Posts Tagged ‘USA’

The News Gets Facts Wrong On Character

Monday, March 1st, 2010

The News today includes an article that claims, “Every constitution requires men of character to qualify as legislators.” While this seems like an unsurprising claim, the article gets several facts wrong.

The article, by Sabir Shah, claims that:

“…lawmakers in every country of the world are required to have crime-free life history in order to qualify as members of legislative houses or even after they manage to get elected to the houses.”

This is incorrect. In fact, it was easily found to be wrong with a simple Google search. I did a Google search for the phrase ‘legislators with criminal records’ and found that in India, ”As many as 125 candidates with criminal records have won in assembly elections of five states that have just concluded, says a study conducted by the National Election Watch (NEW).” In the USA, there are many legislators who have served with criminal records. Actually, according to Article 1 Section 6 of the American constitution grants immunity to legislators while they are in attendance to the Congress.

They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.

While there are certainly measures in many nations to remove from office individuals who commit high crimes such as treason or murder, it is not true that any criminal conviction will disqualify individuals from the legislature. More to the point, while “character” often makes up a qualification for holding office in many nations, what defines “character” differs greatly.

For example, the constitution of Saudi Arabia Says in Article 5 that “Rule passes to the sons of the founding King…the most upright among them is to receive allegiance…” This not only makes character an issue, but it also makes character comparative. That is, one of the sons will gain power no matter what (obviously, as it is a monarchy) – but that good character only matters in relation to the other sons. So, it is not necessarily a matter of the most righteous but could be the least bad! This is not the case, but it does show how these matters of character are very different from nation to nation and must be considered as such.

The News article is particularly curious as it is not only factually questionable, it seems to serve an ambiguous lesson. In other words, what is the point of this article? It is easy to assume that it is a thinly veiled swipe at NRO beneficiaries. Perhaps it is an article better published on the opinion page. First, though, the reporter should probably check his facts.

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in The News | No Comments »

On Economy, The Nation Forgot To Read Its Own Report

Wednesday, February 17th, 2010

The Nation today contains a stark contradiction. The editorial page includes the headline: “Economy not reviving.” The Nation’s editorial desk then goes on to explain that the economy is not reviving because of  government policies and cooperation with USA in the fight against militants. Unfortunately, the editorial desk did not read their own newspaper which featured the following headline on the Business page: “Pakistan economic recovery picking up: IMF”.

The Nation points to a drop in the KSE100 stock exchange index as a sign that the economy is on a decline. This is an old trick used to confuse people who don’t know a lot about economics. The fact is, stock markets rise and fall each day. If you select a day with a fall, you can say the economy is bad. If you a day with an increase, you can say its good. Does the increase in the KSE100 today mean that the economy is good? Actually, it is mostly meaningless.

A better way to look at a stock market index (including the KSE100) is to evaluate a long-term trend to see what it says about how institutional investors consider the risks and rewards of that market. Does the market show a long-term trend upwards? Or does it appear flat or (worse) headed down? Below is a one year chart that tracks the KSE100 generated by www.marketwatch.com:

KSE100

KSE100 Over One Year Time

As you can see, the trend is actually on the increase. This is a good sign for the long term growth of the market and probably the economy as a whole. It does not mean things are perfect, but it also does not mean things are getting worse. Actually, a 100 point drop in a day is volatility that all advanced stock markets experience. Today the index is going up.

Let us look further at what The Nation’s own Business page reported on the same day:

Listing positive trends Pakistan registered in recent months, the Fund said the exchange rate has remained stable at Rs. 84–85 per U.S. dollar and the international reserves position has strengthened (the banking system’s gross foreign exchange reserves, including the State Bank and commercial banks, reached US$14.3 billion in mid-February, of this total the State Bank held US$10.5 billion).

The early signs of recovery in some sectors and the improved external position are encouraging, although there are risks and challenges to Pakistan’s economic program.

“Economic growth in Pakistan is starting to recover; large-scale manufacturing output has started to increase, the improvement in the global economy has helped manufacturing exports, and private sector credit growth has picked up somewhat as businesses rebuild their working capital.”

As we can see, there are positive fundamental economic indicators in the Pakistani economy. Certainly, foreign direct investment (FDI) is down over the past six months. But that is only one important indicator – not the only one. Why did The Nation ignore the positive reporting in its own newspaper? Was it politically inconvenient?

The Nation is correct that a key obstacle to attracting FDI is political uncertainty and fear of instability. But The Nation presents an interesting solution for these fears:

If the government wants to attract foreign investment, it must ensure more support for its policies by aligning them to popular wishes, rather than trying to please the USA through them. Also, it must work on the specific factors which keep away foreign investors.

