The thunders of the coming chill
The recent declarations by president Obama during the recent ASEAN summit implying that “America is back” is reminiscent of an ageing rock star who after conquering the World with his voice had given in to inertia , leisure , drugs and booze and had held himself very firmly in the clutches of hubris and arrogance. Suddenly a new youngster arises in the horizon and the ageing rock star has to swing back into action, if only to redeem himself in his own eyes.
This particular metaphor of an ageing rock star suits the recent American exhortations against the rising China very aptly. America after her victory in the cold war took a break from observing mundane World events by thinking that the wheels of history had come to a standstill.
America probably thought as a global sheriff, the rest of the World would continue to put up with her “norms and regulations” till “the kingdom come”. However, history had other ideas.
If 9/11 did challenge American assumptions of eternal security at home, the rise of China makes her feel her global economic overlord ship being threatened.
After the shock of 9/11, America quickly went to action in Iraq and Afghanistan, convinced that she could rebuild the region into “peaceful democracies” as she did after the conclusion of the Second World War.
A decade on from the events of 9/11 West Asia has defied American wish. The recent revolutions notwithstanding one thing is clear from the events in the Muslim World , the people in this extremely diverse and complex region wants to live according to their own ideals and identities and not by the allure of any models that America thinks best fits the region.
In the meantime, China has marched forward by taking giant leaps throughout the decade. China is the fastest growing economy in the World and soon to be predicted to overtake America, thereby ensuring that for the first time in last three centuries whereby a nation not using the Roman alphabet would be on top of the Economic value chain of the World.
America on the other hand, has seen her own economic dreams and foundations crumbling through the massive amount of debts that she incurred in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the differences between the have’s and have-not’s expanding ever so surely.
This ensures that America has to lash out to the Chinese that her authority is not yet over. She has to signal to her ever-so weary allies in Asia that she still means business and can make things happen. This explains the recent thunder of Mr. Obama in Asia. As the thunder reverberates across the World, the World is holding its breath as it can feel the coming chill of another cold war.
The man considered “World’s most wanted” till may, 2011 and currently lying at the bottom of the Indian Ocean would probably feel justified. After all he was the one to say “everyone goes for the strong horse”
Anxious eagle; patient dragon
Unlike the previous one, this coming cold war has got different motives. In the previous one both the Soviets and their American counterparts believed in remaking the man in their own images. In short, it was a war for ideas and influence.
In this current version of the old product unlike the Soviets, Chinese are not talking about remaking the World in their own images. Historically, China has never ever been very comfortable in remaking other societies. Nurtured in the environment of Confucian thought, China thinks more about securing its material interests and looks for self-sufficiency more than winning over converts and remaking foreign societies.
There was a time when China seriously looked into exporting her ideals beyond her boundaries. That was the time of Chairman Mao. But ever since the death of Chairman Mao, like many of his ideas, China has shelved the idea of missionary propagation of ideals.
Modern China wants to be successful and rich. Instead of thinking of winning converts in foreign lands, China thinks about purchasing their minerals and selling them cheap Chinese goods. China now days talks more in terms of trade surpluses and infrastructure investments and less in terms of “classless society” or “encircling cities through villages”.
It is this recent Chinese success in generating more and more wealth and its never ending pursuit of more wealth and influence that has put the existing superpower of the World in this anxious and ready-to-leap-into-action mode. Henceforth, America talks about ensuring China knows her place in the current global system of rules and regulations and that forces president Obama to place marines in Australia.
If we do a SWOT analysis of both the belligerents in this emerging new cold war, we can see the main weapons of America in her kitty are well… her advanced and superior military weapons systems and her continuous ability to send her armies all over the globe in rapid quick timings ensuring her enemies and adversaries are always on their toes.
America also leads China in terms of cultural attractiveness. Millions of people from all over the World dream to go to American shores and make it big notwithstanding what the tea-partiers and occupiers-of-wall-street have to say. According to a recent report, even a lot of newly-rich in China wants to educate their kids in America.
But China has got a much bigger advantage which counts most in the real World. She has a fat and ever-increasingly fatter checkbook. Even America looks to China as her biggest foreign investor since Chinese own the most number of American government bonds in the whole World.
Another of China’s advantage is that since it does not look into the political belief of its prospective trade partners as long as they are ready to trade on China’s terms, it can trade with almost any one in the World barring a few small statelets in the Pacific who are still prepared to recognize Taiwan as the “real China”.
This allows China to do business with countries that may be at each other’s throats all the time. China can be the biggest trade partner of India at one hand and the “all-weather friend” of Pakistan on the other. China can purchase oil from Iran and at the same time purchase more oil from Saudi Arabia and weapons from Israel. China can be the last port of call for North Korea whereas ink a free-trade pact with South Korea.
America can never do this since unlike China, America still thinks the World in terms of allies and rogue states. As America continues to belief in her own exceptionalism, she would need a never-ending pool of enemies to justify the righteousness of herself to her own eyes.
This is a beneficial factor for China. It can hope to nurture ties with regimes in Sudan, North Korea, Pakistan, Venezuela and Iran whom America sees as the “rule-breakers-of-the-international-system” and continue to get material and strategic benefits from them.
With its fatter checkbook, China can hope to lure rich and talented from the Western world into its fold considering the recent antagonisms facing the super-rich in America and in general rich in the Western world.
If the rich in the Western world decides that their own governments are conspiring to tax them so that the have-nots in the Western world can have some more badly-needed money then they may very well decide to vote with their feet alongside their checkbooks.
There is one country which they will definitely consider at that moment and that is China.
The rich in the Western World if they ever happen to migrate in a country like China will be happy in the sense that they do not need to spend billions of dollars in lobbying efforts as well as keeping the politicians in line in a country like China with no elections.
In short, America is anxious about her future status as the “indispensable nation” while China waits patiently; sharpening her tools and making sure others know it.
The coming cold war will certainly be an interesting affair alike the previous one.
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Afghan quagmire hotting up in the chill
The very recent incident whereby a number of Pakistani soldiers were killed due to “friendly fire” incidents from the air strikes called by their erstwhile NATO allies from Afghanistan is not a unique but one in a list of events between the recent love-hate relationship involving US and Pakistan.
