Will Obama Deliver Change?

As the US presidential elections get closer, the Democratic and Republican nominees are articulating their policy positions on foreign and domestic issues. Since the winner is likely to impact not just the United States but the entire world, close attention is being paid to the major policy speeches of Barack Obama and John McCain around the world. I have selected some of the commentary and analyses relevant to Muslim Americans and Pakistani Americans from various media to share with you.

Here are some excepts from a piece Pakistan Should Shudder; Afghanistan Should Despair by By Brian Cloughley, a guest writer on Reuters Blog:

Senator Obama’s foreign policy advisers and slick speechwriters had him say that “The greatest threat to our security lies in the tribal regions of Pakistan, where terrorists train and insurgents strike into Afghanistan. We cannot tolerate a terrorist sanctuary, and as president I won’t … We must make it clear that if Pakistan cannot or will not act, we will take out high level terrorist targets like bin Laden if we have them in our sights.”

Further to that comparatively minor slaughter (after all, what’s the death of a few innocent villagers, here and there?) has Senator Obama any notion of how many soldiers of the Pakistan army and the Frontier Corps have been killed in combating militants who were driven into Pakistan by the US invasion of Afghanistan, or who were turned to militancy by these unwelcome refugees? Does he know that well over a thousand grieving families of the army and the Frontier Corps have suffered the loss of sons, husbands, fathers and brothers because the US army is incapable of securing its side of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border?

Of course not: because his speechwriters concentrate only on the sharp, US-centric aspects of international affairs. They care nothing about the sacrifices of Pakistan in this US-created conflict. He doesn’t know that Pakistan has been host to millions of Afghan refugees for decades. (No other country in the world has been forced to look after so many refugees for so long - a horrible global record, which is hardly the fault of Pakistan.)

And if any talk-show interviewer asked Senator Obama “How many Afghan refugees remain in Pakistan” he wouldn’t have a clue what was being talked about. The fact that over a million Afghans are still in Pakistan and don’t want to go back to their own country because it is in a state of ungovernable chaos is neither here nor there to the presidential candidate, or to most of the world, in fact. Doesn’t it dawn on anyone that in that million (about 1.3 million, according to the UN) Afghans in Pakistan there are many who have reason to detest the present regime in Kabul and who want to get rid of it by fair means or preferably foul?

Let’s have no nonsense about the Pakistan government failing to do “more” about the Pakistan-Afghan border. Islamabad proposed that a barrier be built, and actually provided a detailed scheme for it. I attended a briefing by the former foreign minister of Pakistan at which he described it in detail. (Although I did not agree at all with the proposal to plant anti-personnel mines. I’ve seen too much of the effects of Soviet mines on Afghan children - the shattered legs and hands, the total destruction of youthful aspirations - to ever imagine that mines are anything but evil. OK, so I used them - Claymore mines - when in ambush in Borneo when we were fighting the Indonesians who wanted to take over Malaysia, decades ago; but I’ve changed my mind, having visited hospitals full of Afghan kids who have had their arms or legs blown off.) Predictably, however, the Kabul government vetoed the project, although a few miles of fences were eventually erected in spite of that stupid objection, which was entirely to do with Afghanistan’s insular objection to the well-established legality of the border.

But if America can’t secure its own border with Mexico, in spite of annual expenditure of billions of dollars in security measures, how can it expect Pakistan to seal its frontier with Afghanistan? Half a million illegal immigrants cross from Mexico into the US each year, including criminals of all natures, and, no doubt, some terrorists intent on mayhem in America. Yet Washington - and Senator Obama - make the demand that Pakistan stop all the militants and drug smugglers who want to move to and from their areas of operation.

Senator Obama declares that “The greatest threat to our security lies in the tribal regions of Pakistan.” No it doesn’t: it lies in the ignorance of those who fail to understand the problem.


