Can Pakistan Avoid IMF Bailout?

Pakistan may have to accept politically unpopular aid from the International Monetary Fund to ward off possible economic meltdown if wealthy nations turn it down, the government said Sunday.

Battered by high inflation and a plunging currency, nuclear-armed Pakistan needs up to US$5 billion to avoid defaulting on sovereign debt due for repayment next year.

Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi said Sunday the "IMF was an option" but no decision had been made yet.

Shaukat Tareen, the finance official leading the country's efforts to secure the money it needs, said he was confident Pakistan would not default but that IMF aid may be needed as a "backup."

He predicted the country would soon receive more than US$4.5 billion through the acceleration of planned development loans and direct assistance from rich countries.

The crisis comes as the country's new civilian leaders struggle against Islamist militants in the northwest blamed for soaring violence at home and in neighboring Afghanistan.

Seeking help from the IMF would be politically difficult for the government because the agency's help is often on condition of deep cuts in public spending that can affect programs for the poor.

Pakistan hopes its front-line status in the war on terrorism will mean the international community will not have the stomach to see it default. But its plea for help comes as many countries are distracted by the global economic crisis.

President Asif Ali Zardari returned Friday from wealthy China with no public commitment of help.

Through much of its history, Pakistan has struggled with chronic economic instability and foreign debt, but the current crisis comes at an especially dangerous time.

The country has seen more than 90 suicide blasts since July last year.

Last month, a suicide bomber struck the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad, killing 54 and leading the U.N. and foreign embassies to withdraw the families of foreign staff.

Pakistan's overwhelmingly poor population of 160 million is already suffering from skyrocketing food and fuel prices and enduring daily power cuts caused by energy shortages.

Defaulting on debt risks shattering any remaining local and foreign investor confidence in the battered economy. It could escalate into an economic meltdown with out-of-control price increases, fewer jobs, more power shortages and a general breakdown in law and order.

"Bankruptcy, should it happen, could unleash a massive tidal wave of social unrest," the U.S.-based intelligence risk assessment agency Stratfor said in a report. "Exactly what the jihadists on both sides of the Afghan-Pakistani border would like to see to advance their goals."

The financial crisis was caused in part by the previous administration of President Pervez Musharraf, which subsidized fuel and food even as international commodity prices soared last year.

That created a huge hole in public finances, meaning the new government has had to borrow heavily from the central bank, stoking inflation that this month reached 25 percent.

The Pakistani rupee has lost about a third of its value this year. The benchmark 100-stock index had already fallen more than 40 percent from a record high in April when its board of directors put a floor under it at the end of August.

___

Associated Press writers Stephen Graham in Islamabad and Ashraf Khan in Karachi contributed to this report.

Source: International Herald Tribune

Kashmiri-American Heads US Financial Rescue

"I'm a free-market Republican." said Neel Kashkari at an American Enterprise Institute conference on Sept. 19, 2008, just days before he was asked to lead an unprecedented and massive U.S. government intervention to rescue the U.S. financial system from total collapse.

Who is Neel Kashkari? He is the 35-year-old son of Kashmiri-Americans who grew up in Akron, Ohio. Trained as an aerospace engineer before attending Wharton Business School, he comes from a family of scientists. Father Chaman has a doctorate in engineering, and won a Presidential award for his work in getting water to African villages. Kashkari's mother, Sheila, is a retired pathologist, and his sister Meera, specializes in infectious diseases.

Kashkari has been a close adviser to Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. on the credit crisis and helped draft the legislation for the massive rescue plan. He has been designated as the Interim Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Financial Stability. In this capacity, Mr. Kashkari is overseeing the Office of Financial Stability, including TARP, the $700b Troubled Asset Relief Program. As TARP chief, he will have the powerful position to determine what non-performing assets and out-of-favor mortgage-backed securities to buy and at what price. In a way, his decisions will have long term impact on how the US financial system performs now and in the future.

The choice of young Kashakari has come under criticism by the respected Wall Street Journal in a recent editorial. The editorial said: A problem now is that Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson still hasn't shown he knows how to use his new tool, and his appointment of a 35-year-old former Goldman Sachs employee as the auction czar doesn't call to mind Paul Volcker arriving at the Fed in 1979. With no disrespect to Neel Kashkari, who is Mr. Paulson's choice, a financial panic is a bad time to be introduced to global markets. At a minimum, Treasury should have done better than leak his name to the newspapers. This is the kind of roll out that needs to be better than seat-of-the-pants -- and continues the problem of weak execution at Treasury.

Time magazine says this about Kashkari in its recent issue: For a position this important, Kashkari, the American-born son of Kashmiri immigrants, may seem an unlikely pick: he's been in finance for only eight years, two as a student at the Wharton School and four as an executive in the San Francisco office of Paulson's old firm, Goldman Sachs. At Goldman, Kashkari was so low on the food chain that he only got to know Paulson well after they both moved to the Treasury in 2006.


But Mr. Kashkari has powerful defenders. A spokesman for Congressman Barney Frank, the liberal head of the House Financial Services Committee, calls him "very knowledgeable and very smart."

Kashkari's assignment offers him a great opportunity to learn to deal with tough issues in the company of the best, the smartest and the most experienced economic leaders with plenty of scars. But this is also a dangerous assignment with uncertain results. Young Kashkari's mettle will be mightily tested in his powerful but temporary job which will last at least until a new president is inaugurated in January 2009.

