Eric Schmidt's thoughts about Pakistan
plus.google.com
plus.google.com
Schmidt has not seen Pakistan for what it really is - a cesspool of corruption and poorly educated people.
Pakistan has two major problems. Primarily, education of the people ... what good is a democracy if people cannot understand the democratic system - nor see past the public visage and look deeply into what kind of person a political candidate is.
This poor education leads Zardari (a corrupt politician who has ties to the murder of Murtaza Bhutto) only coming to power due to a three way effect of a sympathy vote (assassination of Benazir Bhutto), bribery and threats to people who work on his land (he is one of the largest land owners in Sindh). Nowhere else in the world would a criminal become the president of a nation.
The secondary problem is ALL the corruption from the upper levels of politics, to the police itself. If you're caught speeding in Pakistan, simply apologise to the officer who has caught you and slip him a few hundred rupees.
Want to get out of the airport faster by not having your bags security checked? Slip 500 rupees to the security officer.
Are you the prime minister of the country being investigated for money laundering? Make the lives hell for judges and lawyers.
Fix the education problem and everything else will fall into place and this is something that I truly hope that PTI will do, should they on the unlikely chance get into power (I say unlikely as I envisage that the PPP will somehow manage to bullshit their way through another election).
Education is an issue but only in the long term. Assuming Pakistan managed to overcome several of its other problems, uneducated would become Pakistan's most important resource. Uneducated people are what make industrialisation possible. They make low wages possible and so the country becomes interesting as a manufacturing base (as Thailand has become for example).
With more economic activity will come education and then the country will have to find an alternative economic source.
More education will also affect corruption as educated people tend to be less willing to put up with it.
This is of course overly simple but for a big picture, it does hold some truth.
I believe that focusing prematurely on education, is actually counter-productive as the tissue of companies in need of educated workers simply is not there and makes low wages more difficult.
The West is also a good example of other issues with educated people. Countries full of educated people are more difficult to manage. For example France is badly in need of deep reforms but they will simply never happen because French would go on strike as a result of such reforms.
For what it's worth, in France you'd get a 90 Euros fine for speeding on a standard road. I'm not arguing whether it's good or bad, the answer simply isn't black or white. I do know though that 90 Euros is not sustainable for many a family in France while a 250 Bath (in Thailand) is fairly cheap for car-owners.
And you exaggerate as to how shit education is.
* According to the latest Pakistan Social and Living Standards Measurement (PSLM) Survey 2008‐09, the overall literacy rate (age 10 years and above) is 57% (69% for male and 45% for female) compared to 56% (69% for male and 44% for female) for 2007‐08. The data shows that literacy remains higher in urban areas (74%) than in rural areas (48%), and is more prevalent for men (69%) compared to women (45%). However, it is evident from the data that overall female literacy is rising over time, but progress is uneven across the provinces. When analyzed provincially, literacy rate in Punjab stood at (59 %), Sindh (59%), Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (50%) and Balochistan at (45%). The literacy rate of Sind and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa has improved considerably during 2007‐08 to 2008‐09 (Table 10.2)
Also, Urdu is the national language of Pakistan - so I would expect everyone to be able to write their name in that language.
Your average police officer, or fireman or customs official probably gets paid a tiny amount of money per month maybe $30-$50. But as an official of the government they have the opportunity to levy "additional taxes" during their day to day life. That's why often you'll find such countries have thousands of official regulations which on the face of it make no sense, how can anyone get anything done legally with all these regulations? The answer of course is that these regulations merely exist to create opportunities for the relevant officials to "collect taxes". You pay the official directly, you don't need to comply.
And their superiors know, their superiors get a cut of every bribe, it feeds up the chain of command within the relevant organisations. The officers on the beat or the fire department official who checks building fire regulations collects the "taxes" for himself and his superior.
So when you talk about stopping corruption in these countries you've got to replace this system of "taxation" with a real one that works. But that's easier said than done because the real corruption (fuelled by greed) also exists here and no one in their right mind is going to pay serious tax money to their government because it will disappear never to be seen again.
I can't claim that I know what the solution is to that, I thought I'd just put a different perspective on it.
What exactly is this "auxiliary taxation" about besides greed? It's not like the money they collect is used for the greater good.
