Pakistan: A Civil Society? By Muhammad Hamid Zaman: New Age Islam's Selection, 08 August 2017
New Age Islam Edit Bureau
08 August 2017
• Pakistan: A Civil Society?
By Muhammad Hamid Zaman
• Vilification of Judiciary and Armed Forces
By Mohammad Jamil
• Will Nawaz Sharif Go Full Insafian?
By Mosharraf Zaidi
• The Reality of Harassment
By Maria Waqar
• Change of Government in Pakistan
By Shahid M Amin
• Gender Equality Is Everyone’s Issue
By Elizabeth Broderick
• Beware Ballistic Missiles That Can Easily Go Nuclear
By Maria Dubovikova
• The Afghan War
By Eric Margolis
• Imran Spills The Beans
By Malik Ashraf
• The Threat Remains
By Rizwan Asghar
• Politics, Patterns and the Economy
By Haroon M Waraich
Compiled By New Age Islam Edit Bureau
-----
Pakistan: A Civil Society?
By Muhammad Hamid Zaman
August 8, 2017
In 2005, the unelected president of the country told American journalists that women in Pakistan get raped to improve their chances of Canadian visas. He was referring to Mukhtaran Mai. After an outcry from those who care, he clumsily tried to paddle back, only to be proven with audio tapes that he indeed had said the vile words. The same gentleman, last week, had the gall to argue that the country was better off with dictators!
One would have hoped that the status of discourse on women would have improved in the last decade, and those in power or vying to be in power, would have the maturity, sensitivity and dignity to deal with such an important matter. However, the events of the past week show that sadly not much has changed. If anything, politics of harassment is in full swing, like never before. Beyond the politicians, we have shown that the diseased mindset is fairly universal, and not just the pathological condition of the dictator.
The discourse by both the leadership of various political parties and by the general public show that we still live in a world where any discussion of harassment, whether it is in parliament or by our leaders, remains unacceptable. We lack the decency and maturity to address issues that are widespread and affect millions in the country. From college campuses to workplace, the verbal abuse, physical intimidation, unwanted advances and violence faced by women is real and present. Yet for many, harassment is viewed by an exclusively political lens, and discussed through a mechanism of convenience, not through the understanding, empathy and seriousness it deserves.
Any woman who brings up the issue of harassment, violence or unwanted advances, is viewed with a deep suspicion. Immediately after her statements, threats of violence, ranging from acid attacks to death, are considered fair game. Public defamation and a barrage of insults against family members are commonplace. The behaviour is shared universally, and no one party has a monopoly on this. Those who demonstrate their disgusting misogyny in parliament are rewarded with the foreign ministry and become the face of the government and the nation to the world. Equally sad is the response to harassment allegations against the near infallible leadership of the main opposition. Somehow political point scoring trumps decency, dignity and respect. If there was any doubt on why so many talented women do not enter politics, despite having outstanding leadership abilities, great ideas and the vision to change, this past week we provided ample examples to clear any such doubt.
The discussion in many supposedly expert circles, including in the all-male panels on TV, also shows a disturbingly naïve understanding of the problem and a complete lack of empathy. The arguments, from a complete denial of existence of the problem, to questioning the morality of the accuser, show a shallow and often patronising attitude. Lost in the discussion are scars of the abuse and traumas faced by them. The argument often presented by many is about the timing. The fact is that sometimes it does take a long time for people to get the courage to come forward, and share their painful story. The child sex abuse scandal in the Catholic Church shows it took decades for the victims to come forward, and many more probably never did. But we don’t care much about facts or respect, especially when it comes to women.
From this cesspool the only way forward is for men to recognise that they are the cause and the drivers of the problem, and that it is both their action and their inaction, that creates a vulgar, hostile and unacceptable environment for women. Harassment on the floor of the assembly, in talk shows, and through Blackberry messages is real and unacceptable in all forms. These issues need to be dealt with fairness, decency and sensitivity.
The 70th birthday next week has to be more than about new songs and cultural dances. We have to ask tough questions of why harassment is so common, and why any discussion of it so difficult. The future must be inclusive, fair and respectful.
Source: /tribune.com.pk/story/1476061/a-civil-society/
------
Vilification of Judiciary and Armed Forces
By Mohammad Jamil
08 August 2017
IT is unfortunate that some politicians, intellectual elite, commentariat and civil society members through their statements and comments denigrate the state institutions, and also try to stoke clash between them. They should realize that clash between the institutions could shake up the very foundations of the state, and the consequences could be disastrous. Addressing a press conference, former Supreme Court Bar Association President Asma Jahangir on Thursday criticized the superior judiciary over what she called a ‘controversial verdict’ in Panamagate case. She sarcastically said: “We were expecting bags filled with diamonds, but matter ended with just an ‘Aqama’ (resident permit)”. She was also critical of the security establishment for controlling the democratic structure in the country. About the appointment of a supervisory judge for NAB references against Sharifs, she said there had been no such precedent. This time round she has drawn flak also from lawyers’ fraternity.
The Pakistan Bar Council (PBC) deplored what it called a vilification campaign against the judiciary, especially the Supreme Court as well as against the armed forces in the wake of the disqualification of Nawaz Sharif as prime minister. Mohammad Ahsan Bhoon, Vice Chairman of the PBC said that any move to undermine the prestige and dignity of the Supreme Court and the armed forces will be resisted with full force. He went on to say that the legal fraternity would not hesitate to go to any extent for protecting the judiciary, as it is the nation’s last hope.” Rasheed A Rizvi, President Supreme Court Bar Association, said it was wrong to cast aspersions on the judiciary, or to insinuate that the judgment against Nawaz Sharif was the result of pressure by outside elements or the establishment. Since 2007, armed forces have stayed neutral and have no favorites.