Dr. Nazir Khaja, Chairman of Islamic Information Service in Los Angeles writes:

Much to the disappointment of the Muslim community the interaction of the Obama campaign and the Senator himself with issues related to Islam and Muslims leads one to draw a different conclusion. It appears to the Muslims that there is clearly a dissonance between the Senator's words and his actions pertaining to his campaign’s handling of issues that relate to the Muslim community and Islam. Either he is poorly informed or he prefers being politically correct or in-fact both.
Going back to the beginning of his campaign when the issue of the Senator being a "closet Muslim" was raised by those who wanted to discredit him, his response appropriately was to reaffirm his Christian Faith on public airways and dispel the falsehood. This was proper and yet it left the Muslim community thinking as to why he could not go the extra distance to point out to his inquisitors that even if he was a Muslim, why was it such an offence in a nation which upholds religious freedom and equality. The sensitivity around this question and the need for the Senator to be politically correct was understood by the Muslim community, which continued to respond to his message with great enthusiasm. They were left wondering though if the senator was accused of being a Jew, would he be responding in the same manner.

I have written recently in a post Is "Muslim" a Derogatory Epithet in America as follows:

Lately, the Democratic Party presidential candidate, Senator Barack Obama, has been under "suspicion" of being a "closet Muslim". He and his campaign have denied it and rejected the "Muslim" label as though it were an unflattering epithet. In fact, some of the Obama staffers have become so sensitive to this "charge" that they refused to seat hijab-wearing Muslim women supporters behind Obama on stage in front of the cameras at a recent rally in Michigan. Instead of ridiculing the lies about Obama, the latest New Yorker magazine cover has in fact served to reinforce the rumors and innuendos about Muslims and his Muslim connections.

In spite of vociferous rejections of the "Muslim" label and repeated denials by Barack Obama, a significant number of Americans continue to believe Obama is Muslim. Based on recent polls, about 10-12% of the Americans believe Obama is a Muslim. Another 12% believe he took oath of office for the Senate on the Quran. A whopping 39% believe he attended an Islamic madrassa in Indonesia as a child.

While Senator Obama talks about change, he is doing what every presidential candidate has done in the US: Follow the conventional wisdom to pander to the voters. As Ralph Nader put it, "Obama is an overly cautious captive of his handlers". He is shifting his positions on just about every issue of substance, domestic or foreign. He recently agreed with the US Supreme Court decision to overturn Washington DC gun ban. He has started talking about asking the commanders on the ground in Iraq on when and how to withdraw from Iraq, rather than just give them a withdrawal time-line. He has become extremely hawkish on Afghanistan and Pakistan. He has been playing up the fears of terrorism, just like George Bush, to establish his national security credentials. He has stopped talking about the suffering of the Palestinians under Israeli occupation. The list goes on and on. He may well be elected, in spite of, or as a result of these shifts. But will this represent the message of CHANGE that brought him where he is? I have a feeling that the young, idealistic supporters of Obama expect real change from him. If he does not deliver on it, he would at best be a one-term president, if at all, causing people to be disillusioned by the Democrats once again.

Protests Erupt as Karachi Stocks Hit New Lows

The investor confidence reached new lows when hundreds of irate investors took to the streets in Karachi today. A number of windows were broken and at least two people injured, Reuters news agency reported. They were protesting continuing slide in share prices in Karachi for the 14th consecutive day, eroding about 14% of capital since Monday, reaching a new 18-month low of 10,058.37. The KSE-100 is now down 36% from its peak of 15739.25 earlier this year. Fall of 20% or greater in major indices is considered a bear market.

Earlier in June, there was a brief respite for investors when the authorities imposed a temporary ban on short selling and tightened the circuit breaker lower limit to 1% and increased upper limit to 10%. But, as the limits were revised to plus or minus 5% last Friday, many investors took advantage of it and sold off their holdings, putting further downward pressure on share prices.

"The measures taken on Friday proved to be an exit strategy for foreign investors," Asad Iqbal, managing director at Ismail Iqbal Securities Ltd. told Business Recorder newspaper in Karachi.