Except insofar as it compensates the policeman for doing his job, and insofar as that job is for the greater good. (Although, I don't think everyone agrees that the moral justification for everything is a unitary 'greater good').
The problem isn't the policeman taking money, the problem is that he is taking money under the table and it is likely compromising how well and how fairly he does his job.
When bribery becomes so regular and highly routine, to the point where you can be seen to justly complain about the bribe being raised, the difference from a normal fee is entirely one of top-down regulation. Which is good and helpful for management. But the distinction is about the looseness of supervision and control (and the bad results that leads to) rather than the basic interaction.
All of the money that goes into a policeman's salary is used for the greater good. That's what having a part of our earnings confiscated buys us. What the policeman does in his official capacity is another mater.
> The problem isn't the policeman taking money, the problem is that he is taking money under the table and it is likely compromising how well and how fairly he does his job.
No matter what his salary is, greed may lead him to take bribes regardless.
> When bribery becomes so regular and highly routine, to the point where you can be seen to justly complain about the bribe being raised
Well, it sounds like you're thinking from the point of view of that "auxiliary taxation" mentioned above. I still can't see how a group of people collecting bribes in some kind of hierarchy is not all about greed. I'm pretty sure the bribes don't actually improve the job performance of those policemen or the other looters up the chain.
Of course there is corruption everywhere, but in most countries it's nowhere near as endemic or systematic as it is in Pakistan (and India and China). I can get by in my life here in the UK without needing to bribe anyone, but bribery is a daily fact of my parents' life in India (and similarly for parts of the family in Pakistan). Deflecting this issue does you no credit.
> Countries full of educated people are more difficult to manage. . For example France is badly in need of deep reforms but they will simply never happen because French would go on strike as a result of such reforms
So, how would you explain strikes in Pakistan against reforms to the blasphemy laws?
> in France you'd get a 90 Euros fine for speeding on a standard road.
So what?
You can't even begin to compare the corruption of North countries and South countries. The level of corruption in U.K. is far less, with surely bigger impact on the world because of the power of U.K. in the world than what you can find in a country like Pakistan or Nigeria.
In short, yes corruption is everywhere that in itself is not an argument.
Anyway, I'll be interested to see if technology and communications are the panacea to education problems that Schmidt says they are. If so that's good for South Africa, the Internet is growing tremendously here.
Interestingly, we have had things like the Learning Channel for many years (think Khan Academy but on videotape, and starting in the late 1980's), but the copyright, now held by Avusa, a media company, makes it very expensive. The CC licenced Mindset Network doesn't strike me as being of comparabile quality.
With broadband penetration and open access to remote learning materials we could at least try to break the cycle of mediocrity caused by under-skilled teachers.
South Africa is better compared to the rest of Sub-Saharan Africa than to Denmark.
And some schools are worse than staying at home (sexual abuse by teachers).
No it's not. I won't go further.
I think Schimdt is smart enough to see the truth. He's just playing the role of "diplomatic reporter" for the crowd. His calculus is probably that it's better to be very shy about exposing the truth and hope for change in the long run. It does not make sense to antagonize the people you will have to be working with in the future. Better to praise them slightly, acknowledge a few flaws that are non-controversial in nature, and express some sort of vague hope for the future.
Might work. Might not.
You're overstating it; Berlusconi is a counterexample.
I wouldn't ever go to a Muslim country because some rich dude said it's quite alright. What works for them needn't work for me.
[1]http://articles.cnn.com/2012-03-13/asia/world_asia_pakistan-... [2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamza_Kashgari [3]http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/iran-must-halt-execution-web-...
Wow, I'm amazed that this comment can take top spot on HN. How does this even happen? There are plenty of 'muslim countries' that are perfectly fine. Jordan, Turkey, Morocco, Dubai and Oman strike me as immediately safe 'muslim' places to go to. Millions of tourists go to these places every year and are fine.
The problems in Pakistan are not about whether or not it's a "muslim country" as you put it. The problems are based on what is societally and culturally acceptable which is a progression of traditions and norms, not Islam itself.
Let me put it this way, try swapping Muslim out for Jewish and re-read that statement, or Muslim for Christian. How do you think a muslim Pakistani would feel dressed normally for Pakistan in the bible belt of the US? Does that mean that they shouldn't go to Mardi Gras in New Orleans?
I'd hoped to see more discussion on the specifics in HN rather than sweeping statements with an undercurrent of racism.
