else, it is a dictatorship of the worst kind where the rulers are free to party and make merry, whereas the ruled are subservient to strict out-dated Shariah laws.

As my friend pointed out that Islam needs Reformation, it will not be bad idea if the Saudis, being the leaders of the Islamic world, take the lead and introduce some much-needed reforms in their own political, educational, judicial and governmental systems. May be human rights friendly laws could be something to think about. Providing respect and freedom to women and minorities can be another area to work on.

Moreover, given the tremendous amount of resources at their disposal, perhaps that Saudis can also think in terms of starting a reformation movement in the Islamic world. Once that movement gains momentum, one is confident that it’ll have positive impact on the disjointed, disgruntled and disoriented Muslim Ummah (community). Make each day a day of reformation!

It’s time that big guns of the Muslim world should open their eyes and look around. They seem to be victims of lack of imagination and infertility of minds. The world has undergone a drastic change from the times when Islam was first introduced as a religion. There is a dire need to bring down the walls of pride and prejudice and extricate the religion from the trenches of darkness.

Muftis, khateebs, imams and like must talk about reformation since that process holds the key to any future prospect of peaceful co-existence amongst different faiths and religions.

Self-reflection and self-criticism are essential. For the love of God and humanity, the rich and the powerful of the Islamic world must rise above themselves and communicate messages of pleasantness, love and tranquility instead of fatwas that may just be nothing but high-sounding nonsense. A sense of conviction is required that can only be achieved with a particular level of certainty and resolve from those who have the courage to make a change and promote a healthy dialogue amongst various nations, religions and communities.

My message to the Saudi mufti and his ‘associates’ is: Turn your heads, peace is beautiful!

–Ahson Saeed Hasan

Now that General Pervez Musharraf has imposed emergency in that country and things are going, sort of, topsy turvy, all concerned are questioning the rationale of giving away cash to a regime that may possibly be channelizing funds toward obnoxious expeditions that could potentially end up giving controls of Pakistan’s nuclear program to religious fanatics.

There seems to be some disconnect or a conflict vis-à-vis dealing with Musharraf amongst the decision-making circles in Washington. Considering that at the moment the Pakistani system of governance is in shambles, militants are capturing town after town in the north of the country, suicide bombings are rampant, it is rather important to understand that even though Musharraf may appear to be a secular minded commando who likes to speak English and drink beer, from a historical standpoint he’s been instrumental in inciting religion-based insurgency on a consistent basis.

Protagonists of ‘Musharrafism’ contend that, ‘it is hard to identify any single leader whose removal could open up greater dangers’. Jack Rosen of the American Jewish Congress-Council for World Jewry, wrote a piece recently in the Jerusalem Post that summed up the entire Musharraf ‘support structure’ in an extremely lucid manner.

Below are some of the key points of Rosen’s article:

• The militants in Pakistan are a well-armed and well-financed force that wields considerable influence within many parts of the government and have close ties with the Pakistani military and intelligence services. Musharraf is the one who has been able to control these nefarious tendencies and has checked the flow of assistance from within the government circles to the jihadis. “Pakistan's military and intelligence services have, for decades, used religious parties for recruits. The ISI, in particular, includes many key figures who have Islamist attachments. Part of their appeal is that the Islamists embrace strong nationalist symbols, positioning themselves as the protectors of Pakistan's nuclear deterrent capability and the champions of securing Kashmir for Pakistan”. Rosen perhaps wants to emphasize that Musharraf’s strong benefit is his all-encompassing hold on non-moderate forces within the Pakistan military dynamics.
• ‘Musharraf’s commitment toward the war against terrorism is unprecedented. When, after 9/11, the United States put much greater pressure on Pakistan to cut its ties with militant Islam, Musharraf made a momentous decision to join the war on terrorism. But Musharraf's personal commitment was not shared by many hard-line skeptics within his own army. Many of them doubted that the United States could be trusted as an ally, given the US commitment to India, and did not want to turn against longtime jihadi allies. In addition, the costs of confronting the well-entrenched mujahadeen in the border regions with Afghanistan were daunting.’
• “This tension within the Pakistani national security establishment still exists today. If Musharraf, the strongest figure in the moderate wing, were removed, it is very possible that this balance would shift to the advantage of the Islamists and forces hostile to the West.” ‘Musharraf's critics paint a rosy picture of what might happen if Musharraf were removed. But what if they prove wrong, as critics of the Shah of Iran were in 1979 when they predicted that moderate forces would take power after his removal?’

It appears that Musharraf’s ‘presence’ brings with it ‘unlimited rewards’! It is believed that Musharraf is the one responsible for warding off a disastrous head-on confrontation with Pakistan’s nuclear neighbor, India. He has made the situation realistically suitable for engaging the archenemy in a constructive dialogue that has produced rich dividends for the peace process to carry on.

Those who are well-aware of Musharraf’s past are a bit surprised as to the trust that has been placed by the West on a general who could go down as the most misunderstood phenomenon in recent history. Granted that Musharraf did ‘offer’ to extend a helping hand to the US in a few days after 9/11, the fact of the matter is that he did not have any other option but to go along with Washington’s wishes - the commitment to the war on terrorism is a forced one.

The West is putting its money on the wrong horse. Musharraf has been a patron of jihad himself. A background check reveals that Musharraf was ambitious and adventurous right from the early days of his military career. He even caught the eye of the late dictator General Zia back in the 80s by virtue of his keenness to be a part of the Afghan jihad campaign. Musharraf was actively involved in the creation of what came to be known as the Taliban. Still more, the 1999 Kargil campaign was this very general’s brainchild.

