Foreign Editorials

The common enemy

GREAT statesmen, it is said, don't just respond to public opinion: they shape it. In these troubling times when Pakistan is being called the "epicentre" of terrorism by our neighbours to the east, we have a collective responsibility to look inwards. But that burden rests most heavily on the shoulders of our elected representatives who should feel duty-bound at this critical stage to put into clear, concise words what it is precisely that ails this country. Most Pakistanis, an overwhelming majority in fact, do not support militancy or terrorism, yet a small fanatical fringe has come to dictate the agenda. Why is this so? Well, the fanatics are armed to begin with and also come equipped with greater zeal and ideological fervour than those of liberal bent. They can cause mayhem whereas the broad-minded can simply talk, or write. They also strike a chord with the disenfranchised for whom the state has done next to nothing generation after generation.

The resentment the powerless feel may be cloaked in anti-Americanism or religiosity but in actual fact it boils down to a class conflict. Becoming part of a militant or terrorist organisation empowers poor, impressionable young men. And it's not just the weapons or the monthly stipend that give them comfort - finally they have an identity when previously they were faceless, they become part of a community in which they are respected.

The uniform of militant Islam confers instant respectability in some quarters. The sole gunman captured in Mumbai, Ajmal Kasab of Faridkot, apparently first sought refuge from poverty in crime and then gravitated towards 'jihadi' outfits. As long as nothing is done to address the growing underemployment in this country, the militants will find no shortage of fresh recruits. At least that is the case in Pakistan. The radicalisation of middle-class Muslim youth in the UK or other parts of Europe can be attributed to numerous other factors, including race.

American foreign policy and brazen double standards don't exactly help either. Unresolved disputes such as Palestine and Kashmir can also be cited.

What the Mumbai assault has done in this country is divert attention from the internal threat to an external 'enemy'.

This must not be allowed to happen. Soul-searching is in order, and an acceptance of the fact that Pakistan is indeed a hub of militancy and terrorism. The prime minister and the president must inform the nation in unequivocal terms that what is past is past and that extremism, which has taken root in this country, will enjoy no sanction and will not be tolerated. It is sad, on one level, that it has taken external pressure to stir the government into acting against those who are besmirching our name in the world. We face isolation, and internal ruin, if the common enemy is not brought to book.

(Courtesy: Dawn. December 13, 2008)

Mr. Obama's Green Team

The League of Conservation Voters, starved for good news after eight years of the Bush administration's environmental policies, has hailed President-elect Barack Obama's choices for his top energy and environmental jobs as "a Green Dream Team." Let's hope it is. There is no question what this team must do - mount a strong offensive on climate change, fashion a more efficient energy system, seek out and invest in next-generation, transformative technologies.

These are extraordinarily difficult tasks that will face resistance from industry and many in Congress.

Mr. Obama's advisers fortunately seem united in their concern for the threats facing the planet and unafraid to use the pricing power of the market or the financial power of government to address them.

This effort will also need the full and very public support of the president. So we are heartened by Mr. Obama's decision to name a senior White House adviser to coordinate energy and environmental policy. His choice, Carol Browner, ran President Bill Clinton's Environmental Protection Agency and did not shy from bureaucratic combat.

Mr. Obama's most intriguing selection may be his choice to run the Energy Department. Steven Chu is a physicist who shared a Nobel Prize in 1997 and the director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. He has a sophisticated grasp of the complexities of global warming and a strong belief in fighting it aggressively. Mr. Chu also has refreshingly unconventional ideas of what it would take to solve the problem.

Like others, he would put a price on carbon, preferably through a cap-and-trade program, and supports the various efficiency measures - cleaner cars, greener buildings and a modernized electrical grid - that Mr. Obama is likely to include as part of his economic stimulus package.

What sets him apart is his fierce conviction that innovation is just as important as regulation, and that big energy problems, like climate change and the world's dependency on fossil fuels, will not be solved without major private and public investment in the development and deployment of nonpolluting technologies.

Mr. Obama appears to have chosen well for other essential posts, naming Lisa Jackson, until recently New Jersey's top environmental officer, to run the Environmental Protection Agency, and Nancy Sutley, who holds the top environmental post in Los Angeles, to head the White House Council on Environmental Policy.

These are not the passive factotums who have occupied these jobs for most of the Bush years. Both believe in using and strengthening the government's statutory authority to control greenhouse gases and the ground-level pollutants that cause smog and acid rain. Admirable appointments would mean little unless Mr. Obama forces these issues to the top of his agenda.

(Courtesy: The New York Tomes. December 13, 2008)

Taming a bully:

India needs international support for its actions

The UN Security Council's decision to ban Jamat-ud-Dawah, the front organisation of Lashkar-e-Toiba, and designation of four of its leaders, including LeT founder Hafiz Saeed, as terrorists is a diplomatic victory for India.

It also underlines the desirability of involving the international community and its legitimate institutions in the fight against terrorism emanating from Pakistan. Islamabad has tended to reject New Delhi's charges of involvement of Pakistani elements in terrorist acts in India. It has also been blind to any evidence India has produced of such involvement.

Even if the Pakistan government wanted to act, as it claims, it might not be in a position to do so. The UN action has forced it to proceed against the JuD and its leaders too, and it could do so without being seen as doing India's bidding.

Doubts would remain about how effective the action is. The organisation can still operate under another guise and the test of Pakistan's commitment would be in keeping a constant vigil, not only on the activities of the JuD but of other bodies and individuals too.

While the UN action was in the works, Indian parliament also discussed the threat of terrorism and resolved that the country would fight it unitedly. Marking a welcome change, there was no recrimination or blame game and the entire House offered support to the government in its efforts to ensure the security of the country and the people.

The BJP offered to support the government's "hard decisions" and insisted that its electoral reverses were not a rejection by the people of its stand on terrorism.

But the mood of national solidarity was evident and it should strengthen the government's course of action in the coming days and weeks. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee did well to state the government's position clearly, mixing firmness with realism and maturity, by ruling out war but reserving India's right to take the best decisions and actions to protect its interests.

Such actions will be most effective when there is international support for them and when we convince the world of the reasonableness of our position.

The entire world knows that Pakistan is a wellspring of terrorism and has sympathy and support for India. Even China, having blocked the resolution twice earlier, supported the Security Council decision on JuD and its leaders. International pressure on Pakistan would work better than bilateral pressure and coercion.

(Courtesy: Deccan Herald, December 13, 2008)