In Morocco, a court ordered a teenager to marry her rapist. She killed herself. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/03/moroccan-teenage...
The Dubai Sheikh torture clip is infamous now. Amazing how you can torture a guy and not go to jail if you're a Sheikh. We know about this specific incident because of the video leakk. Who knows what else goes on there. http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=7402099
Oman will throw you in jail for dissent with the govt http://gulfnews.com/news/gulf/oman/oman-crackdown-on-dissent...
A lot of these emirates are guilty of encouraging human trafficking to allow supply of cheap labour. When your rich american/european visits the UAE, he doesn't see the human rights violations going on right around him - partly because his environment is sanitized of ill treatment of labour from poorer countries and partly because he chooses not to see. Should we all just shut up about the UAE's behaviour then?
The reason turkey, morocco etc are better behaved are because they're dependent on EU for economic support. I didn't mean to go muslim bashing with my comment but as you can see, they're easy to classify in this fashion. I wouldn't go to China either for the same reason I wouldn't go to a muslim country.
Human rights abuses against local people for dissent happen all around the world, including the US and the UK. In Germany you can be jailed for denying the holocaust. In France you can be jailed for wearing a headscarf. Exercising common sense is generally a good thing to do anywhere you go, but the things you talk about occur around the world and aren't just limited to states with a majority muslim population.
> The reason turkey, morocco etc are better behaved are because they're dependent on EU for economic support.
It's clear you've never been to Turkey. Turkey's outpaced the EU for economic growth for years and effectively dodged an economic bullet by not joining the EU. It may benefit by not being in the Euro, but loses out on tariffs and taxes. If you walk around Levent in Istanbul you'll see the real money's coming from China, Russia and the Middle East, not Europe.
Regards Turkey - I'm not disagreeing, but I must point out that Turkey wouldn't have gotten to where it is except for a freak chance in getting Ataturk who specifically modeled the country to be viable to enter Europe; that process is being reversed gradually by the those elected in power today.
Turkey is where it stands precisely because Ataturk decided that they had to join the Euro region, and then had the military on his side who constantly defended his vision and the secular fabric of the nation.
Later, the Euro rejected them, to their current benefit.
Today, the secular institutions built during the earlier reign are slowly being converted and accommodating a new political reality which is a lot more comfortable with its Islamic credentials.
edited for flow and clarity
I see where you're coming from but when you look into it the whole thing isn't so clean cut. Ataturk was obviously the singularly biggest influence in modern Turkish history, but because of it's geography Turkey has always had prospects to do well. It's position in control of shipping between the mediterranean and black sea, combined with it's black sea and mediterranean coasts and position as a gateway to Iraq, Russia and Greece has meant that it was always going to be a major trade centre.
Ataturk never modeled the country on being able to enter Europe, he died decades before the coal and steel treaty and the Euro region didn't exist until 1992 depending on your views on EU history. Ataturk's foreign policy doctrine was one of strict neutrality, "Peace at home, Peace in the world" (Yurtta Barış, Dünyada Barış). The decision to keep Turkey out has been largely made by the French and German governments who are worried about uneducated Turks coming into Europe and flooding the labour market and (particularly in the French case) not integrating into their host countries' cultures.
Ataturk modeled his country on the Austrian system as the best way of modernising a new country widely regarded as extremely behind the times. This was a continuation and radical acceleration of work that had been going on for nearly 200 years prior (with the help of the Germans, which is why the Ottomans were forced into the war on the German side, that and an alliance between France and Russia being seen as a threat). The acceleration of that only occurred because of the destruction of the caliphate and the establishment of a secular republic.
Later in Ataturk's life and in order to maintain territorial integrity a personality cult was built around him, this was to keep the revolution going, to ensure that the country didn't sink into religious backwardsness and that they could keep themselves as an independent state without having to deal with external interference. Other leaders who included Ataturk's principles of Kemalism to some extent included Nasser and Mossadegh.
In the end Ataturk's models became so fixed by subsequent leaders that his party CHP lost it's relevance and AKP, the current party gained power. Now AKP is putting it's people into various positions to ensure it's longevity. While it has a much more pro-Islamic agenda, AKP cannot afford to overstep the mark and betray it's financial backers, who'll pull out the rug as soon as someone more moderate comes along.