The Bush administration is suffering from an acute case of unwarranted gullibleness. By not creating a system of checks and balances with respect to the aid/grants provided to the Pakistani government, Washington has landed itself in a quagmire of sorts. One who understands the Pakistani psyche and it’s history, I wouldn’t be surprised if the unaccounted funds for the war ON terrorism have been diverted toward war FOR terrorism. Does anyone remember the Ojhri Camp carnage of 1988? The Pakistani military is known for ammunition inventory screw ups.

Further, have we ever wondered why these suicide bombers or the kidnappers who take hostages and brutally kill innocent people, why would they all have some connection or the other with Pakistan?

Is Musharraf a protector of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program? Will he never ever handover the nuclear arsenal to the extremists? Given the fragility and brittleness, orchestrated by impulsiveness of the general’s decision-making skills, his greed to hang on to the reins of power, nothing can be ruled out. He might have, prima facie, denounced extremism, yet, he can go to any extreme to protect his rule and shake hands with elements that can guarantee the continuation of his rule. Musharraf is no statesman – he’s, at best, an over-estimated tribal warlord!

Musharraf’s and the West’s best hope for freedom and democracy in Pakistan, Benazir Bhutto, was a main force behind the creation of the Taliban back in the 1990s. Whereas today Benazir is shouting against extremism, her government was hand in glove with the fundamentalist groups, such as the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam, when the world was ‘gifted’ with the devils that changed our way of thinking forever.

Musharraf may have contributed toward creating some goodwill with India but it does not imply that it was his ‘steadying influence’ that calmed the explosive situation in the sub-continent. India’s growing economy and that country’s change in priorities meant that they have better issues to deal with! Moreover, the Pakistani military intelligence got ‘distracted’ in the so-called war on terrorism. They say, ‘fund is fundamental’ - the corrupt generals found an ‘alternate outlet’ to make some extra cash, thanks to generous dollar contributions received!

Where do we go from here? What route should Washington ideally adopt in order to resurrect hopes of a stable, secular Pakistan in order to ensure that the scourge of extremism is rooted out for good?

Let’s face it, Musharraf is not going to rule forever. The Bush administrations ‘body language’ suggests that they are willing to work with the general, provided he complies with certain conditions. This effort characterized by utmost tolerance can bite the US bad. Musharraf has exceeded all limits of indecency and his extra-constitutional steps have utterly wrecked the Pakistani system. Anarchy and street bloodshed can erupt anytime. This would provide the terrorists with an opportunity to solidify their stronghold and perhaps indulge in an abrupt activity that could eventually destroy the delicate balance that the US has established.

Washington must stop banking on Musharraf and ensure his removal in a peaceful manner. His exit from the scene will calm down the strife on the streets for now. An ad hoc mechanism, headed perhaps by the deposed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court should ensure that free and fair elections, overseen by organizations such as Amnesty International, are held according to the rule of law.

The military leadership should be engaged in parleys about the future role of the institution in the country’s politics. A commitment should be taken that the army will continue to facilitate the Western forces in the war against terrorism and Al-Qaeda but must not become a party to encouraging extremism or create dissension amongst the military ranks on the basis of religion.

By the same token, money given to the government of Pakistan should be accounted for. Adopting a ‘supervisory role’ vis-à-vis the disbursement of funds and weapons is a must.

The Pakistani nuclear program should be guarded and manned by the US nuclear experts or if that is too much to ask, may be a UN created body may not be a bad idea.

Return the people their freedom and encourage a genuine human rights oriented Pakistan where respect for humanity is right at the top of the list of priorities. The US embassy in Islamabad and consulates in other cities can monitor government high-handedness and excesses.

The US must work for the support for freedom of speech and freedom of Press and the rights of all Pakistani journalists in conjunction with the general support for the overall rights of the people of Pakistan.

Basically check the army and purge the system of self-proclaimed politicians. Benazir Bhutto is a hoax. Pakistan is suffering from an intensive crisis of leadership. Beyond Bhutto is another former two-time Prime Minister, Nawaz Sharif – a nincompoop of the highest order!

The political system stands in dire need of a thorough cleansing. The primary task should be to cultivate a leadership that is open-minded enough to accept Western values, facilitate in eliminating extremism, appreciate the US geo-strategic concerns in the area and, in return, establish a socio-economic infrastructure that would ensure prosperity for millions of deprived youth who fall a prey to the fundamentalist brainwashing tactics. This investment done today in this direction would guarantee Pakistan’s stability for many years to come.

One would wonder why would the US do all this? History is witness to the fact that Washington always rushes its emissaries to Pakistan in times when stress levels rise in that part of the world, when Islamabad’s cooperation is needed to break the ice or use that country’s resources to neutralize and nullify anti-US forces. Nixon’s Ping Pong diplomacy, Afghan jihad, and of course, now the war against terrorism are some of the examples that readily come to one’s mind.

The US needs Pakistan and its interests can only be safeguarded if there is peace and stability in the country. A reliable long-term system inclined to be cooperative rather than resist is the solution to the situation. Something like the Marshall Plan for Pakistan may be considered to revamp the infrastructure.

The evolving situation is highly challenging. The US government machinery should come in motion and re-orient itself as soon as possible. No one wants the Islamists to take over the nuclear program; no one wishes to see the turbaned, bearded figures occupying the seats of power.

The task requires courage, to say the least, and a well planned concerted effort that could end oppression and the environment of unconstitutionality. It is time to realize that General Musharraf has served his purpose and the US must move on, for the sake of its own safety and security to a different set of allies in the Pakistani context. The focus should be to get rid of the vulnerable and replace them with those who have the long haul gut.