Kashkari is not the only high-profile South Asian making news in the midst of the biggest financial crisis US has faced since the Great Depression of the 1930s. Vikram Pandit, also an engineer and the current CEO of Citigroup, is credited with saving his firm from meeting the same fate as Lehman Brothers. He engineered the rescue without Uncle Sam's help. Recently, though, he suffered a setback when Wachovia spurned Citigroup's bid to buy it and chose to go with Wells Fargo instead.

With dozens of people of South Asian origin, including former Pakistani prime minister Shaukat Aziz, having served or serving in responsible positions in the US financial services industry, South Asian banking and finance expertise is coming of age.

India-based Debt Collection Business Soars

With the U.S. economy slipping into a potentially deep and prolonged recession, and increasing number of Americans unable to pay their debts, the debt collection call-center business in India is soaring.

According to a report in The Washington Post, India handles an estimated $16 billion -- or about 5 percent -- of delinquent U.S. accounts. More complicated health insurance bills and mortgage payments are still largely handled inside the United States, industry executives say. The debt collection business is expected to continue to grow as debt rises and companies look to cut costs, industry experts said. Aegis call center in New Delhi, which handles nearly a fourth of debt collection outsourced from the United States, is experiencing rapid growth. The company is setting up a second office building for 5,000 employees, many of them to be hired over the next few years. Most employees are college-educated and in their 20s. They earn about $5,000 a year, a competitive starting salary in India, but less than a quarter of what their counterparts in America make.

The International Herald Tribune has recently reported on Encore Capital Group, another debt-collection call center in India. "India will be the only place we grow this year," said J. Brandon Black, the CEO of Encore, collection company based in San Diego. India is Encore's largest operating area, with about half the company's collection force of more than 300.

Although the stereotype of a collector may be "some guy with chains and a cut-off shirt," Black is quoted by IHT, collectors in India are "very polite, very respectful, and they don't raise their voice." "People respond to that," he added.

There is almost a cult following of America among call center workers, a fantasy where hopes and dreams are easily achieved by people who live in a wonderland of well-paid jobs, big homes and expensive vacations. This perception seems to be changing, at least among the Indian debt collectors who regularly listen to sob stories of trouble in paradise.

U.S. household debt has increased from about 50% of GDP in 1980 to a peak of 100% in 2006, according to Harvard Business Professor Nial Ferguson who recently wrote a column for Time Magazine. In other words, households now owe as much as the entire U.S. economy can produce in a year. Much of the increase in debt was used to invest in real estate. The result was a bubble; at its peak, average U.S. house prices were rising at 20% a year. Then — as bubbles always do — it burst.

Professor Ferguson believes that U.S. banks and other financial institutions are in an even worse position: their debts are accumulating even faster. By 2007 the financial sector's debt was equivalent to 116% of GDP, compared with a mere 21% in 1980. And the assets the banks loaded up on have fallen even further in value than the average home — by as much as 55% in the case of BBB-rated mortgage-backed securities.

The heavy debt and deflating asset prices are now forcing "deleveraging", the sales of assets in a down market to pay debt that is contributing to an even greater drop in the value of stocks, bonds and real estate. With the banks trying to build up their capital reserves, they are not lending to even the most credit worthy customers, or to each other. Such caution is resulting in heavy job losses at businesses unable to borrow to meet their business needs. This climate has caused a significant loss of confidence among consumers, businesses and investors making matters worse. It is becoming a vicious cycle that the US Treasury and the Federal Reserve are trying to break by pumping over a trillion dollars into the banking system. However, the banks' continuing reluctance to lend is forcing a change in strategy by Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke. Both leaders are now buying stakes in the banks to try and change their behavior to relieve the continuing credit crunch.

The massive consumer and corporate debt and the unprecedented debt-addiction has brought the U.S. into this crisis. Ironically, it is the sudden withdrawal of debt that is making the situation worse. The contagion has now spread to the rest of the industrialized world. We are in uncharted waters now. Let us hope the captains of U.S. economy can navigate us out of the severe storm with as little damage as possible. Meanwhile, it is an opportunity for debt collectors in India to see the seamy side of the life in US while they make a few extra bucks to improve their own lives.

India Projects Maritime Power on High Seas

India says it will send warships to the Gulf of Aden to protect its container vessels from pirates operating off the coast of Somalia, according to a BBC report today.

Recently, there has been a dramatic increase in incidents of piracy off the coast of Somalia. In August, 18 Indian sailors were captured by the Somali pirates who claim they are protecting Somali waters. The Gulf of Aden has seen 13 incidents of hijack in the last two months. While some analysts have expressed fears of terror connections in lawless Somalia, others believe that the pirates are only interested in kidnapping for ransom. However, there are charges that some of the piracy proceeds have gone to al-Shabab, a Somali militia that the U.S. accuses of harboring the terrorists who attacked U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. Piracy off the coast of Somalia is estimated to have cost up to $30m (£17m) in ransoms so far this year, according to a recent report by a UK think tank. The pirates, some backed by warlords affiliated with the transitional government installed by Ethiopia with the US backing, have exploited the chaos.

The rise in piracy in Gulf of Aden is seen by some as an unintended consequence of the US war on terror, according to Newsweek magazine. Two years ago piracy in the Horn of Africa was almost stamped out. The Islamic group that took over Mogadishu and parts of Somalia in 2006 defeated several militias involved in piracy and warned others that they'd face punishment under a harsh version of the Sharia law. This tactic worked: "During the summer of 2006 there were no attacks [on ships] at all," says Pottengal Mukundan, director of the International Maritime Bureau.