If you're interested in reading about Ataturk, Andrew Mango's Ataturk book is the definitive English language book on the matter.
While continuing to be numinous about the backers, it can be pointed out that there are also backers who can easily fund a movement further towards an even more pro-Islamic agenda. Not that I am arguing that this will happen or not.
I understand your point on the CHP losing its relevance, but partly that was also because the AKP tapped into the hitherto sidelined but more populous communities in Turkey, who are more pro-Islam. Correct me if I am wrong. These matters tend to always be intricate once you reach a certain level of magnification, so I am sure there are further factors at work behind the AKP's rise.
edit: removed redundant line on financial backers, cleared position a bit.
How can you even compare holocaust denial laws to what muslim countries do? You think denying people the right to disagree with the state or condemning them to a life with their rapist or torturing a man AND taking away the right of people to deny a historical fact are the same thing? I don't see why the holocaust denial law is necessary but I don't see it as being oppressive to rights that should be fundamental!
Religious headscarves should be banned for the same reason slavery is. Just because a slave would never complain to law enforcement agencies and does not see the injustice in his life because he has been brainwashed and accepts his fate does not mean the state should not enforce his rights. Have you even seen the plight of women in an orthodox muslim family? Would you consider a muslim women who only does what she is "allowed" as your equal? Banning the hijab was a good move - it is a symbol of oppression.
"How can you even compare holocaust denial laws to what muslim countries do?" - Very easily. The holocaust was over 65 years ago. The perpetrators of this egregious act are mostly dead. The victims of this egregious act are mostly dead. The modern German of today had nothing to do with the holocaust. Their mother and father had nothing to do with the holocaust. What does making holocaust denial do other than prohibit a form of dissent? Does it bring people back to life? No, it does not. Does it stop it from happening again? Just because a crime is unmentionable does not mean that it would not happen (and the holocaust is not the only genocide, nor the most efficient one, there have been many more before and since).
When you remove the right to say fuck, you remove the right to say fuck the government. In Germany any debate on the extent of the holocaust is stifled due to the law, the same (but opposite case) as it is in Turkey with respect to the atrocities referred to by some as the Armenian Genocide. In both cases the law is wrong and stifles free speech and people go to jail[1][2] for dissent against it.
> Religious headscarves should be banned for the same reason slavery is.
You really have no understanding of the purpose, origin or practice of the headscarf in countries around the middle-east and mediterranean whatsoever. Would it come as some surprise to you to know that in the early 20th century Irish women would wear headscarves to protect their modesty? Oh those poor oppressed Irish women, whatever became of them?
[1] - http://www.rense.com/general78/dsdde.htm
[2] - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4205708.stm (although in this case one of Turkey's most celebrated authors' trials was cancelled at the last minute)
(Afaik, Pakistani students coming to western Europe haven't heard about them.)
>>Oh those poor oppressed Irish women, whatever became of them?
They got their freedom and human rights a little later than other countries in western Europe -- Ireland had a bit of a tough history, for a while. When does that freedom come to the Mid East and Pakistan?
Edit: "You can find X everywhere" is easy, for most any X. But it is often dishonest and lazy. E.g. rapes happens in prisons in most any country -- but a serious argument would note that it is totally different if it happens to 5% of the prison population or 0.1 promille. And if it is a "job bonus" for the guards, like Syria.
They quit wearing them, it would seem. This puts them a century ahead.
There's something in his position worth defending. And I guess that the difference is in the age. Islam is younger than Christianity, they're a few hundred years behind. Remember what Christians were doing 600 years ago? Inquisition, Crusades, etc. But this is just my theory.
But sure, you might come from some civilised place. :-)
Russia really has a wonder in intellectuals with science and art to give to the world -- I wish all your oil disappear, so there isn't anything for the politicians to steal anymore :-(
Besides, the problem there is hardly the cathedral, it is the opposition to your thieves of politicians.
The problem is in both. Cathedral was used as a weapon of mass approval for the punishment. And it worked :-( I don't care much for politicians, they come and go, but when half of the population (I'm very conservative here) approves the injustice based on blasphemy, I lose the faith.