--Ahson Saeed Hasan

First published in The Statesman, Editorial Page Special Article, Oct 30 2007
www.thestatesman.net

If there is a "natural alliance" between India and the United States, it arises to the extent that both are large democracies and more or less free societies that happen to be placed half way across the globe and pose no perceptible military threat to one another. The real long-term strategic and political dimensions of such an alliance are quite independent of the business interests driving the "nuclear deal" or selfish interests of the few million "elite" Indians who have fled to the USA as immigrants in recent decades. The interests of Indian immigrants in the USA and interests of the vast masses in India are, after all, quite distinct. Also, America derives most if its own energy not from nuclear reactors but from abundant hydroelectric resources. If the nuclear deal has been ill-conceived and fails in implementation at any stage, India will not import expensive nuclear reactors but can still learn much from the USA in developing hydroelectric power which constitutes India's greatest energy potential as well.

China and Pakistan
Key strategic interests of India and the USA are fully convergent in East Asia, especially in respect of Communist China. But in West Asia, American attitudes and actions towards the Muslim world, specifically the invasion and occupation of Iraq and now a possible assault on Iran, have been deeply disconcerting for India which has some 120 million Muslim citizens.

It is not a coincidence that Pakistan, an overtly religious Muslim state, has had a marriage of convenience with Communist China, an overtly atheistic anti-religious state. Both have been militarist dictatorships that have seen democratic India as a strategic adversary, especially over territorial claims. It was Pakistan that facilitated President Nixon's desired opening to Communist China and later permitted President Reagan's attack on the soft underbelly of the USSR in the Afghan civil war (an attack in which China participated too). With the USSR's collapse, the USA removed its main strategic adversary only to be left with two new adversaries: Islamic fundamentalism in the short run and China in the long run!

Indian diplomacy can credit a rare (indeed exceptional) success in having warned the USA from the early 1990s onwards of the dangers brewing in the jihadist camps in Pakistan sponsored by the ISI. The US Government has now declassified its assessments of those dangers and what it tried to do as early as 1995 and as late as 2000 through the Saudis with the Taliban's Mullah Omar ~ who refused to hand over Osama Bin Laden to Saudi Arabia and openly spoke of plans for revenge against American interests. With a continuing Cold-War mindset, US policy-makers thought state-actors like Saddam Hussein were a graver risk to Israel than non-state or  pan-state actors like Osama could be to the American mainland. Having distracted itself with Saddam, the US Government's response to Osama has been far too much far too late ~ the maddened bull chasing the matador's cape, in Stephen Holmes's recent metaphor.

Pakistan's consistent motivation was one of gaining advantage with the Americans in the hope of undermining India, and indeed the nexus created in Washington by Pakistan's bureaucrats, politicians and military over decades has been the envy of all lobbyists. But Pakistan overplayed its hand, and once the 9/11 genie was let out of the bottle it could not be put back in again. Meanwhile, Pakistan allowing Gwadar port to become a haven for China's Navy would have obvious new strategic repercussions.

American interests in West Asia are to protect Israel, to protect trade-routes and to defend against non-state or pan-state terrorism. American interests in East Asia are to protect Japan, South Korea and Taiwan from communist attack, to protect trade-routes and to defend against new terrorism arising from places like Indonesia or the  Philippines. All American interests in Asia would be facilitated by appearance of genuine multiparty democracy and free societies in China and Pakistan.

China as a two-party or multi-party democracy and a free society, even on the Taiwan-model, is unlikely to be an expansionist militarist aggressor in the way it has been as a dictatorship and unfree society. Communist China in the early 21st Century makes the same outrageous unlawful claims on Indian territory as it did half a century ago. Only the USA came to India's assistance in a tangible way when Communist China attacked in Ladakh and Arunachal in the late months of 1962. John Kenneth Galbraith was President Kennedy's Ambassador in New Delhi and his memoirs tell the tale of the landings of C-130 aircraft in Kolkata carrying infantry weapons, light artillery and quartermaster stores for the beleaguered Indian Army in Tezpur and Leh.

Nehru, Krishna Menon and India's whole political and diplomatic leadership revealed gross incompetence as did the Army's top brass. Indian Communists virtually betrayed the country. The Chinese massed in the Chumbi Valley near Nathu La, and had they attacked all the way to Siliguri, India's North East would have been cut off. As a demonstration, the Chinese in division strength took and held the whole of Arunachal for a month, withdrawing before there could be anyIndian attempt to retaliate or cut supply lines. The geography has not changed in fifty years. What can yet change is the ideology, away from the communism that has ruined China's great people, to a new and bold commitment to liberal democracy and the Rule of Law.

As for Pakistan, its people under crude military rule have hardly allowed themselves to become the source of Muslim culture that Iqbal had dreamt of. Pakistan today is not a place even the most ardent pro-Pakistani person in Jammu & Kashmir can find very appealing or inspiring. If there was multiparty democracy and a free society in which the military had a normal small role of defence (as opposed to a large purportedly offensive role against India), Pakistan could calm down from its neuroses and become a normal country for the first time~ one in which the so-called "extremists" of today are transformed into a politically legitimate religious conservatism, who could seek to take power responsibly through the ballot box.

