Not all is Transparent in Pakistan

Gulf News, November 23, 2005

The global anti-corruption watchdog, Transparency International, published its annual Corruption Perception Index for 2005 ten days after parts of Pakistan were hit by a massive earthquake. One cannot blame the media for overlooking Transparency’s latest report under such circumstances.

Transparency International is a Berlin-based organisation that based its latest Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) on 16 different surveys from 10 independent institutions. The CPI, according to Transparency, “is a composite survey, reflecting the perceptions of business people and country analysts, both resident and non-resident”. In other words, it reflects what foreigners doing business with a country think of the level of corruption they must deal with in the course of their business.

More than two-thirds of the 159 nations surveyed in Transparency International’s 2005 CPI scored less than 5 out of a clean score of 10, indicating serious levels of corruption in a majority of the countries surveyed. Among the countries included in the Index, corruption is perceived as most rampant in Chad, Bangladesh, Turkmenistan, Myanmar and Haiti also among the poorest countries in the world. Iceland pushed Finland into second position this year as the least corrupt country from the perspective of international businessmen.

In the 2004 Transparency International index, Finland was identified as the world’s least corrupt country and the most corrupt countries were Bangladesh and Haiti. According to TI, “The index defines corruption as the abuse of public office for private gain, and measures the degree to which corruption is perceived to exist among a country’s public officials and politicians.”

The scores on TI’s index range from 10 (squeaky clean) to zero (highly corrupt). TI considers a score of 5.0 as “the borderline figure distinguishing countries that do and do not have a serious corruption problem”.

Where does Pakistan feature this year? It scored a cumulative rating of 2.1 and tied at No. 144 with Congo, Kenya, Somalia, Sudan, Paraguay and Tajikistan, making it the fifth most corrupt country in the world. Iraq, notwithstanding the alleged Halliburton scandals, ranked No. 137. Afghanistan, another war-torn country with tremendous potential for corruption, came out much better at No. 117.

For Pakistanis, who must compare their country with India to feel happy about their place in the sun, India was considered a far cleaner place to do business with a 2.9 rating and a ranking of 88, almost 66 places above Pakistan’s position.

By way of further comparison, one must note that Pakistan’s rating in the 2003 survey on a scale of 1 to 10 was 2.5 and in 2004 it had already fallen to 2.1. Pakistan was tied in 6th position as the most corrupt country in 2004 whereas it was in 11th position in 2003. Now, in fifth position, it is apparent that the country’s performance in corruption is climbing to higher positions.

During the mid-1990s Pakistanis felt dishonoured by the revelation that Transparency International had listed Pakistan as the second most corrupt country in the world. Apologists for Pakistan’s establishment used this factoid to run down Pakistan’s politicians and blamed them for bringing Pakistan to this point.

Once the establishment had run the politicians down and used corruption as an excuse for increasing its power in a succession of palace coups, discussion over Pakistan’s rating for corruption by Transparency International has seldom made news.

Hardly anyone has noticed, for example, that Pakistan’s rating for perceived corruption increased in 2005 over the 2004 rating, which was itself worse than the evaluation for 2003. Had elected civilians been in office, the intelligence services would have ensured headlines highlighting the increase in corruption.

The fact that Pakistan’s ranking in the Corruption Perceptions Index is climbing under a military government that claims to have eliminated corruption in high places is especially important. Between 1988 and 1999 no elected civilian government was allowed to complete its term because of alleged corruption.

The 1999 military coup that brought General Pervez Musharraf to power was also justified on grounds that Pakistan’s generals were better suited to wage the war against corruption.

If the country’s global standing in the realm of corruption remains the same irrespective of who governs then why should we not stick to the constitution and, at least, evolve as a nation politically by putting the military back in the barracks? Clearly, deviation from constitutional governance and frequent ouster of elected leaders does not bring corruption to an end.

The Pakistani establishment uses corruption as an excuse to boot out or denigrate the politicians while covering up the corruption and other ethical lapses of military officers and civil servants.