Another "positive" moment within the Muslim world itself is that Muslims are still happily killing each other (like Christians were doing a few centuries ago). Eventually they will stop doing this.
istanbul is to turkey what new york is to the usa - an outlier, nothing in common with the rest of the country.
i have a friend who was a human rights lawyer in turkey, defending kurdish dissidents - he lives in austria now, cause after being in jail, being tortured, etc he had enough. real, nasty torture, not loud music.
turkey is on its way back into islam, atatürk's laicistic idea of countryhood is being dismantled.
so, all in all, you have no fucking clue what you're posting about.
Your response would have been better without this.
OK, I'll bite: Who has been abused for dissenting in the US?
In the UK, 53 people were arrested[5] the day before the royal wedding last year in order to avoid dissent. The police in the UK practice a method known as kettling to force protesters into cramped spaces and deny them access to water or sanitation facilities, even using this against the young[7]. At the London G20 protests in 2009 a man with no connection to the protests was struck by a police officer[8] and later died.
My point to all of this is that to say that 'they' are savages is disingenuous. We aren't so enlightened as we lead ourselves to believe and we shouldn't expect others to meet high standards we continually breach. This isn't a political statement for me. It's an acceptance of the world we live in. If people didn't dissent, this wouldn't happen, but if people didn't dissent, then civil rights wouldn't have happened either.
[1] - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-btt1GsVx0
[2] - http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/nov/...
[3] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone
[4] - http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/weird-...
[5] - http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/84088/royal-wedding-53-prote...
[6] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babar_Ahmad#Police_abuse_case
[7] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kettling#Student_protests.2C_20...
[8] - http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/interactive/2009/apr/08/g20-pol...
So your argument rests on a massive Tu Quoque and a lot of False Equivalence.
In response to your comment you asked me to document rights abuses in the US, which I did.
You may not realize it, but the main reason you're upset at asto is not sweeping unpleasant things under the rug of Political Correctness. Sadly, this is a very common phenomenon among white Western people.
It's the perpetuation of all muslims as evil savages that leads to the idea that they're somehow subhuman. Just because some of the 'other' may (or may not) talk differently, have a beard, dress differently or not drink alcohol doesn't mean that they aren't people. And yes, all countries have their problems with human rights abuses, people being attacked for various reasons and so on, but it's important to separate the religious element from the culture of individual ethnic and tribal groups.
To tar all 'muslim countries' is to tar 'muslims' as being part of that, and that's a slippery slope some seem to be further down than others.
Well they do keep burying their teenage daughters alive for showing too much skin or refusing an arranged marriage or whatever.
Don't tell me it's not all of them. It's just that a considerable part of them are insane savages completely incompatible with 2012.
It's alright for them to be a different color, wear different clothes and speak a foreign language, but it's most certainly Not OK to murder people in broad daylight over "insulting" The Religion Of Peace (tm).
i m sure it is much better in the US of A, or any other western countries. Hyperbole can only be taken so far.
It's a sweeping statement but it clearly has nothing to do with race. For instance, this dude would be happy in Singapore or Thailand but not in the bit of Malaysia that lies between 'em. I doubt it's because of the marginally different racial mixes you're likely to find as you cross the borders.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Singapore
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Thailand
You are right that religion != race, and for that I apologise. However, the anti-islam sentiment that I see tends to focus on those 'nasty brown people', which too unfortunately pakistanis get lumped into.
Trying to make a story with three links pointing at different countries.. Try the same with Hungary, Spain and the USA. You will hardly say anything interesting.
As far as Pakistan is concerned, make sure that you don't consider the Tribal Areas the same way you would consider the country itself. They are independent in many regards.
Knowing is understanding. I suggest you say no to your condition and discover other cultures and people. You will certainly become a much more interesting person in the process.
"The U.S. is openly accusing the Pakistani military of collaborating with Islamic terrorists, particularly the Haqqani Network, which has long enjoyed sanctuary in North Waziristan. The U.S. publicly agrees with many Pakistanis that the Pakistani military of being out-of-control and a threat to Pakistani democracy. Pakistanis who express these beliefs openly in Pakistan can get arrested or killed."
At least the western countries don't build and finance terror networks to attack neighbours. And so on.
It is a pity for the country, the economy should go like India or China if the place was better managed. I hope the article is correct in its optimism.
(I read that site for fun and to get the opposite perspective from my local Swedish media, which aren't that dependable.)
Why was Bin Laden was in Pakistan?