This incident follows the Raymond Davis affair in the beginning of the year when the CIA agent Raymond Davis gunned down two ISI operatives tailing him in broad daylight in Lahore. Then came the blockbuster of the year in May when Osama Bin Laden was killed by US Nave Seals in a rundown villa in Abottabad at the stone throwing distance from the Pakistani military headquarters.
This current incident comes just days after it was revealed through rumours that the Pakistani civilian leadership may well have sought American intervention in Pakistani domestic affairs following the Bin Laden killing. To be precise, for those who are experienced about US-Pakistani relationships, there is only one way it seems the relationships can go and that is downhill.
Pakistan is considered to be a very tough assignment for any Western diplomat now days. Pakistanis are very much like their Indian counterparts. Jovial, nice, worm, friendly and excellent to do business with as Mr. Nehru found them decades back. But when it comes to contentious issues involving their honor and interests, the Pakistanis can be as difficult and uncompromising as you can get.
In other words , a Pakistani will be “a friend of friends” when they see “eye to eye” , but if their perceived interests do not match with their negotiating partner , getting something done with them can be as difficult as getting Sara Palin to run as a running mate with Mr. Obama.
You can not blame the Pakistanis for being as uncompromising when it comes to protecting their core interests. As a young Pakistani army commander, diplomat or a politician, the first thing that you see on the map is a large and hostile neighbor from East and then another hostile and unstable neighbor from West.
Since Pakistan does not possess enough resources to fight two hostile situations at the same time it makes sense for them to concentrate at one front at one time. This is the reason Pakistan faced with a hostile India at the East and a chaotic post-Soviet Afghanistan on the West, choose to build ties with the Taliban to maintain a semblance of control at its Western border.
That approach worked well for them until the twin towers came crashing down and as a consequence Pakistanis found themselves sandwiched between two superpowers; the emerging Indian superpower and the existing American hyper powers.
The Pakistani leadership was in an existential crisis in those days following nine eleven. If they said no when President Bush asked them whether they are “with us or against us?”, Pakistanis risk being bombarded to stone ages.
The Pakistanis did what was politically correct at the time. They requested their friends in Taliban to melt away into the mountains, brush up the skills of sniping and shooting which Pashtun tribesmen have perfected over centuries in fighting to stave off the foreign aggressors and wait for an opportune time to come.
Fortunately for them, that opportune time came very soon when Americans, firmly in the grip of hubris and messianic fervor after their swift success of removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan, decided to invade Iraq and as a consequence bogged down in that country.
This ensured the return of Taliban as a force viable enough to challenge the writ of America in Afghanistan. Pakistanis though out the American involvement have maintained ties with the Taliban to ensure that they can have the ears of their Taliban allies once America withdraws and the Taliban able to fill up the vacuum of a post-America Afghanistan. This was the long-term strategic picture of Afghanistan from Pakistani viewpoint and looking from their viewpoint they were justified in sticking to it despite strong objecttions from their American allies.
Things have changed in the relationship between Pakistanis and Americans since those days of “with us or against us?” History and geography ensures that. Pakistan is the transit country through which America has to bring the vast majority (49 % by some 2011 estimates) of her military supplies into Afghanistan. If Pakistan stops those transit routes through Chaman and Torkham then the American army runs the risk of losing her life lines.
There are very few alternative options for America to ponder. Afghanistan is land locked and there are only two countries with existing port facilities through which supplies can be brought into Afghanistan. One of them is Pakistan and another is Iran. But at this point of history, the relationship between Iran and America is similar to that of Cross and Count Dracula. Afghanistan’s central Asian neighbors have been approached by America in the past and there is an existing alternative route but that option is comparatively costlier to maintain. Another important thing to consider here about the continuing existence of that route depends upon America keeping good terms with Russia and China, something American leadership has not shown perfect willingness to do with recently.
That leaves America with very little options in reality if Pakistan really decides to draw red lines to America regarding American conduct in the region. This is something the Pakistani leadership has not done previously. In the case of past violations of its sovereignty, Pakistan have threatened to withdraw from the American venture but in the end relented considering American power in the region.
Now things have changed dramatically from a geo-political perspective in the region. America’s position in Eurasia is challenged by the rising power of China and the aspiring power Russia seeking to redeem her previous glory. Iran has not relented despite strong sanctions and pressure from America. Pakistan is a vital cog in the whole equation. The recent Istanbul conference on Afghanistan saw a consensus between China, Russia, Pakistan and Iran to thwart American plans for the region. So Pakistan can be secured of the fact that they will not face regional isolation once they burn their bridges with America.
This leaves America with very few options as Spengler points out in his weekly column in Asia times. One option will be to ask India, the arch-rival of Pakistan, to come into Afghanistan with active military support. This is one option the current Indian government will be extremely reluctant to even consider; India would not like to draw herself in a similar quagmire that America finds herself now in Afghanistan and India will not like to irk China and Russia for the sake of keeping America happy.
Another option will be, as Spengler suggests, backing separatist groups in Balochistan so as to weaken the Pakistani state itself. According to Spengler, this would force the Pakistani establishment to accede to the demands of Washington.
Both these two options are fraught with dangerous repercussions. The sensible option for America will be to compensate Pakistan for the losses it has suffered and look to prepare for a possible negotiated endgame in Afghanistan whereby America can withdraw under some peace offer. But considering the upcoming election fervor as well as the pre-dominance of irreconcilable and uncompromising exceptionalist attitudes in American polity, what is sensible to the rest of the World, might not be similar to the American leadership.
Note: “Blazing saddles in Pakistan” by Spengler (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/MK29Df03.html)
This incident follows the Raymond Davis affair in the beginning of the year when the CIA agent Raymond Davis gunned down two ISI operatives tailing him in broad daylight in Lahore. Then came the blockbuster of the year in May when Osama Bin Laden was killed by US Nave Seals in a rundown villa in Abottabad at the stone throwing distance from the Pakistani military headquarters.
This current incident comes just days after it was revealed through rumours that the Pakistani civilian leadership may well have sought American intervention in Pakistani domestic affairs following the Bin Laden killing. To be precise, for those who are experienced about US-Pakistani relationships, there is only one way it seems the relationships can go and that is downhill.