The Indian Navy is the world’s fifth largest navy. It is proud of its "blue water" capability to operate on the high seas away from the Indian shores to project India's power in the Indian ocean and to "protect" major sea routes and "impress" its neighbors. It is a three-dimensional force consisting of sophisticated missile-equipped warships, aircraft carriers, minesweepers, advanced submarines and the latest aircraft in its arsenal. India's Naval forces are maintained and supported by modern dockyard facilities with state-of-the-art technology. The Indian Navy has two major Naval bases at Mumbai and Visakhapatnam on the two coasts of India. The Chinese PLA Navy, the other major power in Asia, has ambitious plans to become the world's largest force but it currently lacks any aircraft carriers.

In 2000, the Indian Navy deployed a fleet in the South China Sea for the first time, bringing rebukes from China. Just three years later, China deployed its ships to the Indian Ocean, conducting exercises first with the Indian Navy and then with its traditional partner and India's archenemy in the region, Pakistan. Pakistan Navy is a much smaller force but it claims to be a "four-dimensional" force including marine units. It is not capable of undertaking the kind of missions that the Indian Navy recently has. In 2002, the Indian Navy conducted patrols in the Strait of Malacca to guard high-value cargo ships from attack, relieving a U.S. vessel and freeing it for other missions related to U.S. Operation Enduring Freedom.

The US Navy has been operating in the Gulf of Aden for months, claiming some success in foiling hijacking attempts by the Somalis. The area in question is a 920- by 300-mile basin separating the Arabian coast from the Horn of Africa. It is used by about 250 ships a day, according to a U.S. Navy spokeswoman, Lt. Stephanie Murdock. The Associated Press has reported that the area was the scene of the deadly al-Qaida attack on the USS Cole off Yemen. And it is a hive of illegal activity, including gunrunning as well as people- and drug-smuggling. The Indian Navy along with navy ships from several other nation will probably be helpful in dealing with piracy. But can the naval power alone succeed in stemming the growing problem of robbery on the high seas in the Indian ocean? I seriously doubt it. The piracy problem is only a symptom of the core problem of lawlessness in Somalia. What is really needed is the restoration of a functioning government in Mogadishu to deal with this menace and other terror-related problems in the Horn of Africa.

Related Links:

Stuck in Somalia

US Targets Somali Pirates

India as a Maritime Power

Indian Navy

China's PLA Navy

Pakistan Navy

Obama on His Muslim Heritage

Is Senator Barack Obama a Muslim? Why is his middle name Hussein? Did he attend a madrassa (Muslim religious school) in Indonesia? Does he have a soft corner for Muslims? What will his attitude be toward the Islamic world, Pakistanis and the war on terror? Is he "The Manchurian Candidate"?

All of these questions have come up in one way or another during the US presidential race this year. In the closing days of the race, the senator has written a letter talking about his Muslim heritage. Here is the text of the letter:


There has been a lot made in the recent weeks about the Muslim history of my family. Some of the things that have been said are true, others are false, so I am writing this letter to clear up the misunderstandings on this issue.

Yes, it is true that I have a name that is common amongst Kenyan Muslims where my father came from and that my middle name is Hussein. Barack is a name which means 'blessing and Hussein is a masculine form of the word beauty. Since there is nothing inherently wrong with the concept of blessings from God and the beauty He creates I fail to see the problem with these names. Some will say wouldn't it be a problem to have a president with a name similar to the deposed and executed former dictator of Iraq? My answer to this is simply no; rather it is the strength and beauty of America that the son of an African man with a 'funny sounding' name, born under British Colonial Rule, can now be a serious candidate for the presidency of the United States.

My father was a Muslim and although I did not know him well the religion of my father and his family was always something I had an interest in. This interest became more intense when my mother married an Indonesian Muslim man and as a small child I lived in Indonesia and attended school alongside Muslim pupils. I saw their parents dutifully observing the daily prayers, the mothers covered in the Muslim hijab, the atmosphere of the school change during Ramadan, and the festiveness of the Eid celebrations.

The man my mother was married to was not particularly religious; but he would attend the mosque on occasion, and had copies of the Quran in different languages in the home, and books of the sayings and life of the Prophet Muhammad. From time to time he would quote Islamic phrases such as 'no one truly believes until he wants for his brother what he wants for himself', 'oppression is worse than slaughter', and 'all humans are equal the only difference comes from our deeds'.

Growing up in Hawaii with my mother and her grandparents Islam largely escaped my mind. My mother installed(sic) in me the values of humanism and I did not grow-up in a home were(sic) religion was taught.

It was later while I attended college at Columbia University and Harvard Law that I became reacquainted with Muslims as both schools had large Muslims student populations. Some of them were my friends and many came from countries that our nation now has hostile relations with. The background I had from my early childhood in Indonesia helped me get to know them and learn from them and to me Muslims are not to be looked upon as something strange. In my experiences up until college a Muslim was no less exotic to me than a Mormon, a Jew, or a Jehovahs Witness.

After college I settled in my adopted hometown of Chicago and lived on the South Side and worked as a community organizer. Chicago has one of the largest Muslim populations in America (estimated to be around 300,000) and Muslims make-up some of the most productive citizens in the area. I met countless numbers of Muslims in my job as an organizer and later on in my early political career. I ate in their homes, played with their kids, and looked at them as friends and peers and sought their advice.

Therefore, when the tragic terrorist attacks of 9-11 occurred I was deeply saddened with the rest of America , and I wanted justice for the victims of this horrific attack, but I did not blame all Muslims or the religion of Islam. From my experience I knew the good character of most Muslims and the value that they bring to America. Many, who did not personally know Muslims, indicted the entire religion for the bad actions of a few; my experience taught me that this was something foolish and unwise.