Neutrality
India should be a friendly neutral in the conflict between the West and Muslim world, doing whatever we can to bring better understanding between the two sides. Both have been invaders in Indian history, bringing both evil and good in their wake. India's culture absorbed and assimilated their influences and became more resilient as a consequence. India also was a haven for Jews and Zoroastrians fleeing persecution. India as a country must condemn fanatical terrorist attacks on the West and bizarre reactionary attempts to return to a caliphate in the world of modern science. Equally, India must condemn vicious racist bombing and warfare unleashed by technologically advanced countries upon ancient societies and cultures struggling to enter the modern world in their own way.

As for the central issue of Israel in Palestine, Martin Buber (1878-1965), the eminent Zionist scholar and philosopher of Judaism, said to Rabindranath Tagore in 1926 that the Jewish purpose should be one of "pursuing the settlement effort in Palestine in agreement, nay, alliance with the peoples of the East, so as to erect with them together a great federative structure, which might learn and receive from the West whatever positive aims and means might be learnt and received from it, without, however, succumbing to the influence of its inner disarray and aimlessness." If India could guide the region towards such a "great federative structure" of reason and tranquillity, while encouraging democracy in China and Pakistan, the aim of our "natural alliance" with the United States half way across the globe would have been fulfilled.

Internationally, some nations believe that U.S. actions have confirmed their worst historical myths about us – the implicit arrogance of Americans who, from their point of view, do not have to worry about anything, including what anything costs, and the soft bigotry of Americans who do not see other people as the same as themselves. They also do not see us as a collaborative partner.

The brilliance of the United States is that every person can constantly re-invent him or herself and, thus, re-invent the nation. Historical myths do not have to hold true for long. I grew up in Atlanta. I saw signs that said “No Colored Allowed”. I rode segregated buses and trains. We are not that nation any more. We have changed. We must continue to change. Fortunately for me, one of the nuggets learned by being old is the realization that, except for the purposefully evil, everyone does the best they can. So, how can each of us seize this unique moment and do the best we can?

Let me try to answer this question by focusing on my expertise in the Horn of Africa and briefly touching in my remarks on why Americans should be interested in the Horn of Africa, on what people-to-people activities in Kenya and Ethiopia I found helpful, on some of my favorite hobby horses, just because you are a captive audience, and then I will end by suggesting some actions we all might take to deepen bonds and strengthen people-to-people links.

Last month, on the 6th anniversary of the September 11th terrorist attacks on our nation, 9/11 Commission Chairman Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton reiterated in a Washington Post opinion piece, a key and often overlooked recommendation from their 9/11 Commission report. They said: “America’s long-term security relies on being viewed not as a threat but as a source of opportunity and hope.” The 9/11 Commission report, in its chapter on global strategy, specifically recommends:

• “We should offer an example of moral leadership in the world, committed to treat people humanely, abide by the rule of law, and be generous and caring to our neighbors.
• The U.S. should re-build the scholarship, exchange and library programs that reach out to young people and offer them knowledge and hope.”

As I experienced in the diplomatic world, and as the 9/11 Commission recognized, it is the people-to-people links that underpin government-to-government relations. I support more robust citizen diplomacy efforts as part of our nation’s counterterrorism efforts. You can make a difference. Don’t sit passively as the critical issues of the day pass you by. To paraphrase Dr. Martin Luther King, you may not have a global stage on which to act, but each of you has the diplomatic skills to positively influence family, community, local or national levels to foment dialogue that builds international understanding.

Why should you be interested in Africa? Let me try to answer by paraphrasing the famous Pulitzer Prize-winning author David McCullough, who said, history is too often seen as politics, economics, military or social issues, and it is all of that, but it also has to do with the human heart. It is who we are and how we came to be where we are and the way we are. And, frankly, in my view, Americans are woefully ignorant of history – particularly the connections between Africa and America.

Mankind came out of Africa. The famous bones of Lucy, the earliest human found to date, are currently touring U.S. museums. The bones were found in Ethiopia which pinpoints the Horn of Africa and its Rift Valley as our collective original hometown. When the first African slave set foot in Virginia, Africans became connected to this soil. Our destinies have always been intertwined.

Yet, we operate from stereotypes about each other. Americans, in general, visualize the continent being just one country – called Africa – rife with starvation, famine, wars, disease, corruption and the like. Africans often see Americans as arrogant, condescending, unmotivated to work hard, anti-education, and overly acquisitive of material things. These are gross generalizations but you get my drift.

I was fortunate to be in Ethiopia during the time when both countries could celebrate 100 years of diplomatic relations. There is no other nation on the continent about which we can say that, except Liberia – and, as you know, the U.S. had a hand in the formation of Liberia. A U.S. diplomatic mission led by Robert Skinner went to Ethiopia in 1903 because the railroad between the port of Djibouti and the town of Dire Dawa had been completed. Being “Yankee Traders” we thought we would continue from Dire Dawa to Ethiopia’s capital of Addis Ababa to negotiate a treaty of commerce and friendship. Thus began the formal diplomatic relationship.

In 2003, Ethiopia’s Foreign Minister and I agreed that we should concentrate on celebrating people-to-people ties. In the 20th Century ordinary Americans had helped Ethiopia from the early years and ordinary Ethiopians early on had been educated in the U.S. and more recently have immigrated to become new Americans. African Americans, in particular, played key roles in Ethiopia’s history. Our official celebratory events included symposia, performances by American artists around Ethiopia, lectures, enhanced funding for HIV/AIDS and other programs, and mutual encouragement of deeper personal ties between our peoples. As U.S. Ambassador to Ethiopia, my mantra was that after 100 years there was no issue the two countries could not talk about; this mantra allowed us to raise any issue with the government, including human rights and other sensitive issues, and to talk to all strata of the population about their concerns. Twenty-first Century diplomacy could stand upon the shoulders of deep and abiding 20th Century people-to-people ties.