Several Pakistanis regions bordering Afghanistan live in a legally or de-facto quasi-autonomy. They are tribal by nature (be it their name or not) and since the war in Afghanistan started, they are facing deep changes in their power structure due to waves of migrants and militants. Such areas have also been steeply radicalising (remember the Swat war?).
So, if Pakistanis officials are trying to keep a sense of unity, and perhaps reinforce Pakistani feeling, by collaborating with what the West sees as terror networks, so be it.
They must ensure that these areas don't radicalise more and that it doesn't spread.
Now, the US is totally biased in the situation. It's literally been trying to dictate decisions to the Pakistani officials (military or political) for years.
> At least the western countries don't build and finance terror networks to attack neighbours. And so on.
I'm unsure whether this is a joke or not. It has to be a joke, right?
Regarding the freedom of speech, I'll ask you if you think it matters. Because if you think it matters there are a couple of things you might consider:
You could stop buying Japanese cars and hard-drives as Thai people end up in jail for expressing opinions that go against the monarchy (google lèse-majesté law in Thailand).
You could stop buying French cars and wine as migrants are put in "jails" and drugged against their will to keep them quiet and sometimes denied lawyers and assistance.
You could stop buying IT equipment because of the situation in China.
etc...
What I do know about Pakistan is that the government was deeply criticized for their handling of the floods in 2009. I also do know for reading from there that freedom of speech in the press is not a vain thing (being French, living in Thailand, I've actually found their critics very open).
I'm not very hopeful regarding the freedom of speech in general. In France nobody talks about those migrant centres that I called "jails" above. Nobody cares. In Thailand people think it's fine to have such a law (of course, except those who have something to say). I think there's a threshold under which a problem isn't a problem for enough people to reach a critical mass that could lead to a change.
It is easy to infiltrate the militarised border to go into Indian Kashmir for the terrorists? The Pakistani military REALLY tries to stop the infiltrators...? :-)
And so on.
I'm not an expert, but I need good references or I'll think you're a troll or writing propaganda.
(And when discussing Pakistan's terror support, it is hard not to talk about the groups infiltrating Kashmir.)
I hear that Bin Laden died in Abbottabad. I'm no Pakistan expert, but on my map that is not in FATA. It is a short commute from the capital of the country. The house was right next to a top military academy.
If openly supporting the perpetrators of 9/11 is what Pakistan needs to do in order to 'ensure that these areas don't radicalise more' then I wonder for whose benefit Pakistan is doing this wonderful thing. Certainly not New York's... probably just the government of Pakistan, actually. What do I care, if that government also would like me to die, whether it considers some villagers to be radical?
Lese-majeste sucks, but seriously - buying Thai parts through Japanese companies is hardly comparable to harboring and feeding intelligence to the perpetrators of 9/11 in order to maintain the upper hand in the conflict with India.
Are you serious?
"In Nicaragua, the National Guard was a militia and a gendarmerie created during the occupation of that country by the United States from 1909 to 1933. It became notorious for human rights abuses and corruption under the regime of the Somoza family."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_(Nicaragua)
"The United States' Joint Special Operations Command (JSOT) conducted training for the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), an Iranian opposition group listed by the US as a terrorist organization, journalist Seymour Hersh claims."
http://www.rt.com/news/us-terrorist-mek-intelligence-747/
"Washington, fearing the spread of Soviet influence (and worse the new government's radical example) to its allies in Pakistan, Iran and the Gulf states, immediately offered support to the Afghan mujaheddin, as the "contra" force was known."
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a86operationc...
I'm sure you're aware that the mujahheddin became Al-Quaeda.
This is just the US, because that's where the majority of the posters on this site are from. You can easily find examples of the UK & France doing the same thing. "The western countries" hands are not clean.
Also, if a country is the biggest terror sponsor on the planet, like Iran, I don't exactly feel sorry as long as civilians aren't targeted.
Edit: To be obvious, terror is worse for western governments, since they need to win elections. The idea with terrorism is to scare civilians -- it is just a place where those governments don't want to go.
Ahmadinejad has Fuck-You-Power (as in Fuck-You-Money) and he uses it. He doesn't need any Western government and doesn't care putting up with international sanctions. Whether he is doing good any good to his own country is another matter entirely.