The then COAS Ashfaq Parvez Kayani had withdrawn military personnel from various departments and issued instructions that military personnel would not have interaction with politicians. Hussain Haqqani the then Pakistan’s ambassador to the US had written a memo to Admiral Mike Mullen unarguably at the behest of the PPP leadership. The then Pakistan army chief General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani was accused of planning to bring down the government in the aftermath of the raid on Osama bin Laden on May 2. In the memo, Mike Mullen was asked to use his influence to stop it. “The government will allow the US to propose names of officials to investigate bin Laden’s presence in Pakistan, facilitate American attempts to target militants like Al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahri and Taliban chief Mullah Omar, and allow the US greater oversight of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons”, the memo said.
The Memo Commission’s report concluded that the memorandum was real and it was authored by Hussain Haqqani former Pakistan ambassador to the US. The commissions report vindicated Army’s stand on the issue, and appreciated General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani and former ISI chief General Ahmed Shuja Pasha for having withstood internal and external pressures for a just cause. During the tenure of former COAS General Raheel Sharif, only once civil-military relations came under stress when a private TV channel accused the ISI of being behind an attack on its anchor person. The then information minister Pervaiz Rashid had said “Hum Ghulail (Catapult) Walon Ke Naheen Dalil Walon Ke Sath Hein.” It was unfortunate that world’s sixth largest army and 5th largest air force in the world armed with nuclear arsenal was described as ‘ghulail wale’. Since COAS General Qamar Bajwa took charge, there seemed to be complete understanding between civil and military leadership; but it was short-lived.
An exclusive news story by Cyril Almeida on national security aspects titled “Act against militants or face international isolation, civilians tell military,” was published in Dawn on 6th October 2016. The very title was provocative as if military was responsible for, what they said, isolation of Pakistan in the world. In such crucial times, when Pakistan is confronted with India’s jingoism and war mongering, a story showing rift between military and civilian leadership could have devastating effects on the minds of patriotic Pakistanis. International media, especially Indian media had given prominent space to the news story and moulded it to further stir anti-Pakistan sentiment. One can infer that the original story was speculative and provocative to mislead the educated mass of the country, and to create mistrust amongst institutions and pillars of state. It was a mischief and an effort to bring army into disrepute.
There is a perception that government wants to establish civilian supremacy through these tactics. But to establish civilian supremacy, Parliament and the executive have to deliver to the people. The government had procrastinated in issuing the inquiry report on Dawn Leaks, and secondly Pakistan Army through ISPR tweet had rejected the notification vis-à-vis implementation of the Dawn Leaks report, as “it was incomplete and not in line with the recommendations by the inquiry board.” To cope with the storms gathering outside our borders against us, the nation needs a measure of internal unity and cohesion. But it is the wedges of stark fragmentation that the elites’ shenanigans are driving among the nation’s ranks. Polarisation and divisiveness are worrisomely in an upswing; cohesion is in a rapid retreat. Yet none among the elites seems to bother about it. They are zestfully keeping up with their divisive pursuits, absolutely unmindful of the dire consequences of their partisan politics and power games.
Source: pakobserver.net/vilification-judiciary-armed-forces/
-----
Will Nawaz Sharif Go Full Insafian?
By Mosharraf Zaidi
August 8, 2017
On August 14, 2014, the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) and the Pakistan Awami Tehrik (PAT) launched a protest that would last until the Army Public School massacre on December 16, 2014.
It was a political show of unprecedented dimensions, with the protests turning ugly on a nightly basis, as the nation feasted on a pulao of contempt for parliament, rule of law and Pakistani institutions. Democrats then, as now, were principally concerned with the nature of the attack on the Pakistani system – a system still fragile, still dominated by a powerful military, and still susceptible to manipulation. For many Pakistani democrats, the 2014 dharna as it has come to be called, combined all the ingredients of past misadventures that cost the country dearly: an urban contempt for electoral leaders, a selfish and compromised opposition to the system, and enough whispers about generals offering secret nods and pats on the back to raise suspicion.
Thanks to the inherent strength of Pakistani democracy, the dharna fizzled out. Sadly, not only did it not generate any real reform, it also confirmed the biases of the two biggest Pakistani leaders. Its duration caused the PTI’s Imran Khan to be convinced even further in his unshakeable self-belief that he is a man of destiny. Its fizzling out convinced Mr Sharif even further in his belief that he is predetermined, infinitely and eternally, to be prime minister.
It is almost exactly three years since the dharna began, and in a strange sleight of hand and twist of fate, it is now Nawaz Sharif that is threatening street agitation. It is amazing what a few hours outside the prime minister’s sherwani can do, but the greatest Insafian in the country today may not be Imran Khan, nor any of his endocrinologically-challenged supporters – it may be Nawaz Sharif himself. The irony will be lost on the former prime minister, but it is not lost on those Pakistanis for whom the country and its people come before any leader, no matter how self-absorbed or narcissistic he or she may be. Just like the dharna was an illegitimate attack on an elected government then, and remains so now, three years later so too are the threats being issued by Nawaz Sharif, both the brazen, explicit ones and the subtle ones through cabinet appointments and other proxies. The democratic order that Sharif himself helped build is bigger than the disappointment of all Insafians, big and small, knowing and unknowing. One may like or dislike the context and texture of the Supreme Court decision to disqualify the former prime minister, but the system is bigger than one man.
So far, the PML-N has had three avenues through which it could have responded to the disqualification of their leader. The first was the choice of replacement prime minister and cabinet, the second are the public statements and posture in response to the disqualification and the third is the manner in which Nawaz Sharif’s family responds to the accountability process that the Supreme Court has laid out. So far the evidence from all three avenues is that Nawaz Sharif wants a fight. This is a poor strategy – for Pakistan and for Nawaz Sharif.
If we are generous, then the first avenue, of selecting a new PM and cabinet, has shown that the PML-N wants to continue to retain the semblance of competence and capability – Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi exudes both humility and a sophisticated understanding of how things work in a modern globalised economy. Yet it also shows that the party wants to assert civilian independence; that is why Khawaja Asif is the new foreign minister and why Mushahidullah Khan is back in the cabinet. The cabinet profile also shows that despite a sense of desperation, the N League is nothing if not a calculating political beast, and an inordinate representation from within the JUI-F from southern Punjab, and from Balochistan, exposes those calculations. But perhaps what the cabinet shows most of all is that elder brother Nawaz Sharif wants to prevent younger brother Shahbaz Sharif from enjoying any clout in Islamabad, at least for now.
