More on Pakistan...

Just got back from the bar. Watched the Habs defeat the Flyers on a beauty overtime PP goal by Mathieu Schneider.

I am still lucid enough to note that this Globe and Mail article reiterates my previous post on the potential collapse into chaos of :



http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090227.wcoessay0228/BNStory/specialComment/home

Enjoy.

Crisis in Pakistan...

President Obama announced today that, fulfilling another defining promise of his campaign, all U.S. combat troops will be withdrawn from Iraq by September 2010.

To get a sense of what this means in numbers:

-Roughly 100,000 U.S. combat troops will be pulled out of Iraq within the next 18 months.

But lets just clarify, these are combat troops. About 30,000- 50,000 non-combat troops will remain under a new mission of training, civilian protection and counterterrorism.

More importantly, let's look at the implications behind this move. The withdrawal of US forces in Iraq reaffirms that the US is re-focusing its efforts on Afghanistan. And on this issue, the more and more critical problem is, and I've been meaning to blog about this for a while now, how to handle Pakistan.

The rapidly growing concern for the US government, and I would argue the rest of the world as well, has to be the instability in Pakistan.

Supporters of the Pakistan Muslim League chant slogans during a protest against the Supreme Court's decision to exclude former Pakistan premier Nawaz Sharif and his brother from elected office, in Multan, Feb 27, 2009. Stree protests have erupted in towns and cities across the central Punjab province. REUTERS.

I'm not going to get into the military aspects of the whole Afghanistan-Pakistan situation. I'm more interested in discussing how it has become virtually a failed state and what that can tell us about how Western countries should conduct foreign aid expenditure.

But just to mention briefly its specific significance for the NATO and ISAF operation in Afghanistan:

-Some 75% of NATO supplies to Afghanistan travel through Pakistan in convoys.

-The Afghanistan-Pakistan border has been notoriously difficult to control despite the fact that some 120,000 Pakistani troops have been dispatched to contain the infiltration of foreign Taliban fighters across the border.

Now let's get back to Pakistan itself.


Pakistan is the world's sixth most populous country and the second-biggest Muslim one (the largest being Indonesia). It has been one of the largest recipients of US foreign aid over the past decade recieving around 700 million dollars in US foreign aid each year.

The money was used to support the military rule of General Pervez Musharaf who took power via military coup in 1999. In typical US foreign policy fashion, was deemed that, having a strong fisted leader such as Musharaf in power would not only stabilize the region but give the US some influence over a potentially hostile nation-state.

The situation now is that Pakistan is violently divided. A Taliban insurgency is spreading in its north-west frontier, the (North-West Frontier Province). The vast and thinly populated western state of Baluchistan is also in revolt. In Karachi, a port city of 15million, the militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba (LET) launched their amphibious terrorist assault on Mumbai last November.

The central government in Islamabad, a coalition led by the Pakistan People's Party (PPP), and presided over by President Asif Zardari, is struggling.

Mr Zardari inherited the party from his murdered wife, Benazir Bhutto, and fears that he too will be assassinated. His is almost as unpopular as General Musharraf, widely detested in Pakistan, was. A survey released by the International Republican Institute in December found that only 19% of Pakistanis wanted him for their leader; 88% thought the country was headed in the wrong direction. Recently, the court ruling banning the Opposition Party, the Pakistan Muslim League, leader Nawaz Sharif, has led to violent protests in Punjab, which has forced Mr Zardari to declare emergency rule over the province.

There's no question that the instability in Pakistan, a nuclear armed country, is concerning for the US. But what can they do about it?

Where is the money going?

I had the priviledge of attending a Millenium Development Conference in Montreal in which former US President Bill Clinton gave one of the key speeches.

In particular I remember what he said about Pakistan and US foreign aid expenditure. Referring to the fact that some of the 9-11 bombers were Pakistani and that many of the Al-Qaeda training camps were situation along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, his quote went something like this:

"If I had known then what I know now, I would have requested that Pakistan put some of the money we gave them into building schools and developing social programs, rather than just boosting their military."

Of course, its extremely easy for Clinton to go around the world and give speeches saying this now. But he does highlight a good point.

Part of the reason that anti-western sentiment is so high in Pakistan is because of the economic poverty and inequality.