Pakistan's State Bank has recently raised interest rates from 10% to 12.5% and cut 2007-8 growth from 7.2% to 5.8%. This forecast comes on the heels of dire talk of economic "meltdown" by the new leadership that is facing serious political instability amid growing differences in the PPP-PML(N) coalition government. The ongoing unease with new leadership is continuing to accelerate loss of confidence in Pakistan's economy by businesses, investors and consumers. The rupee is continuing its slide which has seen it lose 16.9% of its value against the dollar so far this year.

With the dramatic rise in international commodity prices, the food and fuel subsidies have contributed to Pakistan's rising budget deficit, which the central bank said would reach 6.5 percent to 7 percent. The deficit was just 4.3 percent in fiscal 2007. With imports rising faster than exports, the central bank said Pakistan's current account deficit will rise between 7.3 percent and 7.8 percent - a record high.

While it is true that at least part of the inflation in Pakistan is imported from global markets, it is important for the Pakistani leadership not to use it as an excuse for inaction on the economic front. Faced with international turmoil, it becomes even more important to assert leadership in economic matters to keep the national economy afloat and able to recover quickly in the future. The first step toward fixing the current mess is to put credible economic leadership in charge and stop the erosion in business, consumer and investor confidence.

Is America Retreating in Afghanistan?

US and Afghan troops have abandoned a remote village in eastern Afghanistan where militants killed nine US soldiers and wounded a dozen more on Sunday, according to media reports today. On Sunday, 100-200 insurgents had stormed the small combat outpost in the village of Wanat on the border of Nuristan and Kunar provinces.

Another report today indicates that Nato-led forces in Afghanistan fired into Pakistan after coming under attack from there by suspected militants. NATO troops used attack helicopters and artillery to fire from Paktika province after the militants fired rockets. Nato said it had closely co-ordinated with Pakistan's military, who agreed to help if firing from Pakistan continued.

Just looking at these two reports coming out the same day, one gets the impression that, while the US is retreating inside Afghanistan, it is threatening to get tougher with the militants inside Pakistan. Is there a contradiction here? Does the US believe that the only way to fight the Taliban is to expand the war into Pakistani territory. Is there a feeling that what the Taliban do inside Afghanistan is inconsequential? That the prolific poppy profits from the highly lucrative drug trade do not really matter? Why is the US not acting on its own advice to follow the money to cut off the funds for terrorists? The terrorists seem to be awash in drug money. They are well-equipped, well-organized and quite sophisticated, as demonstrated by their recent attacks on the US and Pakistani troops on either side of the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.

It seems to me that the US war on terror in Afghanistan is in complete disarray. With the Bush-Cheney team essentially lame-duck, there is an apparent leadership vacuum in Washington. There is not much of a strategy to deal with the resurgent Taliban, other than to blame Pakistan and to make demands on its new government. The reluctance or the inability to send more US troops to Afghanistan speaks louder than any words. Even the Obama promise to deploy troops from Iraq to Afghanistan seems hollow, given that he won't be able to do anything until late January, 2009. And then he is talking about a 16-month time-table for withdrawal from Iraq. Are the Taliban going to stand still for this period while the US takes its time to redeploy from Iraq to Afghanistan? Are the they not going to continue and get stronger to launch more attacks resulting in higher casualties on both sides of the Durand line?

All the reports and data lead to one conclusion: There is no confidence in Afghanistan or Pakistan in the ability of the United States to seriously deal with the Taliban threat. Those sitting on the fence in Afghanistan or Pakistan have no incentive to side with the United States. They know the Taliban are there to stay. They fear the consequences for siding with the US, once the US leaves the area, like it did the last time.

The only way to successfully deal with the Taliban threat for Afghans and Pakistanis is to see it as their own fight, with or without the United States. Unfortunately, I do not yet see any signs that it is happening. It seems that the US has lost the most important of all battles: The battle for the hearts and minds of the local population. You can blame it on general mishandling of the war. Or lack of any serious reconstruction of the war-ravaged country, Or you can blame it on excessive reliance on frequent air strikes that cause many innocent civilian casualties. What I do see is the possible return of the pre-911 situation in Afghanistan.