On the second avenue, the strategy has been clear from day one. The N League wants to signal to the military and the superior judiciary that it has the capacity to engage in long-term rhetorical warfare and street agitation. No matter how gently PM Abbasi frames his policy-first posture, social media posts and news television interviews directly from Nawaz Sharif, Maryam Nawaz Sharif and/or their supporters tell a more compelling story. If the strategy is to try to bulldoze the courts into submission, the Sharifs will soon discover a thinning of their support in the national mainstream.
The irony is that more than any other political leader (with due apologies to Aitzaz Ahsan), it was Nawaz Sharif that helped build the stature of an independent judiciary. That the same judiciary has scalped him says a lot about both the tenuous nature of political fortunes and the audacity with which our judges are now endowed. The 2009 Nawaz Sharif would have loved this. The 2012 Nawaz Sharif did love this. The institutional mix in Pakistan has not changed all that much in five years. But cutting your own hand on knives that you helped sharpen will never be without pain.
The final avenue is of course the accountability process itself. N League strategists (if there is any such thing outside the person of the former PM and former first daughter) will likely advise to stack the deck in their favour from the get-go. This will further embolden the NAB-supervising Supreme Court to proactively engage through directive with the case. Legal and institutional purists will cry ‘uncle’, but the alternative is to allow the executive to essentially contaminate due process with discriminatory behaviour. It is unlikely this will be allowed to happen.
The net result of the choices that Nawaz Sharif is making is likely to be something akin to the dharna, but with multiple fronts and no clear end game in sight. Much like Imran Khan in 2014, who was blinded by his ambition, and by the poor advice of sycophants to the left and right of him, Nawaz Sharif is driving deeper and deeper into an alleyway in which not only he and his daughter may become politically immobilised, but in which whatever chances Shahbaz Sharif has to switch Pakistan to ‘Punjab speed’ are also corroded to the point of no return.
In this scenario, the N League has a critical set of decisions to make. Do the PM and the cabinet want to do Nawaz Sharif’s bidding, and act as spoilers and disruptors? Or would the new PM and his cabinet seek to contain the damage already done, and try to win over sceptics that see the PML-N’s post Panama Papers performance in Islamabad as an unmitigated disaster in service of an individual’s grasp over power?
From the very beginning of this new phase of Pakistan’s uncomfortable democratic journey in May 2013, many observers (including this one) have advised calm, and proactive competence, as the best antidote to conspiracies or provocations from unelected Pakistanis that seek to malign or disrupt democracy. The disqualification of Nawaz Sharif is a major fork in the road for democrats within the PML-N. The choice is relatively simple: continue down the path of Nawaz Sharif’s laughable defence, and try to deepen the institutional divides in the country, or avoid frontal confrontation and prove, in the next ten to twelve months, that the PML-N is a Pakistani political party invested in the economic well-being of Pakistan and the security of every Pakistani.
Few people have been blessed with the chance to serve Pakistan the way Nawaz Sharif has, with three turns in the country’s highest office. He has done some great things, but has never been allowed to complete a full turn. He now has an even rarer opportunity: to script his own legacy. He can manage a post Nawaz Sharif Pakistan that privileges stability. Or he can go full Insafian, and try to wreck the system, privileging his ego. Which will it be?
Source: thenews.com.pk/print/222188-Will-Nawaz-Sharif-go-full-Insafian
-----
The Reality of Harassment
By Maria Waqar
August 7, 2017
A long time ago, a colleague of mine made a disturbing revelation to me. Her academic adviser had sexually harassed her. She told me the sordid details, how he had walked up behind her and grabbed her forcefully. Shocked and embarrassed, she had squirmed to loosen his grip. But she was gentle in her rejection. In fact, she felt compelled to continue talking to him to avoid any awkwardness. The incident had left her distraught. He was, after all, the man who had recommended her for a scholarship and was critical to her academic success. She wondered what the cost of retaliation would be. Eventually, she filed a formal complaint and was able to get rid of her adviser. But it wasn’t an easy process because she had no incriminating proof.
Real-life stories of harassment at the workplace lack stockpiles of evidence and knee-jerk reactions. They are not as simple as getting pinched in a bazaar, and having the option of slapping the offender and moving on. The power differential between the harasser and the victim complicates things, and makes the business of harassment more insidious. But this point is lost on the Twitteratis and news anchors that have demanded that MNA Ayesha Gulalai furnish proof to substantiate her allegations of harassment against Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf’s (PTI) chairman Imran Khan, and explain why she did not quit her party immediately after the supposed incident.
The timing of Ayesha Gulalai’s accusations suggests that harassment — if indeed she did face any — is not the proximate factor determining her decision to leave the PTI. This does not, however, mean that her claims are implausible. In a society where men constantly make unwarranted passes at women, is it really so outrageous to believe that some woman may have received inappropriate texts from colleagues? In recent weeks, we have heard politicians spew all sorts of contentious claims and allegations — one politician thinks that Panama Papers scandal is an international conspiracy! But amid this clutter of outrageous statements, why is it that a woman’s claim about being harassed seemed to have angered people the most?
Women’s participation in parliamentary politics has been marred by incidents of sexism and misogyny. So is it really so preposterous to entertain the likelihood that women are mistreated in political parties? In fact, the institutional mechanism through which most women make it to parliament has the potential to make women susceptible to mistreatment. During my conversations with women parliamentarians for my dissertation on women’s participation in legislative politics, the issue of respect came up repeatedly.
Many of them felt like they were seen as second-class citizens in parliament because they were not directly elected. Some were of the view that reserved seats were viewed as largesse distributed by parties, and their recipients were expected to be beholden to party leaders. Several respondents believed that personal rapport with leaders and goodwill of party seniors are critical for reselection on reserved seats. One can imagine how these dynamics might disadvantage women as political players, and also have the potential to make women without male relatives in politics vulnerable to mistreatment.