Pakistan is considered to be a very tough assignment for any Western diplomat now days. Pakistanis are very much like their Indian counterparts. Jovial, nice, worm, friendly and excellent to do business with as Mr. Nehru found them decades back. But when it comes to contentious issues involving their honor and interests, the Pakistanis can be as difficult and uncompromising as you can get.
In other words , a Pakistani will be “a friend of friends” when they see “eye to eye” , but if their perceived interests do not match with their negotiating partner , getting something done with them can be as difficult as getting Sara Palin to run as a running mate with Mr. Obama.
You can not blame the Pakistanis for being as uncompromising when it comes to protecting their core interests. As a young Pakistani army commander, diplomat or a politician, the first thing that you see on the map is a large and hostile neighbor from East and then another hostile and unstable neighbor from West.
Since Pakistan does not possess enough resources to fight two hostile situations at the same time it makes sense for them to concentrate at one front at one time. This is the reason Pakistan faced with a hostile India at the East and a chaotic post-Soviet Afghanistan on the West, choose to build ties with the Taliban to maintain a semblance of control at its Western border.
That approach worked well for them until the twin towers came crashing down and as a consequence Pakistanis found themselves sandwiched between two superpowers; the emerging Indian superpower and the existing American hyper powers.
The Pakistani leadership was in an existential crisis in those days following nine eleven. If they said no when President Bush asked them whether they are “with us or against us?”, Pakistanis risk being bombarded to stone ages.
The Pakistanis did what was politically correct at the time. They requested their friends in Taliban to melt away into the mountains, brush up the skills of sniping and shooting which Pashtun tribesmen have perfected over centuries in fighting to stave off the foreign aggressors and wait for an opportune time to come.
Fortunately for them, that opportune time came very soon when Americans, firmly in the grip of hubris and messianic fervor after their swift success of removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan, decided to invade Iraq and as a consequence bogged down in that country.
This ensured the return of Taliban as a force viable enough to challenge the writ of America in Afghanistan. Pakistanis though out the American involvement have maintained ties with the Taliban to ensure that they can have the ears of their Taliban allies once America withdraws and the Taliban able to fill up the vacuum of a post-America Afghanistan. This was the long-term strategic picture of Afghanistan from Pakistani viewpoint and looking from their viewpoint they were justified in sticking to it despite strong objecttions from their American allies.
Things have changed in the relationship between Pakistanis and Americans since those days of “with us or against us?” History and geography ensures that. Pakistan is the transit country through which America has to bring the vast majority (49 % by some 2011 estimates) of her military supplies into Afghanistan. If Pakistan stops those transit routes through Chaman and Torkham then the American army runs the risk of losing her life lines.
There are very few alternative options for America to ponder. Afghanistan is land locked and there are only two countries with existing port facilities through which supplies can be brought into Afghanistan. One of them is Pakistan and another is Iran. But at this point of history, the relationship between Iran and America is similar to that of Cross and Count Dracula. Afghanistan’s central Asian neighbors have been approached by America in the past and there is an existing alternative route but that option is comparatively costlier to maintain. Another important thing to consider here about the continuing existence of that route depends upon America keeping good terms with Russia and China, something American leadership has not shown perfect willingness to do with recently.
That leaves America with very little options in reality if Pakistan really decides to draw red lines to America regarding American conduct in the region. This is something the Pakistani leadership has not done previously. In the case of past violations of its sovereignty, Pakistan have threatened to withdraw from the American venture but in the end relented considering American power in the region.
Now things have changed dramatically from a geo-political perspective in the region. America’s position in Eurasia is challenged by the rising power of China and the aspiring power Russia seeking to redeem her previous glory. Iran has not relented despite strong sanctions and pressure from America. Pakistan is a vital cog in the whole equation. The recent Istanbul conference on Afghanistan saw a consensus between China, Russia, Pakistan and Iran to thwart American plans for the region. So Pakistan can be secured of the fact that they will not face regional isolation once they burn their bridges with America.
This leaves America with very few options as Spengler points out in his weekly column in Asia times. One option will be to ask India, the arch-rival of Pakistan, to come into Afghanistan with active military support. This is one option the current Indian government will be extremely reluctant to even consider; India would not like to draw herself in a similar quagmire that America finds herself now in Afghanistan and India will not like to irk China and Russia for the sake of keeping America happy.
Another option will be, as Spengler suggests, backing separatist groups in Balochistan so as to weaken the Pakistani state itself. According to Spengler, this would force the Pakistani establishment to accede to the demands of Washington.
Both these two options are fraught with dangerous repercussions. The sensible option for America will be to compensate Pakistan for the losses it has suffered and look to prepare for a possible negotiated endgame in Afghanistan whereby America can withdraw under some peace offer. But considering the upcoming election fervor as well as the pre-dominance of irreconcilable and uncompromising exceptionalist attitudes in American polity, what is sensible to the rest of the World, might not be similar to the American leadership.
Note: “Blazing saddles in Pakistan” by Spengler (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/MK29Df03.html)
Thursday, November 24, 2011
Revenge of the underdog
The new face of war in the new World
We come across it in the web pages at least some time during your normal working day, we hear it in the FM radio talk shows, and we read it in the newspapers. When we see an odd government site have been hacked by anonymous hackers or when we just feel inconvenient because our odd bank or insurance website is down for some days, we just do not feel that we are part of it. Yet very few of us realize the magnitude of it.
What we do not realize that we are in the middle of a war, a war which is being fought all around us by not using fighter jets or submarines. It is a war where we do not see or feel that this war is being fought, yet all of us are part of it whether we like it or not. This war is called Information warfare and this is the new face of warfare in this new millennium.
There are three main ways in which this war is different from other techniques of warfare. This war is faceless and expressionless in nature. You will not see any formal declaration of war or surrender ceremonies here but you will understand that you have become a part of this war only when you have become a casualty in it.
This war, because of the effects of globalization, can be and will be fought everywhere. Since information warfare involves using computer-based automated systems, this particular warfare will be fought everywhere and anywhere in this millennium since most of our day-to-day works and affairs can be and are conducted through these computer-based automated systems.