When I served as U.S. Ambassador in Kenya in the mid-1990s, I would hear over and over from Kenyans about the critical importance of one of those deep and abiding people-to-people ties that had happened forty years earlier. Has anyone here heard of the Tom Mboya-Kennedy African Airlift? In the 1950s and early 1960s, when Kenya was on the cusp of independence from Britain, Kenyan labor leader Tom Mboya wanted American education – not British – for the generation of Kenyans who would soon be running their new nation. His request was repeatedly turned down by the U.S. government. Tom Mboya visited then-Senator Kennedy who arranged for his family’s Joseph P. Kennedy Jr. Foundation, established in the memory of his brother who was killed in World War II, to finance the airlift.

Through the efforts of Tom Mboya and the African-American Student Foundation, 81 students from Kenya initially were granted scholarships in the United States and a plane was chartered to bring them here. Later, students from Uganda and what are now Tanzania and Zimbabwe were included and flew to the U.S. for undergraduate and graduate degrees. They returned home to help run their newly independent nations. Eventually, the State Department expanded its own African scholarship program. Many of East Africa’s government and private sector leaders of my generation and older were U.S. educated and remember how it was the people of the U.S. who gave them their opportunity.

Let me bring my remarks back to each individual present tonight and to what actions you personally can take to deepen international bonds – bonds that counter terrorism more effectively than war or other alternatives.

I know from my experience as a diplomat that when Americans are seen as acting in accord with our values and beliefs, foreigners use us as a role model. These values and beliefs are in our founding documents but they also are represented in our present day actions. Proliferation of people-to-people ties can help build alternatives to terrorism, although we should never fool ourselves that terrorism will be completely eliminated. The history of mankind shows it always present but terrorism can wane with concerted effort by like-minded citizens.

Now I am going to ask for a show of hands – if only to make sure I have kept you awake! How many of you have a valid passport? How many of you have used it to visit a country outside of Europe? Travel can liberate you from the “either/or” trap of looking at situations and place you in the more expansive “and/also” way of viewing the world. We need a national “Dr. Phil” moment. We need to let go of fear, let go of fortress America, let go of being de-sensitized, let go of the focus on “me” and re-balance the weight we give to individual versus collective responsibility, let go of the fear of the different. Your generation can then claim, as the former President of my college, Spelman, stated, “We are for difference, for allowing difference, for learning to understand difference, and for respecting difference until difference doesn’t make any more difference”.

Specifically, I suggest that you students study abroad sometime in your college career. Recent graduates, professors and working adults could consider joining the Peace Corps, which carries out grass roots community level projects around the world. We might consider teaching or working in another country with a non-governmental organization (NGO) to help redress the brain drain of educated people, especially in Africa. Women have been left behind worldwide, including in Africa, and Americans can promote a policy that all African or other nations’ women should have the opportunity to matriculate through an educational system, including to the professional ranks. Americans should demand that our citizens learn the nuances about and languages of foreign nations in our early education system to be better global citizens. Americans have the shortest timeline of almost every other nation; we think a year is long term and six months is medium term. Most countries think short term is several decades and long term is certainly beyond that. We are out of synch with the speed, change may happen in other cultures which can throw off our actions/reactions – so we need more realistic expectations of how long it might take to see results from our efforts. We need to be in this for the long haul, not get weary, and not falter.

So what can you do today?

• Reach out to visiting foreigners – show the welcoming open face Americans used to have before 9/11; volunteer to open your homes to host foreign visitors. Visit www.nciv.org (National Council on International Visitors.) Practice listening and learning about others and look for the subtle cultural cues that can bind a friendship.
• Apply for internships with the Department of State; visit www.careers.state.gov for information.
• Visit www.OurVoicesTogether.org to find out what others are doing to reach out internationally, as one response to terrorism.
• Promote events on campus focused on international education or diversity; some colleges have a Diversity Week or International Education Week.
• Communicate with your Congressional representative, your Senator, your Cabinet members, and the President of course, on what you believe the U.S. foreign policy should be and how you want the U.S. to act in the world; consider advocating expanded foreign assistance, HIV/AIDS, education programs and the like that can positively affect many people. Foreigners know us by how we care for the least among us – at home and abroad.
• Finally, vote in U.S. elections on every level.

-- Ambassador Aurelia Brazeal, Diplomat-in-Residence, Howard University
Atlanta League of Women Voters and Agnes Scott College
“Safer, More Compassionate World Forum”
Teasley Auditorium, Mary Brown Bullock Science Center
October 22, 2007

On September 12, Yahoo News carried a fear-based piece by blogger Michelle Malkin entitled “John Doe in Post 9/11 America.” In addition to her regular routine of bashing the left, bashing civil liberties groups and bashing Muslims, she talks of a new movement, created she says “Earlier this year, (after) jihadist enablers attempted to intimidate citizen whistleblowers who said something about the suspicious behavior of six imams on a US Airways flight in Minneapolis/St. Paul. The legal battle to protect ordinary Americans from such lawsuits gave rise to the John Doe movement. Pro bono lawyers and GOP members of Congress stepped up to provide protection. And Americans across the country expressed solidarity with the airline passengers targeted by the Council on American-Islamic Relations and its ilk.”

She goes on to extol the virtues of John Doe whistleblowers who she says are “9/12 people” not “9/10 people” and who are ever vigilant and watchful for their country.