Honest Pakistanis must carry on their struggle against corruption but we must also remain aware that anti-corruption rhetoric has been used by the country’s establishment to deprive the country of democratic governance and popular participation in government.

Home

U.S., Muslims and Democracy

The Indian Express , November 18, 2005

A US-sponsored international conference on democracy in the Middle East ended last week without a final agreement because one of America’s closest allies, Egypt, insisted on retaining control over the pace and method of democratization. The Forum for the Future, a joint US-European initiative launched at the 2004 G-8 summit hosted by President Bush is part of the Bush administration’s plans for promoting democracy in the Islamic world. But the authoritarian governments that receive massive amounts of aid from the US do not want democracy.

As Egypt, which accounts for a quarter of the Arab world’s population and is the second-largest recipient of US aid, demonstrated at the Bahrain meeting of the Forum for the Future last week, Muslim dictators want to control the democratisation process and would love to get more American money in the name of building democracy. If Hosni Mubarak had his way, the way forward for the US and the Muslim world would be for the US to increase aid for the authoritarian Muslim regimes and declare these very regimes as democratic.

Officially, of course, Egypt neither objected to democracy nor to fostering civil society. It spoke in the name of national sovereignty and its officials emphasised that peace in the Middle East must precede full democracy. From North Africa to Pakistan , such arguments have always been the grounds for potentates to thwart real change in the way their countries are governed.

Slogans of “Palestine before democracy” or “Kashmir before normalisation” enable America’s authoritarian allies to carry on business as usual. For its part, Washington knows the game but continues to play along. Even after the setback at the Forum for the Future in Bahrain, US officials were muted in their criticism of the rulers they finance. For the sake of stability in the region, the US is willing to pursue a dichotomous policy. It keeps on defining democratisation as its priority but refuses to condemn those that obstruct its democratisation agenda, namely the Muslim potentates Washington trusts with ensuring stability.

The US government repeatedly makes the mistake of defining as “moderate” those authoritarian Muslim rulers who fulfill America’s foreign policy goals. These strategic American allies are not the force for ideological moderation that would change the Muslim world’ s longer term direction. Authoritarian governments in the Muslim world do not want democracy as that would amount to the potentates giving up their power. It is the democratic movements opposed to governments in the Muslim world who are likely to be the real engines of social and political change in the Middle East and South Asia.

American officials must recognise the contradiction in their simultaneous support for democracy and dictatorial Muslim regimes. For example, Mali is the only Muslim country described by Freedom House as “free” based on its adherence to all criteria for freedom, democracy and respect for human rights. But Mali is not a major recipient of western aid whereas Egypt and Pakistan , characterised by Freedom House as “not free” or “partly free”, are.

While the governments drag their feet on reform, ordinary Muslims continue to take brave steps to prove that despite all odds civil society in the Muslim world has both vision and the potential to initiate real change. Mukhtaran Mai, the Pakistani rape victim with little education and no prior exposure outside her village has become an international advocate for the rights of Muslim women oppressed by tribal customs. An ordinary Palestinian family has recently demonstrated the kinder, gentler side of Islam through action, succeeding where Muslim leaders and intellectuals have generally failed in recent years.

Ismail and Abla Khatib lost their 12-year old son, Ahmed, when the boy was mistakenly shot by Israeli soldier s last week at the entrance of the Jenin refugee camp. Ahmed was playing with a toy gun on Eid al-Fitr, the Muslim holiday marking the end of Ramadan. Israeli troops involved in a raid to arrest suspected terrorists came under fire, mistook Ahmed Khatib for a militant and shot him dead. The Israeli military immediately apologised for the mistake.

The Khatibs did not join the long list of Palestinian parents who, upon losing one child in war, pledge their other sons’ “martyrdom” in suicide operations. He donated his son’s organs to be transplanted to any Israeli awaiting an organ donor. “It didn’t matter to me whether they were Jewish, Muslim or Christian,” Ismail Khatib later told reporters.