The most important factor behind this type of warfare is that it plays directly with the mind of its victim(s) by installing a perception amongst their mindsets. In our modern lives, we are increasingly becoming individualistic and whether we accept it or not some of the gifts of globalization like say our email accounts or our social-networking profiles are small versions of us, they are increasingly becoming a part of our identities. So when someone hacks your email or profile, that anonymous but powerful act gives you a feeling that you have lost a part of you to someone whom you even do not know and yet you cannot do anything about it except just changing your email id or profile.
Another aspect that we need to consider here is that, the anonymous nature of Internet has allowed people to express their views more openly without fear of reprisal. Now when someone sees his or her email id, social network profile or some other information that her considers private and valuable getting compromised, that person will never feel that sense of security which the Internet had provided him or her in the first place.
Not only individuals but even states can feel the effect of this type of warfare. One of the reasons why we accept and obey the rules of our governments is that we know it has means to hold us into account if we do not accept its rules. Now when a group of hackers hack an important government website, they not only take away its information but at the same time they take away its sources of power i.e. its power to enforce its rules. After all, when a government is not able to protect its most important and private information, how can it protect its citizens?
Revenge of the underdog
Information warfare as a technique of war can not only be very useful to its users but at the same time it can bring a lot of empowerment to those who feel themselves in what I call the David v/s Goliath scenarios of modern age.
Suppose there is a resource-rich but militarily weak state which is being on the threshold of invasion and occupation by a militarily-more powerful state and no one is coming to defend the weaker state. Now in the 20-th century warfare, the main choices before the governments included options in the range from abject surrender to guerilla warfare. With the advent of information warfare, the weaker state needs to just pinpoint some of the most vulnerable parts of the enemy’s military and civilian information infrastructure and then get them out of the way by employing its most brightest and brilliant hackers or information warriors. This is the way even a militarily weak state can bring the fear into the ranks of its much powerful enemy.
On an individual level, the new millennium has seen educated youth around the feel themselves hopeless and inconsequential to do something about their societies. The brightest amongst these youth will seek to launch their own version of Information warfare by hacking certain government websites or bringing into the notice of the public certain “classified” information. The rise of groups like wikileaks and anonymous attests to this fact. Personal and professional grudges can also result in serious incidents like a disgruntled employee hacking his company’s website.
The anonymous nature of the Internet is the most serious line of protection for the information warriors particularly the ones who use their forms of information warfare to put a social and political message to the public. The eagle-eyed government surveillance agencies may be able to find out the computers (if they are lucky and very effective) but it will be really difficult to find out exact perpetrators. This fact gives a boost to the present and would-be information warriors.
Unlike the conventional warfare, there is very little that states can do to prevent this type of warfare. A preemptive war may enable to conquer countries, but it can do very little to prevent a group of bright youngsters with computers to use information as a tool of warfare.
Governments around the World need to listen to its opponents both at home and abroad with more care and respect. Dissenting voices and viewpoints must be given the consideration and proper forums to express their grievances. As preventive measures, a must-to-do list should be widely circulated so that innocent victims of information warfare to cope up in the aftermath. Indeed that is probably the only way in the long term to manage information warfare to a certain manageable extent.
But till that time, all of us in this new millennium need to be very careful.
We come across it in the web pages at least some time during your normal working day, we hear it in the FM radio talk shows, and we read it in the newspapers. When we see an odd government site have been hacked by anonymous hackers or when we just feel inconvenient because our odd bank or insurance website is down for some days, we just do not feel that we are part of it. Yet very few of us realize the magnitude of it.
What we do not realize that we are in the middle of a war, a war which is being fought all around us by not using fighter jets or submarines. It is a war where we do not see or feel that this war is being fought, yet all of us are part of it whether we like it or not. This war is called Information warfare and this is the new face of warfare in this new millennium.
There are three main ways in which this war is different from other techniques of warfare. This war is faceless and expressionless in nature. You will not see any formal declaration of war or surrender ceremonies here but you will understand that you have become a part of this war only when you have become a casualty in it.
This war, because of the effects of globalization, can be and will be fought everywhere. Since information warfare involves using computer-based automated systems, this particular warfare will be fought everywhere and anywhere in this millennium since most of our day-to-day works and affairs can be and are conducted through these computer-based automated systems.
The most important factor behind this type of warfare is that it plays directly with the mind of its victim(s) by installing a perception amongst their mindsets. In our modern lives, we are increasingly becoming individualistic and whether we accept it or not some of the gifts of globalization like say our email accounts or our social-networking profiles are small versions of us, they are increasingly becoming a part of our identities. So when someone hacks your email or profile, that anonymous but powerful act gives you a feeling that you have lost a part of you to someone whom you even do not know and yet you cannot do anything about it except just changing your email id or profile.
Another aspect that we need to consider here is that, the anonymous nature of Internet has allowed people to express their views more openly without fear of reprisal. Now when someone sees his or her email id, social network profile or some other information that her considers private and valuable getting compromised, that person will never feel that sense of security which the Internet had provided him or her in the first place.
Not only individuals but even states can feel the effect of this type of warfare. One of the reasons why we accept and obey the rules of our governments is that we know it has means to hold us into account if we do not accept its rules. Now when a group of hackers hack an important government website, they not only take away its information but at the same time they take away its sources of power i.e. its power to enforce its rules. After all, when a government is not able to protect its most important and private information, how can it protect its citizens?
Revenge of the underdog
Information warfare as a technique of war can not only be very useful to its users but at the same time it can bring a lot of empowerment to those who feel themselves in what I call the David v/s Goliath scenarios of modern age.
Suppose there is a resource-rich but militarily weak state which is being on the threshold of invasion and occupation by a militarily-more powerful state and no one is coming to defend the weaker state. Now in the 20-th century warfare, the main choices before the governments included options in the range from abject surrender to guerilla warfare. With the advent of information warfare, the weaker state needs to just pinpoint some of the most vulnerable parts of the enemy’s military and civilian information infrastructure and then get them out of the way by employing its most brightest and brilliant hackers or information warriors. This is the way even a militarily weak state can bring the fear into the ranks of its much powerful enemy.