This shows a lack of familiarity with attitudes among the worlds economies. Let us refer to an article in today’s Financial Times – a UK financial newspaper – about security and stability in the country.

(more…)

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in The Nation | 1 Comment »

The Nation’s Economic Conspiracy Theory

Wednesday, February 3rd, 2010

The Nation never fails to impress us with the some of the conspiracy theories that they publish. Today is no different as the editorial writers venture into the world of economics. Unfortunately, rather than ask an economist for advice and explanation, the editorial writers chose to create a conspiracy theory to explain what they do not understand.

The editorial explains this bizarre conspiracy when The Nation talks about “the real trap.”

However, the real trap the government needs to escape, is that of the IMF, which is only offering aid because Pakistan is helping the USA, which is allied to Europe, which names the IMF Managing Director, in its War on Terror. The IMF conditionalities, combined with government extravagance, are causing the unchecked growth in debt by a government which never tires of its concern for the poor. While Pakistan might need assistance to tide over the difficulties it may be facing, such assistance should not be at the cost either of the national economy, or of national honour and dignity. As the increase in the debt burden under the PPP-led government shows, turning to the IMF has meant not just the sacrifice of national honour, but a worsening of the national economic situation.

Let me see if I can sort out this tangled mess of conspiracies.

First, the IMF is only offering aid to Pakistan because the USA wants it to, and the USA only wants it to because the USA is allied to Europe and Europe names the IMF Managing Director. Apparently there are some conditionalities involved with the IMF aid (as there are with all IMF aid), though The Nation doesn’t let us know what exactly they are. The Nation also tells us that there is some government extravagance (again, undefined). These mysterious conditionalities mix with the extravagence and cause massive increases in debt because according to The Nation PPP cares too much for the poor! All of this together, of course, hurts the national honour and dignity.

If you found that hard to follow, take no worries, dear reader. I have created a chart that explains it perfectly clearly.

The Nation's explanation for rising debt

Did that help explain? Don’t worry, I don’t understand either.

The national economy is not only a topic of debate but an issue that affects the lives of everyone. Because it is an issue of such seriousness, it deserves to have serious discussion. Making up some fantastic conspiracy theory by throwing in every bogeyman that you can think of (IMF, USA, Europe, War on Terror, “conditionalities,” poor people) and then saying that these are all mixing together to harm the national honor is a waste of time that could be better spent discussion real solutions to such important issues.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in The Nation | 2 Comments »

The Nation Report About Obama Speech Belongs On Opinion Page, Should Be Properly Sourced

Thursday, January 28th, 2010
American President Barack Obama Giving His Speech

American President Barack Obama Giving His Speech

Today’s The Nation includes a report by an anonymous person known only as “Special Correspondent” on American President Barack Obama’s speech to the American Congress last night which chastises him for not mentioning Pakistan specifically enough. While it is true that Pakistan was not mentioned by name in the speech, the article is clearly meant to suggest a snub against Pakistan and thus belongs more appropriately on the Opinion page of the newspaper. Moreover, the suggestion that a lack of a specific mention of Pakistan in a speech by the American President to the American Congress is a snub is really quite silly.

The Nation’s anonymous reporter begins the article by criticizing Obama for not speaking enough about Pakistan and India-Pakistan relations.

Declaring that the United States has strengthened partnerships with its anti-terrorism allies, President Barack Obama on Wednesday cited his adminitration’s effective fight against al-Qaeda militants but said nothing specific about close ally Pakistan.

Although Obama took note of partnerships in Asia, his first State of the Union address made no mention of Pakistan, a US ally in the war on terror. There was also no reference to India-Pakistan relations and their impact on regional stability. The contentious Middle East conflict was another
major ommission in the speech.

It is true that Mr. Obama’s speech did not mention Pakistan by name, but it also does not mention any other nations that are currently fighting against terrorists. Mr. Obama did mention partnerships broadly, but does not single out any specific nations. For example, he said:

We’ve prohibited torture and strengthened partnerships from the Pacific to South Asia to the Arabian Peninsula.

Actually, the reason that Mr. Obama did not mention Pakistan or India-Pakistan relations in his speech was not a snub against Pakistan but because his speech was mostly about US affairs only. In fact, the anonymous reporter for The Nation even admits this in his report:

Obama’s address focused largely on economic recovery initiatives that his administration is pursuing…

Additionally, while Mr. Obama did talk briefly about foreign policy challenges, including the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, he did so from an American perspective for his American audience. He did not mention any of the other countries with troops in those wars, not only Pakistan. The anonymous reporter from The Nation does not mention that Mr. Obama also does not specifically mention other nations that are fighting against terrorism, including:

  • United Kingdom
  • France
  • Canada
  • Italy
  • Netherlands
  • Poland
  • Australia
  • Spain
  • Romania
  • Turkey
  • Czech Republic
  • Denmark
  • Belgium
  • Norway
  • Bulgaria
  • Sweden
  • Hungary
  • New Zealand
  • Croatia

Even though they were not mentioned, none of the media in other countries are writing anonymous opinion articles suggesting they were snubbed and trying to pass them off as ‘news’.