Pakistan has been ruled by the military for most of its history. The problem with many military regimes, and in particular, the most recent one of General Musharraf, is that there is total NON-TRANSPARENCY in resource allocation.

In particulary, the Pakistani state has totally neglected the regions of Balochistan and the North Western Frontier Province, rendering those regions poverty-stricken. As these areas do not constitute the political elite, and don't have many political leaders, the government has not been responsive to their needs or held accountable in any way.

Unemployment rates in these two regions are far higher than anywhere else in the country hovering at just over 30%.

Is it a coincidence that these places are currently the breeding grounds for Pakistani terrorists? I don't think so.

With no social funding from the government whatsoever, the only organizations providing schools and hospitals to local populations are the fundamentalist Islamic groups who are foreign funded. So, most of these impoverished people attend madrassas and receive health care and medical treatement from pro-Taliban groups. It is no wonder that support for the Taliban is widespread in these areas. They are the only ones helping the people there.

This is why the main concern for the US in their fight against "terrorism" should be that of "failed states".

To make matters worse, the economy in Pakistan is stagnating. After two years of political turmoil and spreading violence, the economy is collapsing. One-third of the textiles industry, which accounts for half of Pakistan's industrial jobs has been cut. In November, Pakistan asked the International Monetary Fund for a $7.6 billion dollar bailout.

So at this point, even if Mr Zardari wanted to turn things around, economically and politically, its virtually impossible that he'll be able to do anything.

That poverty breeds discontent is undeniable. That the proliferation of fundamentalist Islamic groups in populations that are neglected by their own government is a pattern through out the Middle East (the thriving of Hezbollah in the Bekka Valley of Lebanon and the thriving of Hamas in Gaza being two other very clear cut examples of this), should remind the West that foreign aid should not come without conditions.

Finally, this should remind us all that economic equality does matter; dareisay, perhaps more than military might, more than cultural differences, maybe even more than religious might...?

Montreal Weekend....

Great news! I've learned how to hyperlink, so now when I say "I went skating on the canal yesterday", you guys can get a little more informed about what I'm talking about.

So, moving right along to today's post...

Last weekend I went to Montreal for some Army training, but I also got to spend some much needed time with my sister Dana, and one of my best buddy's, my former roommate, Juan.

There were two particularly notable moments/experiences that I would like to write about:

1) Winter Survival Training:

My regiment got approval to take 50 guys up north to a place near Tremblant, Makwa Adventures, where we got taught winter survival skills by some natives (I'm terrible but I can't remember what tribe!) and/or people who live with them. We learned how to trap and skin wild rabbits, we went snowmobiling and dog sledding, and we went ice fishing and made a fire.

The trapping was interesting and useful, although I must be honest that the method of death for the animal when you use these traditional trapping techniques is pretty cruel. Its a slow way to go. Having said that, it is environmentally sustainable, and the first nations groups tend to use every single part of the animal for something, which is far better than we can say we do with our meat production.

The skinning and gutting was pretty rough, I felt bad for the rabbits. We each partnered up and did it, I was lucky, I skinned and my partner gutted. Thankfully all the carcasses were frozen and taken home for food, so, at least we were making full use of them.

The Snowmobiling was insane, we spent 1.5 hours racing through narrow trails in the woods and then racing on lakes. For most of my life, I have tended to think that snow mobilers were the obnoxious arseholes who made noise and expelled exhaust into the air disturbing and otherwise peaceful cross country ski, or winter hike.

Now, in some ways I STILL think that, however, I have to sheepishly admit, that it is ALOT of fun.

The dogsledding was very interesting. Most of the dogs were either Husky or Wolf-dog. The guide said that eahc dog has a distinct personality and that only certain personalities will work well together. There is only one lead dog and certain lead dogs only work with certain owners. For example, if you are a new owner and you give the verbal command "left" (there are five verbal commands for left, right, speed up, slow down and stop). The dogs may sometimes go "right" on purpose, just to test how you react. You need to assert yourself as the alpha, as you are the sled driver.


2) Mathieu Schneider sighting at the Biodome.

I was walking down the steps next to the cafe, inside the Biodome entrance, to retrieve my coat from the coat check area, when I saw, coming the other way up the stairs carrying several coats, Mathieu Schneider.