On an individual level, the new millennium has seen educated youth around the feel themselves hopeless and inconsequential to do something about their societies. The brightest amongst these youth will seek to launch their own version of Information warfare by hacking certain government websites or bringing into the notice of the public certain “classified” information. The rise of groups like wikileaks and anonymous attests to this fact. Personal and professional grudges can also result in serious incidents like a disgruntled employee hacking his company’s website.
The anonymous nature of the Internet is the most serious line of protection for the information warriors particularly the ones who use their forms of information warfare to put a social and political message to the public. The eagle-eyed government surveillance agencies may be able to find out the computers (if they are lucky and very effective) but it will be really difficult to find out exact perpetrators. This fact gives a boost to the present and would-be information warriors.
Unlike the conventional warfare, there is very little that states can do to prevent this type of warfare. A preemptive war may enable to conquer countries, but it can do very little to prevent a group of bright youngsters with computers to use information as a tool of warfare.
Governments around the World need to listen to its opponents both at home and abroad with more care and respect. Dissenting voices and viewpoints must be given the consideration and proper forums to express their grievances. As preventive measures, a must-to-do list should be widely circulated so that innocent victims of information warfare to cope up in the aftermath. Indeed that is probably the only way in the long term to manage information warfare to a certain manageable extent.
But till that time, all of us in this new millennium need to be very careful.
Where Sri Lanka beats India
The end of the year is also a time for report-cards and end-year-appraisals. It is an opportunity to assess how we did as students, employees as well as nations. This week saw two organizations, United Nations Development Program (UNDP) and Legatum coming up with their own rankings about how the countries of the World have been doing so far in this year in terms of prosperity.
As a person who lives and works in South-Asia, I must say that the overall rankings for the region are depressing in both the rankings.
By the Legatum ratings, amongst 22 countries in Asia which have been considered for these rankings, South Asian countries come at the bottom-most part and out of 5 South Asian countries that have been considered for these rankings, 4 of them are amongst the bottom 5. To summarize, countries of this region are members of a club whose membership is most undesired. But these rankings are remarkable in another aspect.
We in India, generally consider ourselves as the “undisputed champion” when it comes to South Asia. After all, we are the biggest of the lot in terms of size and manpower as well as in terms of overall economy. We are also supposedly the most stable and mature country in the region in terms of democracy and civil society. We happen to produce number of billionaires and Bollywood blockbusters in the region and most important of all to an average Indian, did we not just won the World Cup?
But according to the two rating agencies that I have mentioned in the beginning, we are not the numero uno in terms of prosperity in our own South Asian region. Ironically, it is those hapless Islanders from Lanka whom we so thoroughly defeated in the World cup final seemingly have defeated us to take the numero uno crown in both the UNDP and Legatum rankings. Those of my fellow citizens who would be already thinking about the biasness involved behind these ranking systems (like we regularly fume after the publication of each ICC rankings) , let me state the fact that the Islanders may live in a tiny country but they have been defeating us in these prosperity rankings for last few years now.
According to the Legatum rankings, India, despite producing most number of billionaires in the region, trails behind Sri Lanka and even our bete noire Pakistan in terms of Entrepreneurship and Opportunity. India is at the unenviable 90-th position in the rankings for this category whereas the Islanders are at the 75-th position and the Pakistanis are at 86-th position.
If we go into the details, the picture becomes more depressing. It seems from the reports that it is much easier to start up a new business in Sri Lanka than in India. Average costs for starting a new business in terms of per capita national income, is much lesser in Sri Lanka (5.4%) compared to India (at 57%). 98% of Sri Lankans surveyed in 2010 think that hard work enables people to get ahead in life, the second highest proportion in the Index whereas only 85% of people in India think on similar lines, according to the report.
In terms of health, social capital, education and personal freedom rankings, India trails behind our Lankan neighbors in all these indicators.
So the bottom line is that we may have defeated the Emerald Islanders in the Cup final, but they beat us hands down in most indicators of national prosperity.
Note:
1. http://www.prosperity.com/
2. http://hdr.undp.org/en/
As a person who lives and works in South-Asia, I must say that the overall rankings for the region are depressing in both the rankings.
By the Legatum ratings, amongst 22 countries in Asia which have been considered for these rankings, South Asian countries come at the bottom-most part and out of 5 South Asian countries that have been considered for these rankings, 4 of them are amongst the bottom 5. To summarize, countries of this region are members of a club whose membership is most undesired. But these rankings are remarkable in another aspect.
We in India, generally consider ourselves as the “undisputed champion” when it comes to South Asia. After all, we are the biggest of the lot in terms of size and manpower as well as in terms of overall economy. We are also supposedly the most stable and mature country in the region in terms of democracy and civil society. We happen to produce number of billionaires and Bollywood blockbusters in the region and most important of all to an average Indian, did we not just won the World Cup?
But according to the two rating agencies that I have mentioned in the beginning, we are not the numero uno in terms of prosperity in our own South Asian region. Ironically, it is those hapless Islanders from Lanka whom we so thoroughly defeated in the World cup final seemingly have defeated us to take the numero uno crown in both the UNDP and Legatum rankings. Those of my fellow citizens who would be already thinking about the biasness involved behind these ranking systems (like we regularly fume after the publication of each ICC rankings) , let me state the fact that the Islanders may live in a tiny country but they have been defeating us in these prosperity rankings for last few years now.
According to the Legatum rankings, India, despite producing most number of billionaires in the region, trails behind Sri Lanka and even our bete noire Pakistan in terms of Entrepreneurship and Opportunity. India is at the unenviable 90-th position in the rankings for this category whereas the Islanders are at the 75-th position and the Pakistanis are at 86-th position.
If we go into the details, the picture becomes more depressing. It seems from the reports that it is much easier to start up a new business in Sri Lanka than in India. Average costs for starting a new business in terms of per capita national income, is much lesser in Sri Lanka (5.4%) compared to India (at 57%). 98% of Sri Lankans surveyed in 2010 think that hard work enables people to get ahead in life, the second highest proportion in the Index whereas only 85% of people in India think on similar lines, according to the report.