Later I had the chance to visit the homeland of my father and meet Muslim relatives of my including my grandmother. I found that these were people who wanted the same things out of life as people right here in America and worked hard, strive to make a better way for their children, and prayed to God to grant them success.

This is what I will bring to the office of the Presidency of the United States. I will deal with Muslims from a position of familiarity and respect and at this time in the history of our nation that is something sorely needed.

Source: Middle East Times

Related Links:

Obama's Muslim Heritage

Obama's Race Dilemma

Obama Through Muslim eyes

Christopher Hitchens Supports Obama

Obama's Two Faces

Is US Headed Toward Dangerous Regional War?

Obamas Lampooned as "Flag Burning Islamic Terrorists"

No Money, No Energy, No Government

Draft of a new US National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), leaked to the media recently, paints a bleak picture of Pakistan.

A US official who participated in developing the report summarized the estimate's conclusions about the state of Pakistan as: "on the edge" with "no money, no energy, no government." According to him, the NIE report also talks about "Pakistani army's reluctance to launch an all-out crackdown" on the insurgents.

This latest US NIE seems to imply that the situation is far worse than the earlier reports of economic meltdown and President Zardari's plea for a $100b bailout request to the US and friends of Pakistan consortium.

The economic difficulties are compounded by growing insurgency, infighting within Pakistani government and deep mistrust between the civilian and the military leadership, according to the estimate.

Mr. Juan Cole, a South Asia watcher married to a Pakistani-American, views this NIE leak with suspicion. He says, "I'm suspicious that all the talk about instability and 'no government' is really a way of saying that US intelligence agencies liked having a military dictatorship there much better than they like having an elected parliamentary regime."

Mr. Cole adds, "American reports about Pakistan are schizophrenic, because they say the Pakistani army is not fighting the Taliban. But the Pakistani military has chased 300,000 from their homes in Bajaur, one of 7 tribal agencies, and has engaged in firefights with dissident Muslim groups there. I mean, what do the authors of the NIE want?"

The accuracy of the NIE and the motives behind it are hard to gage, but it is clear that the situation in Pakistan is very chaotic with growing unrest among the population because of the falling rupee, dwindling foreign exchange reserves and skyrocketing prices of food and fuel. President Zardari is trying to line up significant emergency economic aid from the US, the Europeans and the Chinese to bail out Pakistan. His government will probably not last long if he fails.

HEC University Rankings in Pakistan

Summary:
Higher Education Commission in Pakistan released its first and only ranking of universities in Pakistan in October 2006. Prior to this HEC effort, there had been no formal attempts by any public or private group to establish a set of criteria and judge Pakistani institutions of higher learning. While this is a laudable first step in the right direction, it is clearly not the be all and end all of the universities' ranking process in Pakistan. It can be significantly improved. As expected, there is a genuine controversy swirling in Pakistan on the HEC ranking methodology and the results. This ongoing controversy may be the reason why the HEC skipped the annual rankings in 2007. The main criticism of the HEC assessment criteria is the emphasis of quantity over quality that unduly favors and rewards institutions with large graduate programs. Another key criticism is the lack of peer and employer assessments of the universities and their alumni.

NEDUET, being predominantly an undergraduate institution, is among the universities that have shown up near the bottom with a meager score of 18.65 out of 100. Since such rankings have only been done once, it is hard to say if the standards of any of the institutions on the list, including NED Engineering University, have risen or declined. You need at least two years of data to draw such conclusions based on the criteria used by the HEC.

NED Alumni Convention 2008:

A panel discussion about "Declining Academic Standards at NEDUET", planned for the upcoming NED Alumni Convention 2008 in the US state of Connecticut, apparently accepts NED University's ranking and assessment of HEC on its face value. As an NEDian myself, I am not advocating denial or defensiveness in response to the low rank of NED by HEC. Instead, I firmly believe that there is a need for further exploration of this subject before reaching any definitive conclusions about "declining standards" or making any recommendations.

Why Rank Universities?

Some readers might ask why should the universities be ranked? I am not certain as to the HEC rationale for it, but I can see several reasons why it is a useful exercise. First, it helps the students and their parents select the institution they should attend based on a set of criteria. Second, if the criteria are clearly laid out and objectively measured, it helps the universities identify areas of improvement to become better at educating students and conducting research. Third, it can be used by the industry and the employers to target specific students, programs and projects for hiring and research.

Ranking Criteria:

One-size-fits-all ranking criteria that lump together graduate and undergraduate programs in a variety of unrelated disciplines are not particularly helpful to any of the potential users including students, parents, employers, researchers etc.

As an example, the ranking criteria used by US News and World Report, the most widely used rankings in the United States, separate out undergraduate programs from graduate programs. The USNWR graduate program criteria have heavy emphasis on research and publications while the undergraduate program criteria do not. Other key criteria used by USNWR include peer assessment and employers' and recruiters' feedback on the universities and their alumni.