The PTI members have been quick to refute Ayesha Gulalai’s claims. However, any such rebuttal must also responsibly address the reality of harassment of women in Pakistan because this episode will determine how women in the public eye report harassment in the future.
Source: tribune.com.pk/story/1475555/the-reality-of-harassment/
-----
Change of Government in Pakistan
By Shahid M Amin
08 August 2017
IT is a matter of satisfaction that there has been a smooth transfer of power in Pakistan. The ruling party Muslim League (N) has a comfortable majority in the National Assembly and its nominee Shahid Khaqan Abbasi easily secured a vote of confidence. He has a good academic background and an earnest manner which will help him in coping with his heavy responsibilities. But the impression remains that his party leader and ex-Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif will be pulling the strings from behind. This will hamper Abbasi’s functioning as the chief executive.
The new Prime Minister faces many challenges. At present, Pakistan is beset with serious problems, at home as well as abroad. The internal problems are probably responsible for some of the issues affecting our foreign policy. Let us identify some of these problems. The first one is the issue of law and order, including secessionist activities in Balochistan. It seems that the problem in Balochistan is manageable and the armed forces and other agencies are tackling them effectively. The greater issue affecting the country’s law and order is religious extremism and terrorism. It has taken a heavy toll of lives in the last two decades and, despite the success of military operations, terrorists continue to strike at random.
The truth is that extremism is a spreading cancer affecting all sectors of our society. It is not enough to dismiss religious extremists as consisting of ignorant and illiterate youth, coming from poorer sections of society, manipulated and brainwashed by certain misguided Mullahs and madrasas. Unfortunately, the problem is more deep-rooted. Some religious extremists come from affluent backgrounds and are well-educated, even with foreign degrees. They can be doctors, scientists, professors, authors, bureaucrats, serving armed forces personnel and media personalities. A certain misguided ideology is producing such extremism. The paradox is that such extremists passionately want to uphold Islam but, in practice, they are doing things that are contrary to Islamic teachings, which are marring the very image of Islam.
Their ideological root is the Wahhabi/Salafi thesis that Islam has been corrupted and its pristine character must be restored. These extremists are appalled by the luxury and corruption of the ruling classes, as also by grave-worship and other rituals among many Muslims. Up to a point, their concern is right, but the problem arises when this line of thought leads to violence to eradicate what the extremists see as deviation from Islam. They have been resorting to the worst kind of brutality, including assassinations, bomb blasts, mass murders, suicide bombings, decapitations, rapes, desecration of religious places, destruction of cultural monuments. They have gone against Islam’s cardinal teachings of mercy and forgiveness, tolerance and moderation. In this manner, they have defamed Islam and Pakistan.
This kind of religious extremism is adversely impacting Pakistan’s foreign relations as well. At present, Pakistan is relatively isolated and its ties with neighbours, and with the US and NATO forces operating in Afghanistan, have suffered due to accusations that militants trained or based in Pakistan are involved in cross-border operations. There have been abortive moves to get Pakistan declared as a terrorist state. While such allegations are often based on mala fides and double standard, nonetheless, they are hurting our relations with many countries. The more we do to curb such terrorism, through military force and counter-terrorism measures, the better it would be for our relations with many countries. Former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, who was accused of being a closet religious extremist, had delayed action against the Taliban.
The Abbasi government must be more proactive in dealing with the religious groups that inculcate extremism. It should induce the right-thinking Ulema to come out in the forefront to counter the insidious propaganda of religious extremists who are the modern-day Kharjites. Corruption has been a major problem preventing our economic growth. The new Prime Minister will earn the nation’s gratitude if he takes effective steps to curb this problem that has debased our values and demoralized our people. Corruption is also inhibiting foreign investment. Another key priority for Prime Minister Abbasi should be raising our exports, which are lagging behind countries even in our own region, including Bangladesh. Shortage of energy has been one reason. It is hoped that the successful implementation of CPEC projects will help overcome energy shortage by 2018.
The general expectation is that Pakistan’s economy will be transformed through speedy implementation of CPEC. The country’s standing in the world will also rise significantly. At the same time, there is need for greater transparency about the nature of financing for CPEC projects: are these loans, investment or otherwise? Some sceptics are worried that Pakistan is being burdened by huge foreign loans that will be difficult to repay. Others fear that China will acquire a stranglehold over our economy and Pakistan will in effect become a kind of colony. It is being reported that trade is one-sided: too many Chinese tariff barriers are inhibiting our exports. Undoubtedly, there is great imbalance in trade.
Clearly, some hard talking is needed with China. The nature of royalties negotiated with China, on oil and gas pipelines that will pass through Pakistan, has never been explained. The people want to be informed about the work completed so far. In short, the government owes it to the Pakistani people to explain what the economic and other advantages of CPEC are. Our government spokesmen resort too often to flat generalizations and empty platitudes that CPEC is very beneficial, without ever going into specifics.
Source: pakobserver.net/change-government-pakistan/
----
Gender Equality Is Everyone’s Issue
By Elizabeth Broderick
August 8, 2017
One of the world’s greatest emerging markets is closer than we think. Women are the world’s most powerful consumers, driving three quarters of global consumer purchasing. As a result, businesses around the world are rapidly adjusting the way they work.
As consumers, women’s expectations about the social and environmental standards of the products they buy matter. This in turn is increasing pressure on exporters and investors everywhere to change the way their businesses operate. Companies are increasingly looking to recruit, retain and promote women: with a view to boosting their brand reputation, competing for the best skilled workers and better understanding consumer demand. In Pakistan, despite low rates of women’s employment overall, many leading companies have embarked on a serious effort to bring in a new generation of talent: young women. And there are today some excellent examples of Pakistani companies — large, medium and small — led by women.