Ahmed Khatib’s heart now beats in the chest of a 12-year old Druze girl from northern Israel , who had waited 5 years for a transplant. His lungs were transplanted to a 14-year old while his kidneys benefited a 4-year old boy and a 5-year old girl. Sections of Ahmed Khatib’ s liver helped save the lives of a 7-month old female child and a 58-year old woman. The Khatib family of Jenin has shown the way for Muslims who are fed up with their contemporary culture’s acceptance of violence and hatred as the only way of dealing with humiliation and helplessness. If the US is serious about transforming the Muslim world, it must embrace people like the Khatibs and the hundreds of thousands believers in peace and democracy among ordinary Muslims. Muslim rulers, who have created the problem of intolerance in the Muslim world in the first place, cannot bring the enlightenment or moderation that President Bush claims is his goal for the world’s 1.4 billion Muslims.

Earthquake Relief: If we don’t help Pakistan, al-Qaeda’s friends will

GLOBEANDMAIL.COM , November 17, 2005

The most critical location for immediate international engagement is not Iraq or Afghanistan but Pakistan.

The devastation in Pakistan from the earthquake is as devastating as Southeast Asia’s tsunami last year. But the international response has fallen short. The death toll has risen to 87,000 and the severe Himalayan winter is only weeks away. Equally horrendous is the number of people displaced – three times as many as those affected by the Indian Ocean tsunami. And yet international assistance provided following the tsunami dwarfs the aid provided to Pakistan. Eighty per cent of the aid pledged for the tsunami (more than $4-billion) was given with two weeks. Pakistan so far has only received $17-million, just 12 per cent of aid pledged. According to the United Nations, pledges to date total only 25 per cent of what is needed.

For the tsunami, 4,000 helicopters were donated to ferry life-saving aid to stricken areas, and in Pakistan just 70 – even though there are almost three times as many people who need the food and shelter to survive than after the tsunami.

International humanitarian assistance doesn’t just save lives, it helps fight the war on terror. According to post-tsunami polls conducted by the Maryland-based, non-profit group Terror Free Tomorrow, support for Osama bin Laden dropped by half as a result of international assistance to tsunami victims in the world’s largest Muslim nation.

In nuclear-armed Pakistan right now – another of the world’s largest Muslim nations, where 65 per cent of the population think favourably of Mr. bin Laden – radical Islamist parties are mobilizing and are in the vanguard of those helping in the most-stricken areas. The void left by the Pakistan government, the United States and the international community has been filled by Jamaat-ud-Dawa and the Al-Rasheed Trust, both groups linked to al-Qaeda, as well as Jammat-i-Islami, the leading radical Islamic party in Pakistan.

Even Pakistani Interior Minister Aftab Khan Sherpao had to acknowledge that the radicals are now “the lifeline of our rescue and relief work.”

In fact, radical Islamic groups have vigorously opposed U.S. and international aid because they know this will weaken their propaganda efforts. In a speech last week, Jamaat’s leader, Qazi Hussain Ahmed, said, “The Americans are [providing relief in Pakistan] to damage the solidarity of the country, and will work for materializing their ulterior motives.”

The United States and the world community must now do nothing less than spearhead a response similar to that following the tsunami, not only for self-evident and overwhelming humanitarian needs but also for long-term national security.

After Katrina, Rita and the tsunami, an understandable “donor fatigue” for private relief efforts must not set in. Indeed, private relief agencies are reporting that contributions are less than 15 per cent of what they were in the weeks following the tsunami. President George W. Bush has enlisted corporate leaders in the United States. But what we really need is the same kind of effort for private donations as that led by former presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton after the tsunami, and one to occur throughout North America, Europe and Japan.

According to a new Ipsos poll commissioned by Terror Free Tomorrow, a strong majority (71 per cent) of the American public have read or seen less in the news media on the Pakistan earthquake than on the tsunami that struck Asia. But when informed of the facts, a majority of the American public supports increased assistance to the victims of the earthquake in Pakistan.