USNWR Undergraduate Criteria:

1. Peer Assessment 25% weight
2. Student Retention Rate 20%
3. Faculty Resources: 20%
4. Admission Acceptance Selectivity: 15%
5. Financial Resources: 10%
6. Graduation Rate: 5%
7. Alumni Giving: 5%

USNWR Graduate Program Criteria:

1. Peer Assessment (25%)
2. Recruiter Assessment (15%)
3. Mean GRE Score (6.75%)
4. Acceptance Rate (3.25%)
5. Student-Faculty Ratio (7.5%)
6. Faculty with National Academy of Engineering Membership (7.5%)
7. Doctoral Degrees Awarded (6.25%)
8. Research Activity (25%)

HEC's Ranking Criteria for NEDUET Assessment:

Faculty 4.44/27 ( NED at 2.28/9 on ratio of Ph.D.s on faculty, 0.04/4 on research grants)

Research 2.79/26 ( NED got 0.17/4 on research published, 0.10/3 on research papers/faculty)

Students 5.52/17 ( NED received 0/4.0 on number of Ph.D.s produced, 0.44/5.0 on Student admission selectivity, 1.12/3 on M.Phil/16+ yrs ed)

Facilities 4.4/15 ( NED got 0.88/4 on number of books, 0.30/2 on equipment costing over $2m)

Finances 1.5/15 ( NED scored 0/4 on non-recurring expenditure/student, 0.05/2 amount of money generated through own resources)

Total Score: 18.65/100 NED Rank: 10/13 engineering universities

Pakistani Universities' Standing in the World:

Some India watchers such as Fareed Zakaria, an Indian-American who often acts as a cheerleader for India in the US, have expressed doubts about the quality of education at the Indian Institutes of Technology. In his book "The Post-American World", Zakaria argues that "many of the IITs are decidedly second-rate, with mediocre equipment, indifferent teachers, and unimaginative classwork." Zakaria says the key strength of the IIT graduates is the fact that they must pass "one of the world's most ruthlessly competitive entrance exams. Three hundred thousand people take it, five thousand are admitted--an acceptance rate of 1.7% (compared with 9 to 10 percent for Harvard, Yale, and Princeton)."

As a student of Karachi's NED University of Engineering and Technology in 1970s, I had similar assessment of my alma mater (and other UETs) in Pakistan as Zakaria's characterization of the IITs in India. NED Engineering College in 1970s was "decidedly second-rate, with mediocre equipment, indifferent teachers, and unimaginative classwork". However, given the fairly strict merit-based admission process, I found myself mostly surrounded by some of the best, most competitive students who had graduated with flying colors from Karachi's intermediate colleges and ranked very high on the Board of Education examination to make it into NED College. It was indeed the creme de la creme of Karachi's youth who have later proved themselves by many accomplishment s in various industries, including some of the leading-edge high-tech companies in America. Even in the 1970s, there were a small number of students admitted on non-merit-based special quotas. NED University today, however, appears to have significantly expanded such special, non-merit-based, quotas for entrance into the institution, an action that has probably affected its elite status, its rankings and the perceived quality of its graduates, while other, newer institutions of higher learning have surpassed it. Some of the special categories now include sons and daughters of employees, children of faculty and professional engineers and architects, special nominees from various ministries and an expanded quota for candidates from rural areas and the military.

Looking at the top 500 universities in the world, one can see a few universities from China, Japan, Singapore and India and a few more from Muslim nations such as Malaysia, Indonesia, Turkey, Iran and Pakistan. The notable institutions from South Asia include several campuses of the Indian Institutes of Technology and Pakistan's National University of Science and Technology (NUST), University of Lahore, Karachi University and Lahore's University of Engineering and Technology. The top Pakistani school on this list is National University of Science and Technology (NUST) at #376, followed by University of Lahore, University of Karachi, and UET Lahore. Many new universities are now being built in several Muslim nations in Asia and the Middle East, and they are attracting top talent from around the world. For example, King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST), scheduled to open on Sept. 23, is the country's attempt to create a world-class research university from scratch. It's hiring top scholars from all over the world. "Our goal is to kick-start an innovation-based economy," says Ahmad O. Al-Khowaiter, the university's vice-president for economic development. "We need a couple of success stories, and we think this will lead to one (collaboration with IBM Research)."

Conclusion:


With the score of 18.65/100, NED University, the oldest institution of higher learning with many successful alumni and an illustrious history, is ranked at number 10 out of 13 engineering universities in Pakistan. NED University has been assessed by HEC on criteria that favor universities with strong graduate programs that award a large number of Ph.D. and M.S. degrees. It ignores recruiter (employer) assessment that speak to the quality of NED University alumni. It also discounts the accomplishments of NEDians diaspora that attest to the quality of education they received at NEDUET. Clearly, the NEDUET's low ranking is based on its lack of a strong graduate program. Under the current HEC criteria, more Ph.D. faculty and students enrolled means higher ranking. More research papers means bigger score. In fact, it would not be inaccurate to say that HEC is using the number of PhDs at various institutions as a proxy for the state of higher education in Pakistan.

It may be useful to encourage more and bigger graduate programs enrolling and producing more PhDs. But there is a danger in playing the numbers game. The quantity must not be allowed to degrade quality. Encouraging production of more Ph.D.s and research papers by HEC and its financial incentives have come under heavy criticism by Dr. Pervez Hoodbhoy and many others (See related links below). It has led to lowered standards for Ph.D.s and instances of plagiarized papers at Punjab University ranked number 2 among general universities, just below the top-ranked Quaid-e-Azam University with a large number of Ph.D. faculty members and students. According to Professor Hoodbhoy, there are as many as 18 PhD students registered with one supervisor in QAU's Physics department! In the QAU biology department, that number rises to 37 for one supervisor. HEC incentives have helped dilute PhD qualifying exams to the point where it is difficult for any student not to pass. HEC is reportedly paying as much as Rs. 5000 per month per Ph.D. student to supervisors as incentive to produce more Ph.D.s in Pakistan. HEC grants to universities are also based on the number of Ph.D. students enrolled.