I quickly said to Juan, who was next to me, "Hey look, that's Mathieu Schneider". Juan didn't say anything but just looked. Mat looked at us and smiled first to us, then to himself looking genuinely pleased as he reached the top of the stairs, turned the corner and handed the coats to his blonde wife, and two or three kids.

I quickly came to several realizations from this moment.

First, this was Mat's first day with his family in Montreal. He was traded to us while we were on the road, so he joined the team and played a couple of road games before coming back to Montreal for the Saturday game. This was Sunday and the team had a day off. He used to play for the Canadiens back when he was 23 years old and didn't have a family.

Secondly, he seemed to genuinely appreciate being recognized. He was playing in Atlanta before he was traded to us so he probably hasn't been recognized in a while.

OBAMA MANIA IN CANADA!

What will his Presidency mean for Canada?

President Obama pulled up to Parliament Hill under gray skies, falling snow, with a cheering crowd of about 1,000 people greeting him. A woman along his motorcade route carried a sign that read "Yes we CANada!

Above, young Obama supporters and enthusiasts braved the snow to try to catch a glimpse of the new American President.

Above, Obama meets Canadian Head of State, Governer General Michaelle Jean.

Canada’s enthusiasm for the new President, and concern for Canada-US relations, is well documented.

In late September of last year, a mere two weeks before the Canadians went to the polls, a Globe and Mail survey showed that more than 80% of those polled admitted they would give up their right to vote in the Canadian election, in order to vote in the US election. Moreover, if the US election were held in Canada, 85% of voters would have voted for Obama.

Granted the last election in the US was historic to say the least, nevertheless, I think that says a lot about not only the popularity of Obama in Canada but the growing concern about the direction of US-Canada relations in recent years.

Above, a Canadian Mountie salutes the arrival of US President Barack Obama to Rideau Hall on Thursday.

I don’t think I need to elaborate too much on just how extensive the Canadian-US relationship is.

-Over 1.9 billion dollars in commerce cross the border each day.

-We are each other’s largest trading partner.

-We have the longest peaceful border in the world.

-We have extensive security agreements and military integration encompassing 330 bilateral defense agreements, and 142 bilateral defense forums. In fact, at any given time 250 Canadian soldiers with the maple leaf on their shoulder are training or fighting with American troops.

So, what will the election of the Obama administration mean for Canada? That is what political analysts and enthusiasts have been asking and with Obama’s first foreign visit to Canada today, perhaps some questions have been answered. Or perhaps not…

The big issue many are looking at is of course the economy.

But more intriguing to me has been the “clean energy dialogue” that both the Prime Minister and the President announced at the Press Conference today.


The declaration is a relatively minor step in bilateral co-operation, mostly a promise to continue to discuss and explore the issues together. More surprising however is the theme both leaders have embraced throughout this meeting: that cleaning up the environment can be a profitable of tackling the worldwide economic meltdown.

President Obama campaigned on a promise to wean the U.S. off “dirty, dwindling and dangerously expensive” oil. His administration aims to develop a cap-and-trade system in the United States to deal with greenhouse-gas emissions, similar to the carbon market in the European Union. But in the past, PM Harper’s government has merely said it would explore the idea, the current Canadian climate change framework lags far behind and has much weaker environmental policies.

Has President Obama brought PM Harper on board?

Perhaps PM Harper is finally coming around to the realization that environment and economy are inherently linked. And this is no more evident than in the Canadian-US energy relationship.

Immediately after taking office in January of 2006, Prime Minister Harper committed a five-fold increase in oil sands production. The Alberta Oil-Sands contain roughly 173 billion barrels of oil, the second most in the world after only Saudia Arabia. That’s enough oil to supply the US for 24 years.

The US imports about 780,000 barrels a day from the Canadian tar-sands, roughly 60% of its total production.

Harper defended his stimulation of the Albertan oil industry by arguing how tremendously lucrative and beneficial it would be for Canada.

And sure, Alberta has been one of the wealthiest provinces in Canada for the last decade.

But whether or not you agree with environmentalists claims about the seriousness of climate change (and I would say that you should), any pragmatic economist knows that, as Elizabeth May and Stephane Dion and now President Obama argue, to invest in greener technology now is far better for the long-term competitiveness of the economy.