If we are serious about truly confronting what President George W. Bush called “the murderous ideology” of radical Islamists, then we must also take concrete steps now to provide aid and weaken support among radicals at home.

In democracy’s name dictators rule

Gulf News, November 16, 2005

A US sponsored international conference on democracy in the Middle East ended last week without a final agreement because one of America’s closest allies, Egypt, insisted on retaining control over the pace and method of democratisation.

The Forum for the Future, a joint US-European initiative launched at the 2004 G8 summit hosted by President Bush, is part of the Bush administration’s plans for promoting democracy in the Islamic world. But the authoritarian governments that receive massive amounts of aid from the US do not want democracy, especially if democratisation involves encouraging nongovernmental organisations and civil society.

As Egypt, which accounts for more than half the Arab world’s population and is the second-largest recipient of US aid, demonstrated at the Bahrain meeting of the Forum for the Future last week, Muslim dictators want to control the democratisation process and would love to get more American money in the name of building democracy.

Officially, of course, Egypt neither objected to democracy nor to fostering civil society. It spoke in the name of national sovereignty and its officials emphasised that peace in the Middle East must precede full democracy. From North Africa to Pakistan, such arguments have always been the grounds for potentates to thwart real change in the way their countries are governed.

Slogans of “Palestine before democracy” or “Kashmir before normalisation” enable America’s authoritarian allies to carry on business as usual. For its part, Washington knows the game but continues to play along.

Even after the setback at the Forum for the Future in Bahrain, US officials were muted in their criticism of the rulers they finance. For the sake of stability in the region, the US is willing to pursue a dichotomous policy. It keeps on defining democratisation as its priority but refuses to condemn those that obstruct its democratisation agenda, namely the Muslim potentates Washington trusts with ensuring stability.

The US government repeatedly makes the mistake of defining as “moderate” those authoritarian Muslim rulers who fulfil America’s foreign policy goals. These strategic American allies are not the force for ideological moderation that would change the Muslim world’s longer term direction.

Authoritarian governments in the Muslim world do not want democracy as that would amount to the potentates giving up their power. It is the democratic movements opposed to governments in the Muslim world who are likely to be the real engines of social and political change in the Middle East and South Asia.

American officials must recognise the contradiction in their simultaneous support for democracy and dictatorial Muslim regimes. For example, Mali is the only Muslim country described by Freedom House as “free” based on its adherence to all criteria for freedom, democracy and respect for human rights. But Mali is not a major recipient of Western aid, whereas Egypt and Pakistan characterised by Freedom House as “not free” or “partly free”, are.

While the governments drag their feet on reform, ordinary Muslims continue to take brave steps to prove that despite all odds civil society in the Muslim world has both vision and the potential to initiate real change. Mukhtar Mai, the Pakistani rape victim with little education and no prior exposure outside her village, has become an international advocate for the rights of Muslim women oppressed by tribal customs.

An ordinary Palestinian family has recently demonstrated the kinder, gentler side of Islam through action, succeeding where Muslim leaders and intellectuals have generally failed in recent years. Esmail and Abla Khatib donated the organs of their 12-year old son, who was killed mistakenly by the Israeli military on the day of Eid Al Fitr, to be transplanted to any Israeli awaiting an organ donor. “It didn’t matter to me whether they were Jewish, Muslim or Christian,” Ismail Khatib later told reporters. The Khatibs did not join the long list of Palestinian parents who, upon losing one child in war, pledge their other sons’ “martyrdom” in suicide operations.

The Khatib family of Jenin demonstrated that violence and hatred are not the only way of dealing with humiliation and helplessness.

If the US is serious about transforming the Muslim world, it must embrace people like the Khatibs and the hundreds of thousands of believers in peace and democracy among ordinary Muslims.
Muslim rulers, who have created the problem of intolerance in the Muslim world in the first place, cannot bring the enlightenment or moderation that President Bush claims is his goal for the world’s 1.4 billion Muslims.