Is "Muslim" a Derogatory Epithet in America?

“Are you now or have you ever been a Muslim?” Has this question ever been asked in America? The answer, so far, is NO. Is it beyond the realm of possibility that such a question would ever be asked by high-level US investigators? It seems far fetched but let's examine such a possibility in the US historical context.

There have been periods in the US history when we have used a broad brush approach to demonize entire groups of people based on their ethnicity, skin color, religion or national origin. During the second world war, the US citizens of Japanese origin were called "Japs" and imprisoned in camps with the approval of the US Supreme Court. During the cold war in 1950s, the US was in the midst of the "Red Scare" where people saw "Commies" hiding in all corners of America. Sen Joseph McCarthy held congressional hearings and subpoenaed many people and asked the question: “Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?” Aided by the FBI, under the direction of J. Edgar Hoover, McCarthy conducted his search for Communists. People were hauled before Congress to testify about their loyalty to the US government. They were asked to name names and report their friends, neighbors and family. Many Americans were convicted of being communists and some were executed for being Russian spies.

Lately, the Democratic Party presidential candidate, Senator Barack Obama, has been under "suspicion" of being a "closet Muslim". He and his campaign have denied it and rejected the "Muslim" label as though it were an unflattering epithet. In fact, some of the Obama staffers have become so sensitive to this "charge" that they refused to seat hijab-wearing Muslim women supporters behind Obama on stage in front of the cameras at a recent rally in Michigan. Instead of ridiculing the lies about Obama, the latest New Yorker magazine cover has in fact served to reinforce the rumors and innuendos about Muslims and his Muslim connections.

In spite of vociferous rejections of the "Muslim" label and repeated denials by Barack Obama, a significant number of Americans continue to believe Obama is Muslim. Based on recent polls, about 10-12% of the Americans believe Obama is a Muslim. Another 12% believe he took oath of office for the Senate on the Quran. A whopping 39% believe he attended an Islamic madrassa in Indonesia as a child.

Given our history, the rise in bigotry against Muslims should be a cause for alarm for all American. The best way for all of us to ensure a peaceful world is not by demonizing all Muslims or by using "Muslim" as a negative epithet or a synonym for "terrorist". Instead we should work toward marginalizing the tiny minority of Muslims who are engaged in terrorizing the world to advance their own hateful ideologies. Only by marginalizing such "terrorists" can we isolate them and rid the world of their terror and bigotry to live in peace.

The Obamas Lampooned as " Flag-burning Islamic Terrorists"

As the general elections get closer with Barack Obama enjoying a big lead over John McCain, the smears and whisper campaigns against the Obamas are getting nastier by the day. Now a cartoon on the cover of the New Yorker Magazine's latest issue caricatures Barak Obama in the Oval Office dressed as Usama Bin Laden, bumping fists with Michelle Obama wearing military style fatigues with an AK-47 machine gun slung over her shoulder. The background has a picture of Osama Bin Laden over the fireplace and American flag burning in the fireplace. It captures all the lies, rumors and innuendos against Barack Obama. For those unfamiliar with the polls, about 10-12% of the Americans believe Obama is a Muslim. Another 12% believe he took oath of office for the Senate on the Quran. A whopping 39% believe he attended an Islamic madrassa in Indonesia. All of these beliefs are completely baseless and repeatedly denied by Obama. In fact, some of the Obama staffers have become so sensitive to this "charge" that they refused to seat hijab-wearing Muslim women supporters behind Obama on stage in front of the cameras at a recent rally in Michigan. Obama later apologized for it.


The New Yorker magazine does have a reputation for its satirical covers. It is generally regarded highly by its supporters and critics. The magazine claims that its controversial cover is meant to satirize the campaign of lies and fabrications against Barack Obama. It has definitely got people talking about it. But the magazine's defense does raise a lot of questions about the approach it took. For example, could it have debunked the lies about Obama more effectively by showing this cartoon inside a thought bubble coming out of easily identifiable bigots? Or by showing it as a figment of Karl Rove's political imagination?