The Nation has a well-documented anti-American position with regards to foreign policy. Obviously, they have the right to this position and it is their right to continue to publish anti-American Editorials and Opinion columns. But such political positions belong on the Opinion page, not in the  sections for actual news reporting. The column in The Nation is clearly meant to raise anger among those people known as the Ghairat Brigade. The fact that the report is sourced to an anonymous “Special Correspondent” makes it even worse than misleading, though, it’s simply unprofessional.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in The Nation | 1 Comment »

Conspiracy Theory Embarrasses Journalists

Monday, January 25th, 2010

Aside from the many problems that conspiracy theories create at home, it also is a problem that these conspiracy theories make us look particularly silly in the rest of the world. Take, for example, a 23 January article in The New York Times, an American newspaper that is read all over the world. The article I refer to addresses the recent visit of American Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. In the article, Pakistan’s media gets a mention, but not for asking hard-hitting questions about the war or American foreign policy. No, our journalists ask about a worn-out conspiracy theory. How embarrassing.

Pakistani journalists asked Mr. Gates if the United States had plans to take over Pakistan’s nuclear weapons (Mr. Gates said no)…

First, it is time to retire this tired conspiracy theory, born of a paranoid misreading of an article by American journalist Seymour Hersh. Mr. Hersh’s article claims that there are secret agreements between the American and Pakistani militaries to secure Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal in the unlikely event that Taliban militants overrun Islamabad. A suggestion that the Foreign Ministry firmly denies. It does not say that the US wants to steal Pakistan’s nuclear weapons.

Even if Mr. Hersh’s claim is true, though, and we have some agreement with the US to defend our nuclear arsenal against militants, that is not the same as the US trying to take our weapons. Let’s look at the facts: According to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, the US possesses over 5,000 nuclear weapons. According to the same group, Pakistan possesses 70-90 nuclear weapons. Now, let us think rationally for a moment. Why would the US, with 5,000 nuclear bombs, want to steal our arsenal of 90? It does not make any sense.

And yet, despite the fact that Mr. Hersh’s article does not talk about stealing our nuclear weapons, and the fact that this worn-out conspiracy theory does not make sense for five minutes, here in the international press are Pakistan’s journalists quoted as asking the American Secretary of Defense if he has secret plans to steal our nukes. This is the state of our media? It’s shamefully embarrassing.

Journalists had the opportunity to ask important, hard-hitting questions of the American Secretary. They had the opportunity to ask about delayed payments for the Coalition Support Fund (CSF), American reactions to sabre-rattling by India, or the transfer of defense technology so that we have the tools to defend ourselves against militants. Instead, they chose to ask about a conspiracy theory. Next time, I hope they do a better job.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Conspiracy Theories | No Comments »

The Nation Is Incorrect About How Democracy Works

Tuesday, January 12th, 2010

Courts and JusticeThe Nation’s editorial, “A democratic attitude,” says that “the practice almost unexceptionally followed by successful democracies in the world” is for everyone accused of corruption to resign and present themselves to a court. This is not true.

  • French President Nicolas Sarkozy was accused of taking kickbacks from arms dealers when he was a government minister under President Chirac. Sarkozy was never forced to step down from political office, and the accuser – former PM de Villepin – is being sued in what is known as “the Clearstream case.” In fact, former French President Chirac’s lawyer has argued that his client enjoyes immunity for acts carried out while president. Actually, there are several politicians including Ministers and Presidents who are accused in this case, and the trend is not for them to step down, but for the judicial process to proceed normally with a presumption of innocence.
  • American President Bill Clinton was accused of corruption while he was the president in what is known as the “Whitewater controversy.” During this case the president and his wife who is now the American Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were investigated by the US government while they were in power. They never resigned. After many years, the investigation did not charge them with any illegal acts.
  • British PM Tony Blair was accused of corruption while he was in office and was even questioned by police. The case involved accusations that his political party was given secret loans and that donors were nominated for honours. Tony Blair did not step down.
  • Italian PM Silvio Berlusconi is actually on trial for corruption while he remains in office. In fact, the Italian government is considering a proposal to suspend the trials in preparation for elections.

This is not an excuse for corruption, or to say that corruption should be tolerated. And yes there are many political leaders who, when corruption has been proven, either resign or are removed from office. But The Nation’s suggestion that it is typical practice in successful democracies for politicians accused of corruption to resign is false. Actually, the opposite is true. In successful democracies, politicians have the opportunity to defend their name before they are forced to resign. Otherwise, it is not democracy but a coup.