The Way Forward:

HEC has made a good start by attempting to formalize a process by which academic institutions can be judged and ranked. But the HEC must not stop at rev 0. It must continue fine-tuning the ranking criteria and the process to provide better and more useful feedback to the institutions. HEC must initiate and manage the effort to make Pakistan's institutions of higher learning more competitive internationally, and help the students become better prepared to make greater contribution to society by responding to major national challenges such as the energy and food crises, poor governance, bad urban planning, climate change, etc. Just producing more PhDs will not be particularly helpful to a nation beset by multiple crises. I think it's important for the HEC to establish separate criteria for undergraduate and graduate engineering programs to be fair to all colleges and universities including NED University of Engineering and Technology. There should be two separate rankings published for undergraduate and graduate engineering programs. These should be completely separate from non-engineering universities. At the same time NEDUET should work to beef up its graduate program with more resources in terms of faculty, facilities, student enrollment and research and publications aimed at overcoming the major national challenges of the day. NEDUET leadership needs the vision to pick one or two major national challenges and respond to them by developing the expertise and excellence required to succeed. The NED alumni can, and should, help in this endeavor with a lobbying effort to improve NEDUET leadership and governance, an alumni-managed endowment fund and alumni-sponsored industry alliances around the world.

Related Links:

Higher Education in Pakistan

World's Top 600 Universities' Ranking

NED Alumni Convention 2007

Pakistani Universities: Problems and Solutions

Reforming Pakistani Universities

Plagiarism at Punjab University

HEC Scholars

More Speed Than Traction

Global University Rankings Video

HEC Postpones Ranking Universities

Neocon Hitchens For Obama's Tough Pakistan Policy

Christopher Hitchens, a neo-conservative British author and journalist, has shown strong Islamophobic bias and, more recently, he has been speaking in support of Barack Obama's tough stance on Pakistan. He claims that "Pakistan Is the Problem and Barack Obama seems to be the only candidate willing to face it".
He further adds, "American liberals can't quite face the fact that if their man does win in November, and if he has meant a single serious word he's ever said, it means more war, and more bitter and protracted war at that—not less".

Christopher Hitchens used to identify with the liberal left. More recently, however, he has embraced mainly right-wing causes espoused by the American neo-conservatives in the Bush administration, most notably the Iraq War. Formerly a Trotskyist and a fixture in the left wing publications of both the United Kingdom and United States, Hitchens departed from the grassroots of the political left in 1989 after what he called the "tepid reaction" of the European left following Ayatollah Khomeini's issue of a fatwa calling for the death of Salman Rushdie, but he has stated on the Charlie Rose show aired August 2007 that he remains a "democratic Socialist." The September 11, 2001 attacks strengthened his strong support of an interventionist foreign policy, and his loud criticism of what he calls "fascism with an Islamic face." He is known for his ardent admiration of George Orwell, Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson, and for his excoriating critiques of Mother Teresa, Henry Kissinger, and Bill Clinton.

Here is what Hitchens wrote recently for Slate:

An excellent article by Fraser Nelson in London's Spectator at the end of July put it as succinctly as I have seen it:

At a recent dinner party in the British embassy in Kabul, one of the guests referred to "the Afghan-Pakistan war." The rest of the table fell silent. This is the truth that dare not speak its name. Even mentioning it in private in the Afghan capital's green zone is enough to solicit murmurs of disapproval. Few want to accept that the war is widening; that it now involves Pakistan, a country with an unstable government and nuclear weapons.

"Don't mention the war," as Basil insists with mounting hysteria in Fawlty Towers. And, when discussing the deepening crisis in Afghanistan, most people seem deliberately to avoid such telling phrases as "Pakistani aggression" or—more accurate still—"Pakistani colonialism." The truth is that the Taliban, and its al-Qaida guests, were originally imposed on Afghanistan from without as a projection of Pakistani state power. (Along with Pakistan, only Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates ever recognized the Taliban as the legal government in Kabul.) Important circles in Pakistan have never given up the aspiration to run Afghanistan as a client or dependent or proxy state, and this colonial mindset is especially well-entrenched among senior army officers and in the Inter-Services Intelligence agency, or ISI.

We were all warned of this many years ago. When the Clinton administration sent cruise missiles into Afghanistan in reprisal for the attacks on our embassies in East Africa, the missiles missed Osama Bin Ladin but did, if you remember, manage to kill two officers of the ISI. It wasn't asked loudly enough: What were these men doing in an al-Qaida camp in the first place? In those years, as in earlier ones, almost no tough questions were asked of Pakistan. Successive U.S. administrations used to keep certifying to Congress that Pakistan was not exploiting U.S. aid (and U.S. indulgence over the anti-Soviet war in Afghanistan) to build itself a nuclear weapons capacity. Indeed, it wasn't until after Sept. 11, 2001, that we allowed ourselves to learn that at least two of Pakistan's top nuclear scientists—Mirza Yusuf Baig and Chaudhry Abdul Majid—had been taken in for "questioning" about their close links to the Taliban. But then, in those days, we were too incurious to take note of the fact that Pakistan's chief nuclear operative, A.Q. Khan, had opened a private-enterprise "Nukes 'R' Us" market and was selling his apocalyptic wares to regimes as disparate as Libya and North Korea, sometimes using Pakistani air force planes to make the deliveries.