These are not 9/12 people. On 9/11 and 9/12 people rushed in to help. On 9/11 and 9/12 there was an outpouring of generosity, of compassion, of volunteers. People didn’t ask what faith or what nationality the victims were before reaching in to pull them out of the rubble or sending donations to families. First responders didn’t check to see what color those in need were before stepping up to risk their lives. On 9/11 and 9/12 we came together. Most of us created unity.

9/12 Americans know that at no point in our history has our national security depended as much on our ability to be a respected and integral part of the world community nor has our nation’s credibility ever been so low around the globe. One of our national challenges is to restore America’s role as a trustworthy partner in achieving global security. A new counterterrorism paradigm—one that turns away from fear and toward informed, pragmatic actions that engage rather than disenfranchise communities worldwide—is critical to this effort. The time has come for a new, positive vision.

We must better distinguish between our enemies and our friends. 9/12 people know that being suspicious of Arab and Muslim neighbors, as Malkin would have us do, actually makes us less safe, not more. Extremists thrive when they can isolate people. 9/12 people know that by strengthening the sense of community in our nation and worldwide, by reaching out to people of different faiths and of different backgrounds, we can limit the pockets of isolation exploited by extremists.
9/12 Americans remember that this great nation is based on freedom of religion and we will not let terrorists tempt us to do less than exercise our inalienable right to protect Americans peacefully practicing their chosen faith. 9/12 people have the courage to stand up for what is right based on our values and are not ruled by their fears. 9/12 Americans protect the best of their country – our generosity, our compassion, our freedoms, our faith, and our civic mindedness.

9/12 people do not act out of fear. 9/12 people act to build a better, safer world for all.

9/12 people bring our voices together in friendship, not in suspicion. We are ordinary citizens. We aren’t John Does. We don’t hide behind anonymity. We each have a name. We each can make a difference.

My name is Marianne and I am standing up to bigotry and hatred. What is your name and what are you doing to make the world a safer, more compassionate place?

Terrorism is a tactic used by extremists to coerce opponents and to gain supporters. We know that terrorist tactics lose their ability to coerce if they lose their ability to recruit.

Over the past six years we have focused more on the coercion side of the equation. Experts are now turning to the recruitment side. What can we do to help stem the flow of willing recruits?

Terrorism expert Robert Pape observed that “An individual can die; only a community can make a martyr.” The new Army and Marine Corps’ Counterinsurgency Field Manual, written in part by General David Petraeus makes the same observation. The Manual stresses that “At its core, counterinsurgency is a struggle for the population’s support. The protection, welfare, and support of the people are vital to success.”

Three years ago, the bipartisan 9/11 Commission put forth similar ideas. Chapter 12 of the Commission’s report contains their recommendations for a global strategy to fight terrorism, including that we:

• use all elements of our national power and influence in “more than a war on terrorism,”
• “offer an example of moral leadership in the world,” and
• “be generous and caring to our neighbors.”

When we unite people, terrorists can’t isolate communities in order to use them as a base of support. The nonpartisan, nonprofit organization Terror Free Tomorrow has found that humanitarian missions and reaching out to our neighbors abroad is changing popular opinion. In public opinion research conducted in predominately Muslim countries, Terror Free Tomorrow found that 71% of bin Laden supporters in Indonesia and 79% in Pakistan said they thought more favorably of the United States as a result of American humanitarian assistance in their countries following the Indonesian tsunami and Pakistani earthquake. It’s not only much harder to brutalize those who have reached out to you; the building of schools or clinics represents an alternative vision of how energy and power can be directed.

Our Voices Together is a network started by 9/11 families and friends who are choosing to respond to terrorism with positive global outreach. We believe that citizen diplomacy is critical in the war on terror.

We are not so naïve as to believe that such efforts are the single antidote to terrorism. The work our law enforcement, intelligence, military, diplomats and others are doing is vital. However, citizens also have a critical role. The war against terror is a long one, and as American families reach out to families around the world, we can help make better, safer world.

Sally Goodrich's son Peter was killed on United Airlines Flight 175 on 9/11. Sally wanted to respond with the kind of love and cross-cultural exploration that Peter had shared with the world. She raised $250,000 to build a girls' school in Afghanistan which opened in the spring of 2006.

Susan Retik was pregnant when she lost her husband on 9/11. She and Patti Quigley, who was also pregnant and widowed on 9/11, started an annual bike ride from Ground Zero to Boston to raise money for Afghan widows.

Liz and Steve Alderman lost their son Peter at the World Trade Center on 9/11. They established the Peter C. Alderman Foundation to relieve the suffering of people affected by torture, terrorism and war. They opened clinics in Cambodia and northern Uganda in 2006 and are providing indigenous caregivers with the tools to treat post-traumatic depression.

Eric Gardner's brother Jeff died on 9/11 at the World Trade Center. The Gardner family established a scholarship in his name for college-aged participants in Habitat for Humanity International's Global Village program.

Joyce Manchester and David Stapleton were friends of Leslie Whittington, who was killed with her husband and their two children on 9/11. David and Joyce have formed a giving circle through Our Voices Together to support girls' schools and save the lives of women and children in Afghanistan.

Claudia Merritt's best friend was Norma Steuerle, who was killed on American Airlines Flight 77 on 9/11. As an ordained minister, she believes very strongly in the power of interfaith dialog to create a safer, more compassionate world and is the secretary for Our Voices Together.

Six years later we cannot change the past, but together we can shape the future. What have you done since 9/11/01 to build a safer, more compassionate world? Write a comment and let me know.

After reading the article Prisons Purging Books on Faith from Libraries, I was extremely confused by the reasoning behind some of the government’s actions. The website questions a claim within the prison system that suggests that by banning certain religious material, they are minimizing the possibility of recruitment to terrorist-run organizations among the inmates.