In Australia, like Pakistan, we are proud of the gains made in girls’ education over recent decades. But we’ve yet to see this translate into much greater levels of parity in the workplace. There are three points in the talent pipeline where women are affected disproportionately. Women too frequently either fail to enter, are stuck in the middle or locked out of the top. One contributor we share across the globe is that women still face the lion’s share of domestic work at home. And when they do gain jobs, they remain over-represented in low-level or insecure positions, often in low-paid industries. This is a common picture the world over.
Despite the economic and business case for women’s employment becoming ever clearer, the slow pace of change means that equality remains a distant goal. Accelerating the pace of change, in all our countries, will require innovative and disruptive solutions.
For too long, the responsibility for making progress on gender equality has sat exclusively on the shoulders of women. Yet, the reality is that in most countries men largely occupy the seats of power and therefore they are a critical part of the solution. We need influential men to step up beside women so that promoting gender equality and women’s leadership becomes everyone’s business.
In 2010, I started the Male Champions of Change initiative. We formed a group of powerful male leaders from the private and also the public sectors to take practical action and to be accountable for making progress on gender equality in their own companies and beyond.
The importance of leadership from the top in achieving organisational change is well-established.
Male Champions of Change commit publicly to real, tangible action. They challenge each other to be accountable for their commitments. They take a listening, learning and ‘leading through action’ approach. This means that they listen within their organisations and partner with leading women’s organisations to ensure they are deepening their understanding of gender equality issues. They experiment, learn, set targets and measure progress.
Today the Male Champions of Change group includes 160 male leaders, including the heads of iconic Australian companies such as Telstra, Rio Tinto, Commonwealth Bank and Qantas, as well as of major sporting leagues, the army and federal police. Together these organisations employ around 600,000 people, or five per cent of Australia’s workforce.
The UN has highlighted the initiative as worth global scaling, and the prime minister of Japan led the establishment of a similar group in 2014 — now numbering over 100 Japanese CEOs and companies.
Leading businesses in Pakistan are increasingly focused on attracting more women into the workforce. In order to retain these women, they are changing their business culture and practice. I look forward to hearing about the innovative solutions adopted by CEOs in Pakistan designed to create inclusive workplaces to attract and retain women and support their careers. Solutions such as women-only factory floors, flexible shifts to support employees to balance family responsibilities, childcare at the workplace, targeting and training rural women as suppliers and distributors, and, importantly, ensuring women’s safety at work, as well as on their commute.
Gender equality and women’s economic participation are not women’s issues to be addressed by women alone. We all benefit from a more equal world.
The Australian government is sponsoring Elizabeth Broderick’s visit to Pakistan, India and Sri Lanka from 5-17 August. She will meet with business leaders to discuss their efforts to advance gender equality, and share her experience both from Australia and globally.
Source: tribune.com.pk/story/1476065/gender-equality-everyones-issue/
----
Beware Ballistic Missiles That Can Easily Go Nuclear
By Maria Dubovikova
08 August 2017
NORTH Korea, Iran and the Houthi rebels, Iran’s proxies in Yemen, have launched several ballistic missiles since the US warned Pyongyang and Tehran that their production of such arsenals endangered peace and stability. The two countries have many things in common: Flouting international law, threatening world stability and endangering maritime security in the Pacific, the Gulf and the Red Sea. Launching missiles was a signal that they can reach their adversaries at any time.
With Donald Trump as president, America’s tone on the Iranian nuclear deal has changed. In turn, the Iranians wanted to convey to the new US president and his administration that they claim the right to establish their ballistic arsenal and other military technologies with the help of their traditional ally North Korea, which has helped Iran since the 1980s, when it supplied Scud missile technology. The missile launches by Iran and North Korea are viewed by their neighbours Japan, South Korea and the Arab Gulf states as belligerent and aggressive acts that could fuel not only a regional war but an international one, as Tehran and Pyongyang are backed by Moscow and Beijing.
Iran and North Korea are confronting the US in the Gulf and in the Korean Peninsula, challenging the US Navy and violating international law by producing weapons that would destabilize both the Pacific and the Gulf. The Americans are not only monitoring Iranian and North Korean military activities, but are also imposing sanctions on both countries to deprive them of the technologies they require to produce weapons that endanger peace and stability.
To add salt to the wound, the Iranians are even able to test the weapons they produce on real targets: They supply arms to the Houthi rebels, who use them against the Arab alliance fighting to restore the legitimate government in Yemen. Iran and North Korea have a long history of military cooperation and technology exchanges, so none of this is a surprise. They have maintained a relatively consistent partnership since the 1980s.
The two countries have strong ties in spite of ideological and religious contradictions, because what really unites them is opposition to US foreign policy. Tehran and Pyongyang believe that they have to be in one ditch together, or the Americans will take revenge on them independently. They act as one state against any American expansionist policy in the Gulf or the Pacific. The North Korea-Iran alliance is unannounced, but if either country were attacked, the other would retaliate. Russia and China are involved because they are the only countries that can affect the external policies of Tehran and Pyongyang.
With Iraq out of the picture, the US considers Iran and North Korea to be the last remaining members of the Axis of Evil. Washington says their missile launches at the end of July flouted a UN Security Council resolution because the technology is designed to be able to carry a nuclear payload. The US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said the sanctions against Tehran illustrated deep American concerns about Iran’s missile testing and other actions, and the US would continue to counter Iran’s ballistic missile program — including the most recent “provocative space launch.”
In addition, Washington has suspected Pyongyang of conducting a secret program since 1990s to reprocess plutonium for the production of nuclear weapons. This justifies the fear of Washington and its allies of North Korean production of ballistic missiles. The same applies to Iran. Moreover, the nuclear deal reached with Iran does not cover Iran’s highly sophisticated ballistic missile program. The Obama administration made a strategic decision to exclude it from negotiations because the issue was too thorny and Obama wanted to reach a deal.
Iran has conducted several ballistic missile tests since the nuclear deal went into effect. It now possesses medium-range ballistic missiles capable of reaching anywhere in the Middle East, including Israel, and south-eastern Europe.
Source: pakobserver.net/beware-ballistic-missiles-can-easily-go-nuclear/
----
The Afghan War
By Eric Margolis
August 8, 2017
Media reports claim President Donald Trump let loose on his generals behind closed doors, blasting them royally for their startling failures in Afghanistan, America’s longest war.