Harper has thus far pursued regionally preferenced, short-term policies, and if Obama wishes to cut back on US purchases of oil from the tar sands that has tremendous implications for the Albertan economy.

Interestingly enough, alongside this announcement of “clean energy dialogue”, the Globe and Mail announced that for the first time in a decade Alberta has slipped into a recession.

“Falling stock prices and energy revenues have hit Alberta hard, and the debt-free province is now expected to post a $1-billion deficit – its first budget shortfall in 15 years.”

Remember that just last August, government officials were projecting an $8.5 billion surplus for the 2008-2009 fiscal year.

What has been the major cause of the decline?

Economist Andre Plourde says it should come as no surprise that a “resource-based” economy is taking a hit as oil prices have dropped to US$35.

Clearly, Alberta is not an exception to what is going on internationally, but this should serve as a warning to Canada’s leaders to stay away from pursuing single commodity provincial economies.

Hopefully this green dialogue will turn into something more concrete, and the US will not leave Canada in the dust on environmental issues, rather Canada will re-affirm itself as an environmental leader.

Zimbabwe's New Beginning?

As I watch on tv and read online that Morgan Tsvangirai has been named the new Prime Minister of Zimbabwe, I can't help but to mentally survey through the many African leaders who have come to power riding a wave of new found hope and optimism, only to remain equally corrupt, or even worse, far more brutal than the previous leader.

To be clear, this is not a drastic change. Tsvangirai has been named the PM in a power sharing agreement.


But still, this is quite something. Mugabe has finally, at least outwardly, relinquished his deathly strangehold on what used to be a country full of immense potential.

I lived in Zimbabwe from about 1987-1989. I don't remember much, being a little kid, but I have seen many photos and heard many stories from my parents. The tranquil beauty of the countryside and warmth of the people were just some of the memories they had.

Mugabe was the first African leader of Zimbabwe, elected PM of the first non-colonial government since they gained their independence from Britain in 1980 after a lengthy civil war/revolution.

My father told me that there was alot of optimism about him back then. He, an Oxford graduate, was a war hero who arrived on the scene pledging a social agenda and for the first 5 years of his reign, for the most part, he kept it.

Historians will put more together in time, but for now, it appears that the lure of power was too much for Mugabe. In 1987, he abolished the position of Prime Minister and assumed the new office of executive President, essentially putting himself in charge of the entire government. He was "re-elected" in 1990 and 1996, and in 2002 amid claims of widespread vote-rigging and intimidation.

The rest, most of us know. In 1998, he redistributed all the white owned farms in the country, and incited acts of violence against white farmers. Since then, Zimbabwe has been in rapid and tragic decline as they have completely alienated themselves from the rest of the international system.

Currently, five million people (almost half the population) are starving, there is massive hyperinflation, 90% unemployment, and, more recently, about 3,400 people have died in cholera outbreak.

But things may slowly turn for the better in Tsvangirai can effectively re-open Zimbabwe's international ties. That, in the short term may be the most he can do as reversing Mugabes disastrous policies, particularly that of the farming redistribution will likely not be possibly.

Addressing a rally at a stadium in Harare, Mr Tsvangirai said the government had to "get the country working again".

"The first priority is to stabilise the economy," he said. "The economic collapse has forced millions of our most able to flee the country. This must end today."

Calling for an end to political violence, he said Zimbabwe could "no longer afford brother against brother, because one happened to have a different political opinion".

He said the government would make food "available and affordable", and promised to focus on the cholera crisis that has killed more than 3,400 people.

Mugabe, surprisingly has said that he will "fully cooperate with Tsvangirai in the best interest of the Zimbabwean country".

I am sceptically optimistic. I think about the faded images I have burned in my memory from looking at photos from that period. Mai Sheila, the very first nanny I ever had, with full cheeks, a warm smile and bright dark eyes. I used to walk to get water and milk with her every day.

For Mai Sheila, wherever she is, and countless others like her, I hope this change points to a brighter future.

North America vs. Europe for whom is the future brighter?