The way the New Yorker has chosen to satirize the issue comes across as really "tasteless and offensive" as the Obama campaign put it. By creating this controversy about someone like Obama with an unconventional background for a US presidential candidate, it is clear that the right-wing negative campaigns are getting a boost with much wider publicity. And it is serving to perpetuate and reinforce the worst possible stereotypes against Muslims in the United States. It is clearly unhelpful for people hoping for peaceful dialog and coexistence with the Islamic world. Given the current toxic environment in the United States against Islam and Muslims, Obama's stereotyping as Muslim could also expose him to great personal and physical harm.

If it is really not an innocent or botched attempt at satire, then what is its intent and who is behind it? In addition to Republicans who have successfully used whisper campaigns and smears in past presidential elections, there are other individuals and groups who are nervous about having Obama in the White House and they are trying to subvert his campaign by all means they consider necessary. For example, there are many who are vehemently opposed to Obama's insistence on direct talks with the Iranians on all issues between the US and Iran. Others see Obama as a problem because his presidency could hurt those who profit from the massive US military spending. Then there are those who believe Obama opposes the Iraq war and he wants to reach out to the Muslim world because he may have a soft corner for Muslims.



I expect to see a lot more insidious and inflammatory attacks on Obama for allegedly being "un-American", "unpatriotic", "unsympathetic to working class Americans", "closet Muslim", "Manchurian candidate", etc. etc. At the same time, I sense some level of discontent among some of the traditional Democratic Black and Jewish constituencies because of Obama's positions on personal responsibility and outreach to the Islamic world. I hope the Obama campaign is up to the task to deal with unconventional challenges from all kinds of bigots and interest groups plotting to derail his history-making run for the President of the United States.

Crisis of Confidence Triggers Karachi Stocks Selloff

In spite of cheaper valuations of Karachi stocks from shrinking price earnings multiples relative to other markets, foreign investors in Pakistan continue to be nervous. As soon as the trading range was revised to plus or minus 5%, many investors took advantage to sell their holdings Friday and pushed the KSE-100 down more than 4%. The decline continued this week as the KSE-100 index lost 265.84 to close at 11,695.82. Earlier in the morning, it opened at 11,961.66. This is a far cry from the peak of 15739.25 earlier this year.

"The measures taken on Friday proved to be an exit strategy for foreign investors," Asad Iqbal, managing director at Ismail Iqbal Securities Ltd. told Business Recorder newspaper in Karachi.

Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Razi-ur-Rehman believes the market has a liquidity crisis and he blamed the bearish trend in the equity market on the State Bank of Pakistan's (SBP) tight monetary policy, which has affected market liquidity.

The State Bank raised interest rates to 12 percent from 10.5 percent in May which hurt the stock market. Traders are expecting another increase in the next scheduled meeting before July 31 to curb inflation and support the rupee.

The rupee ended firmer at 69.50/60 on Monday as sentiment improved slightly after the introduction of stabilization measures last week and on rumors the government may curb imports, traders said, according to Business Recorder. State Bank of Pakistan is reportedly taking steps to arrest the rapid decline in Pakistan's dollar reserves. According to the latest SBP weekly report, the foreign exchange reserves fell to $11.123 billion, down from $15.6 billion at the end of last year.

The State Bank last week moved to stabilize the rupee after it set its weakest ever closing level at 72.85/90 on July 8.

Among the most active stocks Friday, volume leader NIB Bank fell 8.7 percent to 9.69 rupees, Oil and Gas Development Co Ltd shed 5 percent to 110.45 rupees, while Arif Habib Securities was 4 percent lower at 143.49 rupees.

The Karachi stocks had rallied earlier from measures that included a 1-month ban on short selling, a special 30 billion rupee ($446 million) fund set up to stabilize volatility, and revision of the short circuits to 10% on the upside and 1% on the downside, announced June 24, 2008. Please read my post "Karachi Stocks Rally after Ban on Short Selling" to learn more about recent changes at the KSE.