The president has many faults and is a lousy judge of character. But he was absolutely right to read the riot act to the military brass for daring to ask for a very large troop and budget increase for the stalemated Afghan War that has cost $1 trillion to date.
Of course, the unfortunate generals are not really to blame. They have been forced by the last three presidents to fight a pointless war at the top of the world that lacks any strategy, reason or purpose – and with limited forces. But they can’t admit defeat by lightly-armed Muslim tribesmen.
The truth is, simply, that America blundered into the Afghan War under President George W Bush who needed a target for revenge after the humiliating 9/11 attacks. Sixteen years later, the US is still chasing shadows in the Hindu Kush Mountains, rightly known to history as ‘Graveyard of Empires.’
The US invasion of Afghanistan was based on the unproven claim that anti-communist fighter Osama bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. We have yet to see conclusive proof. What we have seen are phony documents and faked videos put out by bin Laden’s foes, the Afghan communists and their Northern Alliance drug-dealing allies.
Claims by the right-wing US media that Afghanistan would become a jihadist base if the 9,800 US troops there now withdrew are nonsense. The 9/11 attacks were not planned and mounted from Afghanistan. They could have come from anywhere.
After sixteen years, the US military and its Afghan mercenaries troops have failed to defeat the Afghan Pashtun tribal resistance forces, Taliban. In fact, the Taliban alliance now controls at least half of Afghanistan and keeps US and government forces pinned down.
What keeps the US in control of parts of Afghanistan is the US Air Force and naval air power. US warplanes from Afghanistan, Qatar, and aircraft carriers keep a 24/7 combat air patrol over distant Afghanistan and can reply in minutes to attacks on US or Afghan ground units. No other nation could do this – or afford the immense cost.
Gasoline trucked into Afghanistan over the Khyber Pass from Karachi costs $400 per gallon delivered. The authoritative ‘Aviation Week’ magazine reports that keeping US warplanes on station over Iraq and Syria costs an astounding $600,000 per mission. It’s even more over Afghanistan.
But without 24/7 US airpower, US forces in Afghanistan would be soon isolated, then driven out. This is just what happened to the British and Soviets, dooming their efforts to crush the independence-loving Pashtun, Afghanistan’s largest ethnic group.
Bereft of new ideas, the US keeps repeating its mistakes in Afghanistan: colluding with the worst, most corrupt elements of Afghan society; condoning torture and murder; relying on the big, drug dealing tribal chiefs.
The UN reports that opium (the base for heroin) exports doubled last year. The sputtering Afghan economy runs on opium and hashish.
The US is now the proud owner of the world’s leading producer of opium and morphine base. If the drug trade is ever cut off, the government in Kabul and its warlords will collapse. Ironically, when Taliban ruled Afghanistan before 9/11, the drug trade was almost wiped out. But you will never read this in the tame US media.
Now America’s imperial generals are asking Trump for 4,000 more troops. A basic law of military science is concentration of force. Penny packets of troops are a fool’s strategy. The main function of US troops in Afghanistan is to protect the strategic Bagram and Kandahar air bases and US installations in Kabul.
Now, hard right Republicans are pushing a daft proposal to contract the Afghan War to a US-paid mercenary army led by an imperial viceroy in Kabul.
Trump has proposed pressuring Pakistan, India and China to end the war. What an absurd idea. For Pakistan, Afghanistan is its blood brother and strategic hinterland. China plans to turn mineral-rich Afghanistan into a Tibet-style protectorate. India wants to outflank Pakistan by taking over Afghanistan. India and China are in a growing military confrontation in the Himalayas.
Trump had better come up with a better idea. My solution to the 17-year war: emulate the example of the courageous Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev. He pronounced his Afghan War unwinnable, told his angry generals to shut up, and ordered the Red Army out of the war in Afghanistan.
Source: thenews.com.pk/print/222192-The-Afghan-war
----
Imran Spills the Beans
By Malik Ashraf
08 August 2017
INEBRIATED by his victory in the Panama case and the resultant exuberance, the Captain spilled the beans in an interview with a private TV channel revealing that he had filed the reference in the Supreme Court on the call by the former CJ and Justice Asif Saeed Khosa who urged him to bring the case to the apex court. In response to the uproar that it caused, the registrar of the apex court has categorically denied Justice Asif Saeed Khosa of ever having met or called Imran Khan. One of them is surely lying. Is it Imran or Justice Khosa? The matter is very serious and needs to be thoroughly investigated and taken to its logical end. Justice Asif Saeed Khosa is in line to be the next Chief Justice and he is the same judge who called the government a mafia and the Prime Minister as a Godfather of corruption, the remarks which raised many eyebrows in regards to the impartiality of the judges and voices of protest from the ruling party.
The decision given by the SC has not been well received both within and outside the country by the legal and constitutional experts. They have pointed out decisions of the judges of the apex court, even given by Justice Asif Khosa wherein he himself had questioned the applicability of article 62. It has been pointed out that in Ishaq Khan Khkwani case (PLD) 2015 SC 275) while dismissing the appeal seeking disqualification of Nawaz Sharif, Justice Khosa added an additional note reiterating that many provisions of Article 62 were not amenable to legally enforceable standards. Referring to Article 62(1)(f) he opined “ It is proverbial that Devil himself knoweth not the intention of man. So why to have such requirements in the law, nay the constitution, which cannot even be defined, not to talk of proof”. Now under the same clause of article 62 the Prime Minister has been dismissed. They believe that the apex court judges have contradicted their own arguments in this particular case which is absolutely untenable. Many people also look askance at it due to the controversy that surrounded the JIT and echoes of a conspiracy had also been heard. Now what Imran has revealed has certainly reinforced that impression.