What began as an American national prime-mortgage lending crisis has quickly spread to Europe and the emerging markets of Asia, South East Asia and Latin America, transforming into one of the worst global financial crises since the Great Depression.

I had an interesting discussion online with a friend of mine the other day. This friend, is about to finish her Law Degree at City University in the UK.

She is originally from France, so I teasingly asked her when I could call her a London Barrister?

She replied that she doesn’t want to be a lawyer, despite the fact that she thoroughly enjoys her studies. In any case, she retorted, there are no jobs in the UK these days.

She has decided that she wants to do her Masters in Communication in NYC. I replied, with a smile, that the job market was likely just as bad in NYC. :)

This sparked off a lengthy conversation about which region of the world, Europe or North America will be better off in the long-run given the global economic crisis?

To be fair, we didnt talk about the outlook for the whole world. The National Intelligence Council Report predicts that by 2025, the global system will be multi-polar, with the US and China as the main players with Russia and Brazil and India also having increasingly more influence.

But for the sake of this particular examination, lets just focus on Europe and North America. In our discussion, I argued that North America is, most certainly better off.

Perhaps I have been in North American too long now, but if you look at European demographics and economic trends, the hard truth that their relevance on the international stage will decline is painfully obvious.

Aging Population and low birth and immigration rates

Based on current projections (NIC Report) the annual level of net immigration would have to double or triple to keep working-age populations from shrinking in Western Europe.

What does that mean?

Even with productivity increases, slower employment growth from a shrinking work force probably will reduce Europe’s already tepid GDP growth by 1%.

The NIC report shows that the entire EU economy will comprise of just barely over 10% of the entire global economy by 2050.

Birth rates aren’t incredibly high in North America, especially when compared with most developing countries, but at 11% (Canada) and 14% (US) they are higher than any EU country.

Moreover, the immigration rates are far higher in North America. Canada has the highest per capita immigration rate in the world driven by their economic and family reunification policies.

Only recently has Europe started to bring in more immigrants, perhaps as a desperate attempt to alleviate their labour shortages. According to the NIC, by 2025, non-European minority populations could reach significant proportions—15 percent or more—in nearly all Western European countries and will have a substantially younger age structure than the native population. But given growing discontent with current levels of immigrants among native Europeans, (to be exacerbated for sure, with more economic crisis) these increases are likely to heighten tensions.


Unemployment

My friend argued that 3 million American workers lost their jobs last year. That’s true, and a scary fact. (Up here in Canada 250,000 lost their jobs last year).

But the reality is that 3 million people correspond to 1% of the US population adding to what was a 6% unemployment rate.

France and Italy already have 8% unemployment rates, but a ridiculous 30% unemployment rate among people between 25-30 years old! Moreover, France and Italy have had 0% growth for the past decade!

My friend also argued that France has less poor people than the US, because of their social welfare system. That is also undeniably true for most of Europe as well. However, given their demographic and economic troubles, I'm not sure how much longer that system can last.

The only way Europe can fix their demographic deficits are to have cutbacks in health and retirement benefits, which most states probably don’t even want to contemplate. A strong social welfare state has been the politically uniting ideology of the EU since WWII. But with low economic growth, and aging population and a lack of popular will to increase immigration, what is going to happen?

Certainly the crisis is going to push the US (if Obama gets his way) into a more socially equitable economic structure. Canada already is very much a social welfare state. But north America has lots of resources, high economic growth, high birth rates and high immigration (especially Canada). So although this crisis is going to hurt, in my opinion the ability of North America to bounce back seems a lot more likely than that of Europe.

The big concern I have is that the challenge of integrating immigrant, especially Muslim, communities in Europe will become acute if citizens faced with a sudden lowering of expectations due to the struggling economy resort to narrow nationalism and concentrate on parochial interests.

If youre interested, check out the NIC Report:

http://www.dni.gov/nic/NIC_2025_project.html

Toronto Trip

Went to Toronto last weekend.

The big news here is that Laura had her final job interview with the International School of Qingdao AND WAS ACCEPTED! So next year it is confirmed that she will be teaching HS Biology at the Intl School of Qingdao!

As you can see from the photo above, we fit in a trip to the Hockey Hall of Fame. (see link below).

http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2285721&l=39f68&id=13602199

It was very cool.

Much more political analysis to come…