On the one hand, banning any readings with violent, extreme, or prejudiced overtones makes sense, especially within a prison-system. However, instead of eliminating books written by Islamic extremists or extreme fundamentalists, government officials have banned all religious materials (not including prayer books and books of worship) with the exception of 150 hand picked selections.

This makes absolutely no sense. The first problem is the fact that the government is now assuming the right to select which books they see as violent and which they see as appropriate or safe. Although government officials had the assistance of some chaplains, the government (after the separation of church and state) has never had the authority to decide which religious material is “acceptable”, nor should it. In addition to that, these bans are detrimental to inmates who should be allowed all the spiritual guidance they ask for.

It seems cruel not to allow someone to educate themselves, or mentally engage themselves, while in such a dismal atmosphere. How much personal opinion can the government enforce? Would this article be more compelling if we were considering the bans of religious materials from schools and arguing the rights of its students? If so, is it right that the people in federal and state run prisons are being treated as less-than-citizen? And if it is okay for the government to impose its religious views on a section of its people, where do we draw the line?

First published in The Statesman, Editorial Page Special Article, Friday July 27 2007, www.thestatesman.net

By Subroto Roy

“Balance of power” between other nations while pursuing one’s own commercial and political self-interest, was the leitmotif of British foreign policy throughout the 19th Century and up until World War I. This came to be broadly absorbed and imitated by US foreign policy-makers afterwards. It remains the clear leitmotif of US policy between and towards Pakistan and India in recent years, especially since the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington. Pakistan’s armed forces have been induced through the usual incentives of modern weapons like F-16s, comfortable officer-visits to US military academies, and hard cash to behave cooperatively with perceived American objectives.

Osama bin Laden
For some bizarre and unknown reason (though it might be as simple as ignorance and thoughtlessness), the USA has made itself believe that arch-enemy Osama bin Laden has remained in the Pashtun areas ever since the American attack took place on the-then Taliban Government in late 2001. The Taliban’s leader Mullah Omar certainly remained there or in Balochistan, but anyone who recalls the reported last conversation between Omar and Osama at the time may well have surmised that Osama was planning a long and permanent trip away from Afghanistan and Pakistan. The present author’s own speculation has been that Osama bin Laden probably moved westwards and has been in a safe and comfortable hideout somewhere in the deserts of North Africa ~ while everyone continues to frantically and ridiculously look for him very far away from where he is.

American policy towards Pakistan has been determined by the parameters of the new policy towards Afghanistan ~ which has been to prop up the Hamid Karzai Government in the hope a pro-American “moderate” “modern” Pashtun like Mr Karzai might one day become a constructive role model for all other Pashtuns, while NATO extends itself “pacifying” any new Pashtun insurgency and attacking poppy-crops on the pattern of the anti-narcotics war in Colombia, and US “Special Forces” continue to look for Osama and friends. Pakistan’s Musharraf has been expected to play along with this, and, in order for him to release and transfer some 80,000 soldiers towards that end, India has been requested not to give him a reason not to want to do so.

General Musharraf was one of the major beneficiaries of the officer-exchange programmes between the US and Pakistan militaries in the past. Like Benazir Bhutto, he is a “known” quantity, well-understood and hence rendered predictable by the American military and diplomatic establishment. Both are also explained and advocated for by their go-betweens, the extremely influential Pakistani bureaucrats within the Washington Beltway and their K-Street lobbyists. Musharraf’s departure to a nice retirement/exile in the USA helped by royalties from his book etc as well as his already-exported son, presumably constitutes a well-planned exit strategy for him personally.

The American problem is that Musharraf may be among the last if not the last of such pliable old-style Pakistani generals ~ the officer-exchange programmes came to slow down or end after the USA pulled out following the defeat of the USSR in Afghanistan, and at the same time Zia ul-Haq had initiated an overt Islamisation of younger officers of the Pakistan military. With such a level of uncertainty as to where the post-Musharraf Pakistan military can or would take itself (along with the country and its nuclear weapons), the only strategy has been to buy them out.

In the current Foreign Affairs, Daniel Markey of the US State Department and Council on Foreign Relations says as much (amid the usual little rhetoric about supporting Pakistani democracy): “Washington must win the trust and confidence of Pakistan’s army. This goal can only be achieved through closer working relationships and tangible investments that lock the United States into a long-term commitment to the region” (italics added).

If American policy towards Pakistan has been to pay to pacify Pakistan’s unpredictable nuclear-armed military, the policy towards India has been one of business, business, and more business. The “US-India Business Council” is merely an official Washington lobbyist protecting American business interests in India such as getting the Governments of India and Maharashtra to pay several hundred million dollars over the Dabhol-Enron fiasco. Yet that is where senior Indian politicians, like the Finance and Commerce Ministers, feel the need to routinely visit on pilgrimage if only to be made to feel important while in the USA. Even Dr Manmohan Singh felt the need to send a personal emissary to gift Condoleeza Rice a basket of Indian mangoes not at her office in the US State Department but when she was addressing a closed-door meeting of that business-lobbyist.

Certainly in case of the so-called “nuclear deal”, there is a political motivation on the American side that India must be prevented from conducting future nuclear explosions, although this may be something mostly symbolic as US intelligence agencies had notoriously failed to predict Pokhran I and Pokhran II. And there is doubtless some reliance that the Indian side to the negotiations has not really properly understood the intricacies of the American political and administrative system, e.g. the insignificance of a Presidential “signing statement”. Hence, if the deal goes through as seems likely now, it will certainly indicate the American side is more than comfortable that if a future Indian Government does not do what the US-side has intended in the nuclear deal (whether or not the Indian negotiators have understood that now), a future US Congress and President will be able to reverse the deal without too much difficulty.