In view of the denial issued by the SC, two things have become absolute necessary. One is that if Imran has lied then he has committed contempt of the court by maligning the honourable judge of the apex court and the future CJ. The second thing is that if Imran was telling the truth then it was a matter of grave concern as it proved complicity of the court in the Panama Leaks case. In that case a reference needs to be sent to the Supreme Judicial Council against the judges of the apex court who are found guilty of having contacted Imran and urging him to file the case in the SC.
If we are talking about across-the-board accountability, then judges, generals, politicians and any public office holder must be made to face the music as per articles 62 and 63 and the verdict given by the SC in this regard. The government would be doing a great service to the nation by constituting a judicial commission to probe the matter, reveal the truth to the nation and then take action as per the findings of the judicial inquiry at the appropriate forums. Let there be justice and also seen to be done as well without any discrimination.
After the verdict in the Panama case disqualifying the Prime Minister, the political parties who had filed the petitions and their supporters are rejoicing their victory and giving the impression that with this decision a process of accountability and good governance has begun. Nobody in his right mind would give credence to such false claims and contrived hopes. Accountability can be ensured through reforms in the system of governance triggered by the executive and Parliament and not through judicial decisions like the one in Panama case which had all the trappings of a witch-hunt. In fact the SC decision has opened up a Pandora box and unleashed a process of un-ending litigation among the political forces with all the likely destabilizing effect.
Having said that I personally believe that these articles, inserted in the constitution, with a malicious intent by a military dictator should have been removed through the eighteenth amendment. The politicians made a big mistake to retain them. Now by invoking them they have surrendered the sovereignty of Parliament to the judiciary and tomorrow they would also become victim of this clandestine aberration in the constitution.
Nobody in this country, not even the judges, the generals, politicians and other public office holders qualify as ‘sadiq and Ameen’ as per article 62 and 63. And the reality is that people cannot be turned into ‘Sadiq and Ameen’ through selective judicial decisions. The entire society unfortunately is rotten to the core as far as morality is concerned, a reality nobody can deny. Under the circumstances there is no justification for keeping the articles 62 and 63 as part of the constitution and allowing the powerful institutions to victimize the vulnerable classes through their selective use.
Source: pakobserver.net/imran-spills-beans/
----
The Threat Remains
By Rizwan Asghar
August 8, 2017
Something changed forever when the US dropped atomic weapons on the Japanese cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima in August 1945. On the 72nd anniversary of that fateful event, there is an awful lot to worry about the uncertain future of more than seven billion people in the world today.
Many observers believed that the end of the cold-war era would help the world move towards the goal of global nuclear disarmament. The opposite has turned out to be true. In fact, the threat of a nuclear weapon being used today is greater than ever before. The technical expertise to develop nuclear weapons or produce fissile material – uranium-233, uranium-235 and plutonium-239 – is available to a large number of states and non-state actors. The continued existence of nuclear black markets where nuclear weapons designs and fissile material could be acquired makes the doomsday clock tick closer to a nuclear midnight.
Since the beginning of the 21st century, disarmament advocates have seen more failures than successes. In 2005, the UN World Summit could not go even a step further toward non-proliferation and disarmament. The failure of the 2015 NPT review conference was another wake-up call to the reality that, despite all the excessive rhetoric, the Obama administration would go to any lengths to protect Israel’s nuclear monopoly in the Middle East.
The prospects for the next review conference also look bleak. Several multilateral agreements on disarmament and non-proliferation – such as the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT) and the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) – have yet to come into force.
Even if we accept that the nuclear deterrence theory as valid, it is about time we answered the ‘how many nuclear weapons are enough’ question. Today, nine nuclear-armed nations possess almost 14,900 nuclear weapons.
A single nuclear weapon is likely to cause catastrophic damage to an extent that has not been seen in the past seven decades. Ten nuclear weapons would cause destruction that has never been seen before. The use of a hundred nuclear weapons would completely change the face of this planet, wiping out a large proportion of the world’s population.
The international community must continue to pressurise governments to declare a moratorium on further production of nuclear weapons or fissile material for military purposes in addition to improving transparency regarding the exact quantities of fissile material in their possession.
The global non-proliferation regime currently faces two major challenges: the proliferation of nuclear weapons both horizontally and vertically and the threat of nuclear terrorism. Iran has been made to retreat from the nuclear path for the next 15 years at least but North Korea continues to strengthen its offensive nuclear weapons capability.
Over the past few years, Seoul, the South Korean capital, has been held hostage by thousands of North Korean artillery shells and missile batteries, which can flatten the entire city, killing millions of innocent civilians. North Korea is said to have the world’s largest artillery force and Seoul is only 40 miles from the border. Some experts even claim that North Korea could wipe Seoul off the map in less than two hours using rockets and conventional artillery.
It does not take a rocket scientist to understand that North Korea’s Kim Jong-un is getting away with his actions because North Korea’s missile and nuclear programmes have been allowed to operate for so long. Quite alarmingly, North Korea’s stockpile, if left unchecked, would grow to 50 nuclear weapons by 2020. A nuclear North Korea has not only significantly threatened regional security, but has also undermined the legitimacy of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT).
Similarly, the advancement or modernisation of existing weapons technologies has raised concerns about the future of non-proliferation efforts. According to the Federation of American Scientists, “all the nuclear-armed states have ambitious nuclear weapon [modernisation programmes]… that appear intended to prolong the nuclear era indefinitely”.
US nuclear modernisation programmes along with the deployment of ballistic missile defence (BMD) in Europe remain a major obstacle to negotiating further cuts to US-Russian nuclear stockpiles. Thousands of American and Russian nuclear missiles could be launched accidentally in the span of a few minutes. But very little is being done to reduce these threats.
Lastly, the world has yet to wake up to the reality that the threat of terrorists getting nuclear weapons is more acute than it seems. During a conference last year in the US, this writer had the opportunity to be part of a policy discussion on nuclear terrorism.
A retired US Army official, who spoke to this writer on condition of anonymity, said that if terrorists succeeded in detonating an improvised nuclear device in one of America’s major metro cities, it would become difficult for the US to desist from launching a full-scale attack once it traces back the origins of the material used by terrorists.