In terms of health, social capital, education and personal freedom rankings, India trails behind our Lankan neighbors in all these indicators.
So the bottom line is that we may have defeated the Emerald Islanders in the Cup final, but they beat us hands down in most indicators of national prosperity.
Note:
1. http://www.prosperity.com/
2. http://hdr.undp.org/en/
Saturday, November 19, 2011
Foresight and Indian policy making
Parag Khanna is probably not a very renowned name in India. Recently this renowned American foreign policy expert, came into news after making a quite interesting proposal that the United States should look more towards Latin America than Asia in the new millennium in order to rebuild American economic influence and another very creative part of his idea was that America could think about whether “the $100 billion IT outsourcing industry could be brought back from India into the United States' time zones”.
Now this can at best be considered as a very creative idea albeit with one significant hindrance. After all India is more or less an English-speaking country thanks to our colonial legacy whereas most of Latin America is still very much Spanish and Portuguese speaking region. So until and unless the United States of America turns into a Spanish-speaking majority nation (as most recent demographic studies suggest it would become so probably at the end of this century due to higher birthrates amongst the Americans from the Latino background), India can pretty much feel comfortable of continuing to reap the advantage of being home to one of the largest number of English-speakers outside Britain.
However it is always safe to be sorry in some respects. What should be our Plan-B if the creative idea, floated by Mr. Khanna , does indeed come to reality one day ?
One of the challenges of being an expert in foreign policy is to conjure up unpleasant and previously unthinkable scenarios and try to find out possible solutions so that if the threat really comes to pass, there is a fitting response.
Pro-activeness is something that our grand old Indian policy making establishment can not be blamed to possess too much of. And they do not have any reason to practice it too much in terms of policy making so far in this new millennium.
Historically, the two biggest factors that determine how a country’s establishment looks at its foreign policy are the perception or presence of threats from outside and the willingness to expand a country’s interests and influences.
In the case of India, fortunately we live in a time of history where there is no strong power in our neighborhood, which is at present engaged in a policy to endanger our existence or our interests. This is the main reason that the Indian establishment seem to be always comfortable in “leading from behind” when it comes to major foreign policy initiatives in the 21-st century.
It is true that our diplomats and ministers are invited into major international forums around the World like Davos and numerous conferences on the future of Afghanistan but when it comes to real discussions and decision making to determine the outcome of any important political process of global significance, India seem to be very much in the “leading from behind” mode.
The Indian establishment cannot be blamed for this state of mind. After all, “leading from behind” has not hurt India in any real terms and is not India a IT-superpower and are not the American arms manufacturers coming running to India for possible purchases? So, if India is getting so much without being pre-active why should India think differently?
Well one big lesson of history is that even entrenched situations can change overnight and those who are not ready to accommodate and prepare themselves to the changes of history, pay dearly for it. Take the example of those investors, who have put all their money into purchasing the Russian Czarist bonds prior to the First World War and they went bankrupt rapidly when that government itself collapsed in the course of war and revolutions.
Now coming back to the idea of Mr. Khanna , suppose if India losses its $100 Billion US-outsourcing market what could be the other options that India should look at ?
A very tried and trusted method in this regard is diversifying. However in this case, finding out other different markets may not be that easy. The two other markets that can be comparable to America are the EU and China. Now, Europe is a diverse continent with diverse set of cultures, languages and thanks to the current EU leaders, more complex set of stringent rules and regulations. In other words, Indian Software bigwigs will not have that easy to penetrate into the European market with such ease as with America due to these very reasons. China is altogether a different story whereby Indian private companies would have to face direct competition from their Chinese counterparts backed by the Chinese government , looking to protect and nurture its own domestic IT services industry and probably rightly so from a Chinese viewpoint.
So that narrows down our options to catering software products to the customers in our very own country. India does have a growing population and majority of it still live in abject poverty and backwardness but thanks to the modern revolution of cellular phones, creating innovative products for this otherwise under estimated market could be the “next big thing” for our Software industry. There are more than many million Indians who do fall under $2 dollar income category. Our entrepreneurs and ideators can think about catering basic services to these people through the cell phone technology and still being able to profit from it considering the hugeness of the market.
So as Mr. Khanna advises his fellow Americans to look closer to home, we should also follow his advice and look at our own countrymen to prepare ourselves for any possible fallouts in case the countrymen of Mr. Khanna do consider his ideas seriously.
Note: “Look South, not east” by Parag Khanna (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/11/11/look_south_not_east)
Now this can at best be considered as a very creative idea albeit with one significant hindrance. After all India is more or less an English-speaking country thanks to our colonial legacy whereas most of Latin America is still very much Spanish and Portuguese speaking region. So until and unless the United States of America turns into a Spanish-speaking majority nation (as most recent demographic studies suggest it would become so probably at the end of this century due to higher birthrates amongst the Americans from the Latino background), India can pretty much feel comfortable of continuing to reap the advantage of being home to one of the largest number of English-speakers outside Britain.
However it is always safe to be sorry in some respects. What should be our Plan-B if the creative idea, floated by Mr. Khanna , does indeed come to reality one day ?
One of the challenges of being an expert in foreign policy is to conjure up unpleasant and previously unthinkable scenarios and try to find out possible solutions so that if the threat really comes to pass, there is a fitting response.
Pro-activeness is something that our grand old Indian policy making establishment can not be blamed to possess too much of. And they do not have any reason to practice it too much in terms of policy making so far in this new millennium.
Historically, the two biggest factors that determine how a country’s establishment looks at its foreign policy are the perception or presence of threats from outside and the willingness to expand a country’s interests and influences.
In the case of India, fortunately we live in a time of history where there is no strong power in our neighborhood, which is at present engaged in a policy to endanger our existence or our interests. This is the main reason that the Indian establishment seem to be always comfortable in “leading from behind” when it comes to major foreign policy initiatives in the 21-st century.
It is true that our diplomats and ministers are invited into major international forums around the World like Davos and numerous conferences on the future of Afghanistan but when it comes to real discussions and decision making to determine the outcome of any important political process of global significance, India seem to be very much in the “leading from behind” mode.