I don't subscribe to the Western theory that Iran as a whole is a threat to anything. They see nuclear technology as both a mean to assert their military supremacy and as a way to overcome their energy issues so they go for it regardless of what other countries think of it. Right now, Nuclear weapons are still used by "strong" countries to impose their supremacy.
Look at Israel. That problem is unmanageable. I strongly believe that if Iran had Nuclear power, Israel would play much lower profile in the region and discuss equitably how to settle the issues over there.
A couple of things I wish to add: the balance of power must shift. Nobody likes living in a world that is biased toward a small group of "leading" countries. Nuclear power is like the instant disruption factor in the balance of power. An alternative is a slow and painful fight between countries such as what happens between Israel and their neighbouring countries.
Wars != terror. Which you know, you're just arguing dishonestly.
(Also, check the democratic peace theory on Wikipedia.)
Second paragraph -- "Ahmadinejad has Fuck-You-Power" is totally wrong, too. Most analysts claim he is on the wrong side with the theocracy and is more or less a figurehead for now.
I stopped reading. You're a propagandist or a troll.
I used to believe this, but now I think it's no longer true. It's a case of aspirant countries looking up to the nuclear powers, and drawing the wrong conclusions.
Nuclear weapons are the end-product of a system and process. There's a notion that to surpass the master, you need to ask what the master sought, rather than copying what the master did. In some way, this pursuit of nuclear weapons is cargo-cultish.
How much more secure would Iran be if it had invested money in offensive and defensive cyberwarfare, instead of nuclear?
The problem is that the talent required to drive that doesn't want to live in Tehran, when they can live in San Francisco, New York, or Montreal.
Imagine what $100-1000 M buys you on the offensive cyberwar front vs. on the nuclear + delivery front.
There must be some serious conflict: Juntas need external enemies, so opposition becomes treachery.
It is a pity, Iran would probably be a really cool place without the theocracy. I just hope those thieves don't get millions of Iranians killed before they are thrown out.
What actually amaze me most of the time that people consider Pakistan similar to Afghanistan and they believe that Pakistan == FATA region. The reality is that Fata is not even 5% of Pakistan and the region is disturbed because of invasion in Afghanistan and closed cultural ties between FATA and Afghans.
Totally agree about Mobile penetration in Pakistan. It is something similar to Africa. The difference that in Pakistan there is no wider acceptance of mobile usage other than sending useless SMS and Spams. There are only 2 companies offer mobile payments and that are also not TRUE mobile payments.
The technology is quite enjoyed by Pakistanis both in rural and urban areas. The biggest obstacle is corruption and politicians itself who don't let people to get educated.
There also seemed to be an air of optimism about the prospects of Imran Khan becoming the next Prime Minister. I asked my taxi driver what might cause Imran Khan to lose and he mentioned if America does not want him, he wont become PM.
Here is an interview of Imran Khan with Julian Assange - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WacS98ATtIM
http://www.vice.com/the-vice-guide-to-travel/the-vice-guide-...
Of course, when it comes to a cricket match between the two, you're spot on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812
Though I'm not sure whether this supports or refutes your point... because we did start to get along pretty swimmingly once it was all over.
Isn't that a relatively common situation for countries - especially those with a historical connection to a much larger neighbour?
For example in the UK there is the well known "Anyone but the English" thing where people in Wales/Scotland/Ireland support teams in major sporting events based on this selection criteria. And the "unofficial" Scottish national anthem is about a war 700 years ago against the English.
In what I'm sure is a complete coincidence, the referendum is going to be in the same year as the 700th anniversary of the climactic battle of the Scottish War of Independence at Bannockburn.
The divisions between Scots and English really do go quite deep - at least from the Scottish side, not sure that the average Englishmen cares and if they do it's probably to wish us good riddance.... :-)
OK, but the divisions are unlikely to lead to open warfare like they have 3 times between Pak and India.
Anti-Other-ism is not a Pakistani-only phenomena, as anyone here can attest to. An example I had was a physics professor in CEGEP who was horrified that I didn't drink. He proceeded to tell me that he "knew all about that Pakistan-India" business - through his Hindu Indian wife. Truth mixed with bigotry was the kindest way to put his newfound opinions. (Even then, it would not be fair to say that /her/ identity was based on being Anti-Pakistan or even a bigot)
Really, the concept of reducing a nation's entire identity to a strong negative emotion is ridiculous. It would be about as fair as saying that the American identity is about being "Anti-Brown" or the Japanese identity is about being "alien from the rest of the world". Nonsense, except for the smallest fraction of crazies that you could find in any sufficiently large population.