Whether or not any specific Pakistani or foreign politician should resign or appear before court is not for us to say. But if The Nation wants that to happen, they should at least be honest and not misrepresent how successful democracies work.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in The Nation | No Comments »

Inconsistency And The Nation’s Editorials

Friday, December 18th, 2009

Inconsistency and The Nation's editorialsThe Nation has taken a contradictory position on US Aid, saying that Pakistan should both refuse all aid and request more aid from the US depending on whether the claim fits The Nation’s immediate political agenda. These contradictory positions demonstrate that the only consistency in the The Nation’s editorial page is anti-Americanism and anti-government.

Today’s editorial page includes the column, “Right way, at last!” in which the editors of The Nation pen the following suggestion for the Americans:

Mr Obama should also pay heed to Mr Zardari’s remark that the Swat campaign has caused an expenditure of $2.5 billion and there is need for Washington to come forward with increased assistance.

That’s right. Suddenly, The Nation is asking for President Obama and the Americans to increase aid to Pakistan.

Let’s look back at past editorials of The Nation. On November 10, 2009 the editorial “The truth please!” read as follows:

Finally, the military needs to distance itself from the US, even if the political leadership cannot do so for their own interests…It is time to create a distance between the Pakistan and US militaries and see how the latter fares in Afghanistan.

And lest we forget the drama around the Kerry-Lugar bill? Even before the controversial conditionalities were known, The Nation was already calling into question the aid in an editorial, “The price of US aid”.

The passage of this aid bill was an inevitability, given Pakistan’s importance to the War. However, that does not mean Pakistanis need welcome it…

As we can see from their own words, the position of the editorial staff at The Nation about foreign aid from the USA  changes more often than the price of sugar. If the US offers some aid, The Nation says we don’t need to welcome it, then they say the Americans are not giving enough aid! The Nation says the military should distance itself from the Americans, that the US has negative intentions, then they say that the US should be giving more support to Pakistan!

The only consistency in The Nation’s editorials is that they are anti-America, except when they are for increased American participation. The Nation is also anti-government, except when they say that Zardari is doing “what a democratically elected leader ought to be doing.”

In fact, the only consistency in The Nation’s editorial page seems to be the inconsistency. That you can count on.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in The Nation | 1 Comment »

Opinion Column on 1971 War Ignores Historical Facts

Wednesday, December 16th, 2009

The opinion page of The Nation today is a perfect demonstration of the poisoned and fact-averse environment created by conspiracy theorists. In writing about the 1971 war, Tariq Majeed makes the most incredible claim that the entire affair was part of a secret Jewish conspiracy.

Much has been written about the history of the 1971 war and its aftermath. Sober assessments of this tragedy have been made by military and political historians who can find very credible and reasonable actions that ultimately led to the regrettable separation of East Pakistan. In none of these chronicles and academic studies does there exist some claim that the 1971 war was a project of some international Jewish conspiracy.

But the fact that this idea has come from thin air is not the only problem with this conspiracy theory. Majeed writes that the conspiracy was “executed jointly by USA, Israel, Britain, India and former Soviet Union.” According to Majeed, USA and Soviet Union – in the middle of the Cold War when both nations had nuclear ICBMs pointed at each other – these two arch enemies were actually working together to break up Pakistan?

Majeed’s conspiracy theory also fails to take account of the fact that the US mostly ignored the crisis, though it did lend some minor support to Pakistan when US President Richard Nixon sent the American Navy to the Bay of Bengal to oppose Indian support of Mujib’s separatists. Nixon even called India a “Soviet stooge, supported by Soviet arms.” How could US and Soviet Union be working together if they were working against each other? Majeed’s theory makes no sense.

This theory also ignores the fact that the American diplomat in Dhaka, Archer Blood, who supported Mujib’s efforts to break from Pakistan, was rebuffed by Washington for his support of the separatists. The “Blood Telegram” proves that there was no American support for Mujib or the breakup of Pakistan. Has Majeed never studied the history of the 1971 war? How could he get so many of the facts wrong?

Tariq Majeed’s column in today’s The Nation is a prime example of what is wrong with conspiracy theory journalism. Once you start down a road of conjecture based on pure fantasy, all facts must be thrown away and forgotten. Only then can the conspiracy theorist weave together the most ridiculous contradictions to fit his fantasy. In the end, you must accept the most outrageous things, even when all the facts point elsewhere.

The 1971 war is a somber moment in Pakistan’s history, and the men who fought and died in that war deserve more respect than to be simply the pawns in a conspiracy theory. We owe them better.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in The Nation | 4 Comments »