The Indian establishment cannot be blamed for this state of mind. After all, “leading from behind” has not hurt India in any real terms and is not India a IT-superpower and are not the American arms manufacturers coming running to India for possible purchases? So, if India is getting so much without being pre-active why should India think differently?
Well one big lesson of history is that even entrenched situations can change overnight and those who are not ready to accommodate and prepare themselves to the changes of history, pay dearly for it. Take the example of those investors, who have put all their money into purchasing the Russian Czarist bonds prior to the First World War and they went bankrupt rapidly when that government itself collapsed in the course of war and revolutions.
Now coming back to the idea of Mr. Khanna , suppose if India losses its $100 Billion US-outsourcing market what could be the other options that India should look at ?
A very tried and trusted method in this regard is diversifying. However in this case, finding out other different markets may not be that easy. The two other markets that can be comparable to America are the EU and China. Now, Europe is a diverse continent with diverse set of cultures, languages and thanks to the current EU leaders, more complex set of stringent rules and regulations. In other words, Indian Software bigwigs will not have that easy to penetrate into the European market with such ease as with America due to these very reasons. China is altogether a different story whereby Indian private companies would have to face direct competition from their Chinese counterparts backed by the Chinese government , looking to protect and nurture its own domestic IT services industry and probably rightly so from a Chinese viewpoint.
So that narrows down our options to catering software products to the customers in our very own country. India does have a growing population and majority of it still live in abject poverty and backwardness but thanks to the modern revolution of cellular phones, creating innovative products for this otherwise under estimated market could be the “next big thing” for our Software industry. There are more than many million Indians who do fall under $2 dollar income category. Our entrepreneurs and ideators can think about catering basic services to these people through the cell phone technology and still being able to profit from it considering the hugeness of the market.
So as Mr. Khanna advises his fellow Americans to look closer to home, we should also follow his advice and look at our own countrymen to prepare ourselves for any possible fallouts in case the countrymen of Mr. Khanna do consider his ideas seriously.
Note: “Look South, not east” by Parag Khanna (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/11/11/look_south_not_east)
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Another forgotten aniversary
Forgetting an important date is not too difficult for us. Very often we forget our important meetings, the birthdays of our friends and relatives whom we do not get to meet often thanks to the hustles of the modern life, more often than not we even forget to just pick up the cell phone from our pockets and give a call to a long-ago school or college friend who may be living the next neighborhood, an acquaintance with whom we may have worked just six months back or to some old uncle and aunty just to give them a reminder that they exist in our increasingly sinking universes.
Remembering an event which took place a century is probably a more difficult task to perform. After all this age is the “age of breaking news” whereby we do not even remember the most significant event that took place a week or two back , leave aside what happened a century back. This year was significant in terms of anniversary since this was the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 i.e. World trade centre attacks, an event with great significance, remembrance and tragedy. Yet this year also marks the century of another tragic event which has got very little remembrance until now.
The year was 1911 and the day was 25-th March and the place was Asch Building, at 23-29 Washington Place, New York. It was a completely different world from our times. It was a World where Adolph Hitler was still very much a struggling artist in Vienna; Lenin was moving around Europe to organize followers around his ideas and Mahatma Gandhi a very much practicing lawyer in South Africa. That World was dominated by the great European powers of the day with almost all of current African and Asian nations under their influence. The United States was a fast growing power but still compared to the historical and classical imperial credentials of her more distinguished Western counterparts like the English and the French , the United states was more or less an well-doing start-up compared to the existing industrial behemoths like that of the British or the French empires. So when the event that I am going to talk about now took place on that 25-th March in New York, not many people around the World took notice of it and not many have taken the notice of that event thereafter.
The Asch Building was a ten-story office building in New York; it’s eighth, ninth and tenth floors were hosting the offices of Triangle Shirtwaist Company, owned by Max Blanck and Isaac Harris, recent Russian immigrants to America. The main product of the company was “Shirtwaists” a recently invented and extremely popular Woman’s ware. The company employed around 500 people, mostly immigrant girls in the age group of 13-23. The workers had to work long hours and six days a week and had to settle with a salary which was barely able to meet their only very basic requirements.
On 25-th march Saturday, around 4:30 PM, the time when the normal work had stopped and regular paychecks were being paid to the workers suddenly a fire was observed at one of the trash bins. Probably it was lit by an unfinished match or cigarette. The company had provisions to prevent smoking inside its rooms but probably one of the workers , who proved to be little bit more innovative than the overseers , had been able to smuggle one. At the beginning, the workers who were present, tried to extinguish the fire by pouring water but the fire defeated all of their efforts and grew large. Then the people at the eighth floor tried to put out the fire by opening the fire extinguishing hoses but even those did not work out properly. As fire started growing more rapidly, the workers at the eighth floor informed the residents at the tenth floor where the owners were present and left the place. But the workers at the ninth floor were not aware of this rapidly detoriating situation mainly because of two reasons. One, the fire alarms which were there did not function properly and second, the invention of a device like the cell phones was still to happen almost a century later. So what made the workers at the ninth floor aware of the fire was fire itself, according to one worker.
There were two elevators, a fire-exit and stairways for the marooned workers to escape but as with other things in the day, fate slowly but surely removed those options from their hands. Normally it was regulated by the city industrial authorities that doors at the factories should be opened but the owners of the Triangle Shirtwaist Company had ensured that the doors were closed so that no worker can get away with stealing. So the workers of the plant did not have the doors open to them. The two elevator operators Joseph Zito and Gaspar Mortillalo showed deep courage to keep the elevators running and they were able to save a lot of lives in the process but only till the elevators did function. As if it was inevitable, after some time the unfortunate workers trapped at the ninth floor, all options of escape had run out. Louis Waldman, a visitor described what happened next.
“Word had spread through the East Side, by some magic of terror, that the plant of the Triangle Waist Company was on fire and that several hundred workers were trapped. Horrified and helpless, the crowds — I among them — looked up at the burning building, saw girl after girl appear at the reddened windows, pause for a terrified moment, and then leap to the pavement below, to land as mangled, bloody pulp. This went on for what seemed a ghastly eternity. Occasionally a girl who had hesitated too long was licked by pursuing flames and, screaming with clothing and hair ablaze, plunged like a living torch to the street. Life nets held by the firemen were torn by the impact of the falling bodies.”