The very name Pakistan inscribes the nature of the problem. It is not a real country or nation but an acronym devised in the 1930s by a Muslim propagandist for partition named Chaudhary Rahmat Ali. It stands for Punjab, Afghania, Kashmir, and Indus-Sind. The stan suffix merely means "land." In the Urdu language, the resulting acronym means "land of the pure." It can be easily seen that this very name expresses expansionist tendencies and also conceals discriminatory ones. Kashmir, for example, is part of India. The Afghans are Muslim but not part of Pakistan. Most of Punjab is also in India. Interestingly, too, there is no B in this cobbled-together name, despite the fact that the country originally included the eastern part of Bengal (now Bangladesh, after fighting a war of independence against genocidal Pakistani repression) and still includes Baluchistan, a restive and neglected province that has been fighting a low-level secessionist struggle for decades. The P comes first only because Pakistan is essentially the property of the Punjabi military caste (which hated Benazir Bhutto, for example, because she came from Sind). As I once wrote, the country's name "might as easily be rendered as 'Akpistan' or 'Kapistan,' depending on whether the battle to take over Afghanistan or Kashmir is to the fore."

I could have phrased that a bit more tightly, since the original Pakistani motive for annexing and controlling Afghanistan is precisely the acquisition of "strategic depth" for its never-ending confrontation with India over Kashmir. And that dispute became latently thermonuclear while we simply looked on. One of the most creditable (and neglected) foreign-policy shifts of the Bush administration after 9/11 was away from our dangerous regional dependence on the untrustworthy and ramshackle Pakistan and toward a much more generous rapprochement with India, the world's other great federal, democratic, and multiethnic state.

Recent accounts of murderous violence in the capital cities of two of our allies, India and Afghanistan, make it appear overwhelmingly probable that the bombs were not the work of local or homegrown "insurgents" but were orchestrated by agents of the Pakistani ISI. This is a fantastically unacceptable state of affairs, which needs to be given its right name of state-sponsored terrorism. Meanwhile, and on Pakistani soil and under the very noses of its army and the ISI, the city of Quetta and the so-called Federally Administered Tribal Areas are becoming the incubating ground of a reorganized and protected al-Qaida. Sen. Barack Obama has, if anything, been the more militant of the two presidential candidates in stressing the danger here and the need to act without too much sentiment about our so-called Islamabad ally. He began using this rhetoric when it was much simpler to counterpose the "good" war in Afghanistan with the "bad" one in Iraq. Never mind that now; he is committed in advance to a serious projection of American power into the heartland of our deadliest enemy. And that, I think, is another reason why so many people are reluctant to employ truthful descriptions for the emerging Afghan-Pakistan confrontation: American liberals can't quite face the fact that if their man does win in November, and if he has meant a single serious word he's ever said, it means more war, and more bitter and protracted war at that—not less.

Related Links:

Don't Mention Afghan-Pakistan War

Obama's Point Man on South Asia

McCain and Obama Debate Pakistan Policy

US, NATO Fighting to Stalemate

A Chinese View of Crisis in Pakistan

As the world's news media, commentators, pundits and bloggers obsess with the US presidential election's impact on Afghanistan and Pakistan and anticipated South Asia policy changes in Washington, it seems that the view from China, Pakistan's most reliable ally, has not gotten much attention. Being a neighbor and an emerging superpower, China is at least as important to Pakistan as the United States, if not more so. Currently, China is the biggest buyer of the US treasury bonds that fund the massive US budget deficits. China holds about $520b of US government bonds amounting to about 20% of the total US foreign debt. Without China's willingness to buy and hold US debt, it will be extremely difficult to bail out the ailing US economy.

Not only is China a major arms supplier to Pakistani military, but it also provides substantial economic aid as well. Unlike the United States, China has been consistent in its support of Pakistan for several decades under various governments. It should be noted that former President Musharraf's approval ratings in China remained high in spite of Pakistanis' rejection of him in the recent elections.

Here's a piece by Rao Bo of China View that discusses Pakistan's current situation:

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan—Pakistan seems to be poised for a showdown with the militants as President Asif Ali Zardari has reiterated his resolve to eliminate terrorists.

Pakistan’s security forces have been pounding militants’ hideouts, triggering a backfire from militants. But a new wave of the old threat of terrorism has gripped the country and suggested that Pakistan is far from ready for a showdown with militants.

A suicide bomber rammed an explosive car into the headquarters of the Anti-Terrorist Squad of police in Islamabad amid unprecedented security measures taken by the administration for the ongoing joint session of parliament.

The two houses of the parliament started a joint in-camera session in a bid to review the current law and order situation and evolve a national consensus on its strategy to fight terrorism on Wednesday.

However, local media reports suggested that all opposition groups in the parliament have expressed dissatisfaction with the briefing on security situation and the quality of answers to their questions. The session was suspended and is expected to resume next Monday, with a consensus nowhere in sight.

Security has been put on the highest alert in the capital Islamabad recently, which has nearly become a deserted city with little traffic on roads.

The security measures are justified by the surge of terrorist attacks. At least 11 bombing attacks have taken place across the country since Zardari was sworn in as president on Sept. 9, leaving more than 100 people dead.

Despite condolences and condemnation, Zardari appeared to have ignored the consequences of the attacks.

The anti-America sentiment prevails among the people of Pakistan and Zardari is well aware of it. Talking to a U.S. media recently, Zardari said that it was difficult to become a friend of the Untied States.

Standing by the United States on the issue of war on terror, the Pakistan People’s Party-led government will have to shoulder responsibility for the worsening security situation, which will inevitably undermine people’s confidence and trust on the party.

In addition, it is undeniable that the poor law and order situation in the country has shattered investors’ confidence, exacerbating its economic crisis characterized by widening trade deficit, shrinking foreign reserve and depreciating Pakistani currency.

Zardari has rejected compromise with militants and vowed to eradicate terrorism, without giving details about his strategy.

Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gillani has clarified on many occasions that it is the last choice to use force in fighting terrorism. However, Pakistan is left with no other choices as its ally frequently conducts cross-border attacks in its tribal region.