I'll take the critical-but-fair opinion of a third party such as Eric Schmidt over a compromised local like MJ Akbar any day.
Interestingly, here in India too we have had controversies with textbooks. Our current ruling coalition has been accused of pandering to Muslims to tap the votebank!
> The press are generally hyper-critical of the United States policies in the region and take the view that the India-US relationship is driving much of our countries behavior.
It's put in diplomatic terms, but anyone from a western country will recognise it as saying that the public discourse about India (and the US) is far from rational. Your other comments are a lot more precise, so thanks.
I'm not an expert on the topic, but if Karachi[1] can be regarded as "relatively safe", the Pakistan has bigger problems that I imagined.
[1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/30/karachi-ethnic-f...
Julian Assange interviews Imran Assange
Gosh, I sure hope so. Maybe Eric should talk to some of the Green Revolution folks.
I don't mean to be cynical, but the desires of the emerging middle class are going to have to compete -- perhaps with great violence -- with the desires of the established interests. That's what happens when political systems aren't able to auto-correct and run for many decades.
The question I would have like Schmidt to answer is this: is Pakistan a country? That is, does it control its borders, is the government the sole user of force against the population, is there a place where international partners can go and ask for and receive redress when wronged by citizens of Pakistan?
I don't think it is. Or if it is, it's a close call.
Having said all of that negative stuff, I wish the people living in Pakistan the best. An emerging middle class, along with a decent education and unfettered internet access, is their best shot at a happier tomorrow.
Given that there is no real agreed definition as to what exactly a country is, it's unlikely that Schmidt could answer that. Also your definitions about what a country is are strangely arbitrary and seem to have little to do with whether a country is a country or not.
But, but almost any definition of country, Pakistan is a country. It may have many problems, but it's absurd to suggest that it might not be.
Pakistan's position is really very unique and it takes time to understand it. The usual labels take very different meanings. For instance what the western world calls "middle class" almost doesn't exist in the form that they expect it to. Even if it did, it has nowhere the clout or the purchase. The country is deeply, and I do mean deeply, feudal. "Middle class" either means of a feudal family decent or of military lineage. Feudal land holdings and military are the two, and pretty much the only two centers that drives the economy and are locked in their desire to keep their privileges intact. If you are interested in this topic, do take time to find out what percentage these two forces account for.
And then you have the significantly large radicalized population. And even here it is very different. You would think radical groups are fringe groups, but not quite so in Pakistan and this has been cultivated by deliberate intent over several decades. The identity of a victimized population that the world has been unfair to because of their religion gets ingrained very early in the education system. Such a belief of persecution is rampant even in the mainstream, sometimes given a modicum of a veneer. Its difficult to catch these undertones unless one is familiar with the language and reads the same newspapers that the Pakistanis read, or watch the same TV shows that Pakistanis watch. Find out about Zaid Hamid and then consider the fact that there he is as main stream as vanila ice-cream.
Next word: army. It is very different from an army one would expect to see. It is a cross between a rich political party that has an unprecedentedly militarized cadre and a mafia house doling out favors (in the form of jobs and other privileges) to keep the population in control. On one hand it controls what you would call the civic life and on the other it also controls albeit at a very decentralized way the different Jihadi outfits which are again smaller mafia houses as entrenched in an economic endeavor as much as a religious one. Its common to dismiss these radical outfits as religious whackos, but you would get a better understanding if you also follow the money and see how the business side of it works.
Entwined with the feudal system is a deep ethnic undercurrent and you would often find the different parties locked in a perverse game theoretic equilibrium trying to gain control. All this goes unreported in the western media, or well in their own country as well. To see what I am talking about, dig up statistics of violence related civilian (police personnel included) deaths in Karachi in the past year, and Karachi is the most liberal city there.
The funniest comment by Eric Schmidt was about freedom of the press. That does not exist. Unless you have some seat of power guarding your life you cant say what you want to say at least not while residing in Pakistan.
If you have interest you can follow this sarcastic blog of a faux major http://majorlyprofound.wordpress.com/2012/04/10/prospects-fo... but you have to read between the lines because beneath the sarcasm there lies a lot of deliberate thought.