What has mainly driven the deal on the American side is the prospect of very large nuclear business ~ specifically, that India will import six to eight American lightwater reactors. As I have said before in these pages, India’s national energy outlook will barely improve through the nuclear deal (given the miniscule size of the nuclear sector compared to coal and hydro), though a few favoured metros, and Delhi for sure, may see improvement after a decade or two when and if these expensive nuclear reactors become operational.

Short-sightedness
The short-sightedness and indeed sheer imbecility of Indian and Pakistani foreign policy is made clear by the fact we are unable to properly communicate with one another about our common interests as neighbouring countries with the same history and geography except through Washington. The elites of both countries have either fled already or would like to flee or at least travel to the USA to visit their exported adult children as often as possible. It is not dissimilar to our imperial relationship with Britain, where Indians had to travel to London to have their Round Table Conference, England being of course a place of national pilgrimage as the USA has now become. The result is not merely that the militaries and polities of Pakistan and India have wasted vast immeasurable resources in struggles against one another and continue to do so, but also and as importantly, have failed to define robust national identities after six decades.

The author is Contributing Editor, The Statesman

The July 5, 2007 edition of The Wall Street Journal posed some interesting questions about the link between poverty and terrorism. Journalist David Wessel, citing recent research by Princeton University's Alan Krueger, challenges the "conventional wisdom that poverty and lack of education breed terrorism".

Our Voices Together co-founder Gene Steuerle responded with a letter to the editor that was published on July 17 in The Wall Street Journal noting that, while Krueger's basic analysis may be correct, there are compelling reasons for focusing on poverty when responding to terrorism.

Read the letter below and tell me what you think: What are other responses to terrorism that offer alternative visions of a better world?

Mr. Krueger has taken a simple set of statistics on income and said that we should reject "material deprivation or inadequate education as an important cause of support for terrorism." This, unfortunately, ignores what economists know to be group vs. individual effects and has the unfortunate side effect of being interpreted in the political realm as suggesting that there is no relationship between fighting poverty and terrorism. Of course, Mr. Krueger's basic data are correct. Terrorists are often from the middle class. But they also use the humiliation of poverty as a powerful recruiting tool.

There are two reasons to fight poverty as a response to terrorism. First, it offers an alternative vision of how to work for a better society and how to unite those who are divided. Second, terrorists depend upon the emotional support of their communities, and these communities are much less likely to exhibit hatred toward those who are actively engaging with them to construct better lives.

I work with a group of families who have lost loved ones to terrorism and are trying to make a difference by devoting their own resources to activities like building schools or clinics in poor areas of the world, often those communities most affected by terrorists. Our work complements, not competes with, the sacrifices of those who serve as police or firefighters or military. We work with a lot of charities. Pick your own, Mr. Krueger, and become one of our stories. Run some empirical tests later on how well terrorists are recruited from the families of those whom you served vs. other families. In any case, don't sit on the sideline. Show that your comments weren't meant to encourage other people, or our government, to sit on that sideline, because until you act or say otherwise, that is how you are being interpreted.

Gene Steuerle
Co-Founder
Our Voices Together
Washington

First published in The Statesman, Editorial Page, Special Article June 18 2007, www.thestatesman.net

by

Subroto Roy

The Cold War was lost by Soviet and East European communism, and the laurelled victor was the USA along with its loyal allies. Russia and East Europe then transformed themselves. Once there had been Dubcek in the Prague Spring and Sakharov in his apartment. Then there was Lech Walesa the electrician, who, on 14 August 1980, climbed over a fence and led an 18-day strike from which arose the first independent trade union ~ Walesa said "the very basic things: he stood on the shipyard gate and called things by their real names". Then came Gorbachov and Yeltsin. The despised Berlin Wall was smashed into small saleable bits in November 1989 and people just walked across. That was the end of communism. An unknown student stood down the tanks in Tiananmen Square -- though a dozen years earlier the death-watch of Chinese communism had begun with Wei Jingsheng's "Democracy Wall". Communist apparatchiks everywhere (except New Delhi and Kolkata) started to unlearn communism; communist societies and economies began to be placed on a road to health and taken off the road to misery.

Winner's curse

What happened to the victors? Germany quietly unified. Italy's politics stabilised a little. France achieved its wish of being undominated in Europe. Britain, already forlorn from loss of empire, was left trying to arbitrage between Europe and America (though there too there was new competition from the Irish Republic).

Some political learning, reconciliation and growth took place in Europe but there was none in America ~ the biggest victor of all, the one country but for whose efforts all of Europe might have become and remained communist. Instead, the USA chose to gorge itself on self-accolades, bloated, then started to choke on its own hubris.

The result is that as the 2008 Presidential election campaign gets underway, and the Second Iraq War is at its peak, America's polity at its highest level may be in turmoil of a sort not seen since the student revolts at the peak of the Vietnam War.

Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter were an interregnum after the Vietnam and Watergate traumas. It was during the Reagan "restoration" that communism collapsed and Osama bin Laden was befriended. Carter's military mission to rescue American hostages in Iran notoriously failed; Reagan restored American pride by sending in the US Army's crack Rangers to defeat an almost non-existent enemy ~ in Grenada. It was the first successful American military action in a long time. But there was also failure in Beirut where Reagan withdrew after 241 US soldiers were killed by a suicide-bomber.