Pakistan’s security forces launched a major offensive in Swat valley, a stronghold of pro-Taliban militants last October. The military claimed at the end of 2007 that it had controlled the area that was cleared of militants.

Nonetheless, attacks still occur in Swat frequently, a sign that the militants are still there.

The Pakistani government has made it clear that it has been combating terrorists on its own interest and the terrorist attacks will not deter its resolve to eradicate terrorism. But the question is: Can it afford the showdown?

This report was edited by Wang Yan

Related Links:

US-China Engagement in Pakistan

China-Pakistan Military Ties

India's Deep Love for Bush

US-India Nuclear Deal

China Support for Pakistan's Sovereignty

Obama's Point Man on South Asia

Lately, Senator Barack H. Obama has been taking a tough, even hostile stance toward Pakistan. He is threatening to send US ground troops into FATA if there is "actionable intelligence" to end "terrorists' safe haven" inside Pakistan. His opponent, Senator John McCain has said Obama "doesn't understand" the situation in FATA and chided him for being naive and "talking loudly" about Pakistan. Many Obama supporters dismiss Obama's tough talk as merely designed to assert his commander-in-chief credentials to appease his critics.

Is Obama's tough talk just an act? Or is it based on considered advice from the experts of the liberal think tanks to whom Democrats generally outsource policy? While there is a small chance that Obama does not really mean what he says, it is also a fact that foreign policy experts such as Bruce Reidel are advising Obama on South Asia policy.

Riedel says that there will be a renewed focus on Afghanistan and Pakistan under an Obama presidency. “Obama is determined to put a lot more resources into the war in Afghanistan — and it’s overlapped into Pakistan — than either a McCain presidency would or the Bush administration did.” He adds that Obama sees Afghanistan and Pakistan as “the central front of the war against al Qaeda and the war against extremism.” Translation: The war in Afghanistan will escalate and expand into Pakistan.

Who is Bruce Reidel? What are his credentials? How does he view US role and policy in South Asia? Bruce Riedel is a Senior Fellow in foreign policy at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy of the Brookings Institution. He served with the Central Intelligence Agency for 29 years and retired in 2006. Riedel served as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Near East Affairs on the National Security Council (1997-2002), Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Near East and South Asian Affairs (1995-97), and National Intelligence Officer for Near East and South Asian Affairs at the National Intelligence Council (1993-95). His areas of expertise include counter-terrorism, Arab-Israeli issues, Persian Gulf security and India and Pakistan.

Riedel says Obama will take a tougher line with Pakistan, and make military aid conditional upon Pakistan’s performance in combating the Taliban and al Qaeda. But he disagrees with the view, prevalent in Pakistan, that Obama dislikes that country. Instead, he says that Obama is a strong critic of the “Musharraf-centric Pakistan policy” pursued by the Bush Administration. He believes that Obama is likely to be supportive of the present PPP-led government, unless it were to engage the Taliban, a move which would prove extremely unpopular in the United States.

On India policy, Reidel says, “The Democrats are much more likely to want to revisit the nuclear proliferation implications [of the nuclear deal]". He adds, "That would complicate the relationship with New Delhi.”

“There’s talk of a strategic partnership with India. The Obama campaign buys into that,” says Riedel. “As president, he will place the same priority on India as Bush did, and Clinton did before him.”

In his speech to the Democratic National Convention, Obama pledged to halt tax sops to companies that ship jobs overseas. If Obama sticks to this promise, it will mean trouble ahead for India's IT industry. India's software and services exports stood at about $40 billion during the financial year 2008, a growth of 29%, with US as its largest market. Can Obama really curb outsourcing? It seems unlikely.

In an interview with Fox News' Bill O'Reilly, Riedel's candidate Obama seemed to agree with the narrative of the Indian lobby when he accused Pakistan of "preparing for war with India".

“If Pakistan can look towards the east with confidence, it will be less likely to believe its interests are best advanced through cooperation with the Taliban,” Mr. Obama wrote in Foreign Affairs magazine last year.

In a recent article, Riedel wrote that “fear of India is the driving force” behind Pakistan's pursuit of relationships with Islamic fundamentalism and Islamic terrorism". He added, “The conflict with India affects all aspects of Pakistan's worldview and its self-image.”

"Coming to grips with Pakistan's obsession with India and Kashmir is critical to killing the monster," and the "time may be ripe in 2009 to move," Riedel writes, hinting at the likely policy of the new administration that is likely to be in office next year.

Answering a question about Pakistan and the war on terror at a meeting of Council on Foreign Relation, Riedel said, "Pakistan is an extremely dangerous and unstable country. We need to tread carefully. We need to get the Pakistanis to see this as their war. And that's going to require some major new initiatives on the American side. Commando raids and Predator strikes are not a long term solution to this problem".

If history is any guide, it can be fairly safely predicted that the a Democratic administration will pursue a punitive policy toward Pakistan while tilting heavily toward India, much more so than the Bush administration. Given the caution sounded by Bruce Reidel about Pakistan, the hope is that better sense will prevail in the potential Obama administration on policy toward Pakistan. However, if "President" Obama does follow through on his tough talk on Pakistan, there will be an expanded regional war involving Afghanistan and Pakistan leading to massive destabilization of the entire region and extremely dangerous consequence for the world.

Here is a comprehensive video on the origins and the positions of various parties involved in the Kashmir dispute presented by Pakistani Peace Activist Dr. Pervez Hoodbhoy:



Related Links:

Reidel Interview at Council on Foreign Relations

Sunil Adam on Obama's Kashmir Policy

Who is Bruce Reidel?

Obama on Renewing American Leadership