To overcome these broader challenges, it is time for disarmament activists across the globe to breathe new life into efforts to revive global nuclear non-proliferation efforts and open the door to a world free from nuclear weapons. Efforts to reduce and, ultimately, eliminate nuclear weapons should be focused at all stages of the nuclear fuel cycle. Let’s wake up before it is too late and prevent terrorists from planning a nuclear nightmare.
Source: thenews.com.pk/print/222190-The-threat-remains
----
Politics, Patterns and the Economy
By Haroon M Waraich
August 8, 2017
In the backdrop of the drama surrounding the Panama Papers, it has become imperative to look into the connection between Pakistan’s political fortunes and its economic cycles. In order to grasp the story completely, one has to start from the country’s very first economic cycle.
After World War II and the years leading up to Partition, the transition from a war economy had slowed down United India’s economy. The Index of Industrial Activity declined by 21 percent in the three years leading up to 1947-48. This trend was carried forward to an extent into Pakistan’s economy till 1953. But by the mid-1950s, the economy was ripe for an expansionary phase.
In February 1955, Pakistan joined Cento, the US-sponsored military alliance. However, the aid that was provided under it did not become significant till 1960 – two years after the imposition of the first martial law.
US aid to Pakistan rose from approximately $150 million in 1954 to $2 billion in 1962. Though the aid inflows did assist in achieving high growth rates during the 1960s – with a GDP growth of 10.4 percent in 1963 that eventually peaked to 11.3 percent in 1969 – they also coincided with the point of the natural bottoming-out of the economy and an augmentation of the cold war effort by the US and its allies against the communist bloc.
These inflows marked the beginning of a pattern of US aid inflows that picked up right when Pakistan’s strategic importance heightened – usually following a military regime that was already in place and in its second year at the helm.
Interestingly, official inflows from the US – or any foreign resource inflow for that matter – were nil when most needed by the newborn nation with a fledgling democracy in 1949-50. They were 1.1 percent of the GDP in 1954-55 and peaked in the backdrop of the first martial law regime to 8.9 percent of the GDP in 1964-65. It plummeted to an abysmally low one percent of the GDP in 1972-73 – when democracy returned to the country – and subsequently rose to a new high of 9.1 percent of the GDP in 1981-82 – rather unsurprisingly during the country’s third martial law regime.
The aid quantum remained high throughout the 1980s. Like the 1960s, there was a planned surge of America’s anti-communist activity in the region and a military government had installed itself in 1977 shortly before the surge. In 1978, the CIA had begun a covert action against the communist-allied Afghan government. The CIA had begun training Afghans, beaming radio propaganda and meeting opponents of the Afghan government with a view to start an insurgency to “suck the Soviets into a Vietnamese quagmire”.
In August 1979, there was a major revolt in Afghanistan’s Herat province.
US president Carter formally approved a covert aid to the opponents of the government in July, which resulted in the Soviet invasion in December. The USSR withdrew in 1989.
In 1990, president Bush failed to certify the absence of nuclear weapons in Pakistan. As a result, aid was cut off to Pakistan under the Pressler Amendment. Even the USAID mission in Pakistan remained closed for eight long years. The attention of the US had been diverted to Iraq.
True to its pattern, meaningful US aid resumed during the fourth martial law regime in 2001. The US once again had an interest in the region and needed Pakistan. 9/11 was obviously the trigger. But the US had linked the attacks on its installations across the world throughout the 1990s to Osama bin Laden, the intensified hunt for whom had entered this region. The rest, as we all know, is history.
It is important to note that US assistance has always coincided with the points in the macroeconomic cycles where the negative cycle is about to end naturally as a result of balancing, modernisation and replacement and the increased spending in the economy to replace ‘things’ – factories as well as worn-out household durables – through built-up savings and credit. These savings, once exhausted, need time to be rebuilt and translated into future purchase orders that would trigger the next expansionary cycle.
In the 1990s – even before US interest and aid – the contraction in Pakistan’s economic activity was bottoming out. Growth had flattened to around 4.4 percent of the GDP. A military regime was installed in Pakistan in 1999. Like in the past, the US aid started picking up towards the end of the second year of the military regime. The US official assistance picked up from $36 million in 1998 to around $4 billion in 2002 and sustained at these heightened levels throughout Musharraf’s regime.
Another integral point to be noted is that although the strategy for economic management during military regimes has been slightly tighter than the policy adopted by their civilian counterparts, no drastic change in economic policy was witnessed during any of the four martial laws. This is the reason why structural bottlenecks in the economy persist to date.
The economy boomed during the 2000s. The GDP growth peaked at nine percent in 2005. All credit went to the better economic management of the then dictatorial regime. The natural low point of the economy, with a little help from the aid inflows that followed, had done it once again. By 2008, the cycle had been completed. During the same year, there was a huge drawdown of almost 50 percent in the foreign currency reserves of the country. The military dictator had also gone by then and the situation was to be handled by the next civilian government.
In 2013 – the fifth year into the recessionary cycle that began in 2008 when the average GDP growth stood at around 4.1 percent like in the 1990s - the current government came into power. This traditional 10-year trough depicting the economically slow period of consolidation that had preceded all the previous booms, military regimes and aid inflows is now almost at its end. The expansionary phase of the economy should gradually unfold itself in the years after 2018.
However, the Nawaz government deserves no credit in this regard as it has been as status quo-oriented in removing the structural bottlenecks of our economy as any other regime in the past.
The question that now arises is: will the pattern materialise again?
The US is ushering in a new military alliance against Iran in the region and a new US surge in Afghanistan is in the offing. Some similarities most certainly exist, with the exception of a crucial yet minor detail: unlike 1957, 1977 and 1997, Pakistan has already started receiving external financing before the end of the usual 10-year recessionary/civilian period between martial laws. This time around, the funds are coming from the East and not the West. Let’s see if similar indicators produce similar results every time.
Source: thenews.com.pk/print/222189-Politics-patterns-and-the-economy
----
URL: https://www.newageislam.com/pakistan-press/pakistan-civil-society-muhammad-hamid/d/112123