This horrible phenomenon of jumping to a sure and ghastly death whereby a human body ends up being a “mangled, bloody pulp” to escape from certain immolation will be repeated ninety years later during the twin tower attacks on 9/11. Human beings are prone to do extraordinary things when faced with extraordinary situations. The girls who jumped from that burning building did so to probably choose a quick end to an otherwise miserable life and not to suffer a more lingering and painful death by immolation. For some girls, probably that decision to jump from that building was the only choice that they could make in their lives where most of their lives’ decisions were made by others. Overall, 146 lives were lost to this original version of 9/11.
The owners by this time were safely evacuated and although they were tried for becoming first and second degree accomplishes in manslaughter but the victims of 25-th March , 1911 were not as fortunate as the victims of 11-th September , 2001. No “war on terror” will be launched, no 9-11 commissions will be formed and no foreign countries will be invaded, to avenge them. The owners would later be acquitted from their charges and that would eventually bring an end to this original version of America’s 9/11 and since the victims of 25-th March, 1911 were not so fortunate, very soon they will be put into the more oblivious pages of history.
Remembering an event which took place a century is probably a more difficult task to perform. After all this age is the “age of breaking news” whereby we do not even remember the most significant event that took place a week or two back , leave aside what happened a century back. This year was significant in terms of anniversary since this was the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 i.e. World trade centre attacks, an event with great significance, remembrance and tragedy. Yet this year also marks the century of another tragic event which has got very little remembrance until now.
The year was 1911 and the day was 25-th March and the place was Asch Building, at 23-29 Washington Place, New York. It was a completely different world from our times. It was a World where Adolph Hitler was still very much a struggling artist in Vienna; Lenin was moving around Europe to organize followers around his ideas and Mahatma Gandhi a very much practicing lawyer in South Africa. That World was dominated by the great European powers of the day with almost all of current African and Asian nations under their influence. The United States was a fast growing power but still compared to the historical and classical imperial credentials of her more distinguished Western counterparts like the English and the French , the United states was more or less an well-doing start-up compared to the existing industrial behemoths like that of the British or the French empires. So when the event that I am going to talk about now took place on that 25-th March in New York, not many people around the World took notice of it and not many have taken the notice of that event thereafter.
The Asch Building was a ten-story office building in New York; it’s eighth, ninth and tenth floors were hosting the offices of Triangle Shirtwaist Company, owned by Max Blanck and Isaac Harris, recent Russian immigrants to America. The main product of the company was “Shirtwaists” a recently invented and extremely popular Woman’s ware. The company employed around 500 people, mostly immigrant girls in the age group of 13-23. The workers had to work long hours and six days a week and had to settle with a salary which was barely able to meet their only very basic requirements.
On 25-th march Saturday, around 4:30 PM, the time when the normal work had stopped and regular paychecks were being paid to the workers suddenly a fire was observed at one of the trash bins. Probably it was lit by an unfinished match or cigarette. The company had provisions to prevent smoking inside its rooms but probably one of the workers , who proved to be little bit more innovative than the overseers , had been able to smuggle one. At the beginning, the workers who were present, tried to extinguish the fire by pouring water but the fire defeated all of their efforts and grew large. Then the people at the eighth floor tried to put out the fire by opening the fire extinguishing hoses but even those did not work out properly. As fire started growing more rapidly, the workers at the eighth floor informed the residents at the tenth floor where the owners were present and left the place. But the workers at the ninth floor were not aware of this rapidly detoriating situation mainly because of two reasons. One, the fire alarms which were there did not function properly and second, the invention of a device like the cell phones was still to happen almost a century later. So what made the workers at the ninth floor aware of the fire was fire itself, according to one worker.
There were two elevators, a fire-exit and stairways for the marooned workers to escape but as with other things in the day, fate slowly but surely removed those options from their hands. Normally it was regulated by the city industrial authorities that doors at the factories should be opened but the owners of the Triangle Shirtwaist Company had ensured that the doors were closed so that no worker can get away with stealing. So the workers of the plant did not have the doors open to them. The two elevator operators Joseph Zito and Gaspar Mortillalo showed deep courage to keep the elevators running and they were able to save a lot of lives in the process but only till the elevators did function. As if it was inevitable, after some time the unfortunate workers trapped at the ninth floor, all options of escape had run out. Louis Waldman, a visitor described what happened next.
“Word had spread through the East Side, by some magic of terror, that the plant of the Triangle Waist Company was on fire and that several hundred workers were trapped. Horrified and helpless, the crowds — I among them — looked up at the burning building, saw girl after girl appear at the reddened windows, pause for a terrified moment, and then leap to the pavement below, to land as mangled, bloody pulp. This went on for what seemed a ghastly eternity. Occasionally a girl who had hesitated too long was licked by pursuing flames and, screaming with clothing and hair ablaze, plunged like a living torch to the street. Life nets held by the firemen were torn by the impact of the falling bodies.”
This horrible phenomenon of jumping to a sure and ghastly death whereby a human body ends up being a “mangled, bloody pulp” to escape from certain immolation will be repeated ninety years later during the twin tower attacks on 9/11. Human beings are prone to do extraordinary things when faced with extraordinary situations. The girls who jumped from that burning building did so to probably choose a quick end to an otherwise miserable life and not to suffer a more lingering and painful death by immolation. For some girls, probably that decision to jump from that building was the only choice that they could make in their lives where most of their lives’ decisions were made by others. Overall, 146 lives were lost to this original version of 9/11.
The owners by this time were safely evacuated and although they were tried for becoming first and second degree accomplishes in manslaughter but the victims of 25-th March , 1911 were not as fortunate as the victims of 11-th September , 2001. No “war on terror” will be launched, no 9-11 commissions will be formed and no foreign countries will be invaded, to avenge them. The owners would later be acquitted from their charges and that would eventually bring an end to this original version of America’s 9/11 and since the victims of 25-th March, 1911 were not so fortunate, very soon they will be put into the more oblivious pages of history.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)