My Blog for Obama

Governance in South Asia

mumtazpiracha — Sat, 30 May 2009 07:54:39 EDT

Governance is a critical issue of the 21st century South Asia. It has assumed greater significance

in respect of Pakistan, India, and Afghanistan because of the strategic geo-political positioning

of these countries in the sub Asian region consisting of Pakistan, India, Afghanistan, Iran,

Russia, Central Asian Republics and China. This sub region has peculiar characteristics.

Read the full paper by Mumtaz Piracha at http://southasiagovernance.blogspot.com

Mr President: It is time to act as Global Leader

mumtazpiracha — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 13:22:08 EDT

To the best of my understanding, the US would prefer power-sharing between the PPP and the PMLN in Pakistan for the sake of continuity of the present civilian political setup and to ensure peace and stability at the same time; while the Pakistan military would prefer midterm elections to bring unity, cohesion and good governance in the country.

Absolute power never suits Pakistan; it breeds corruption, maladministration and stalls progress and prosperity to the people at large, irrespective of whether it is the civilian government or the military rule.

We need two-party system in Pakistan; one party in power and the other in opposition. The history tells us that military steps in whenever the party in power becomes unpopular with the people or with the military or with the US. There is no second choice. The party in power does not let the opposition play its role as a body to exercise checks and balances on the executive branch of the government and remain intact as a second choice.

It is so unfortunate that every government in Pakistan, civilian or military, has invariably resorted to the same tactics aimed at taming the bureaucracy, judiciary, parliament, media and military.

At this critical juncture, the long lasting solution lies in midterm elections under an interim multi-party national government with the support of the military and the independent election commission. It is only through fresh elections that the political parties/groups sitting outside the legislatures at the centre and the provinces can be inducted to bringabout national cohesion. Likewise, the representatives of smaller parties/groups in smaller provinces in particular can be given the opportunity to enter the legislatures with the support of the leading parties in the larger national interest. The general sense of deprivation in the smaller provinces especially in the rural areas can be minimized by the participation of the representatives of all parties/groups in the decision making of the federal and provincial governments.

A truce and patchup between the PPP and the PMLN is not likely to work. That time has already passed. The leader of the PMLN, Mian Nawaz Sharif, is now heading a mass people's movement rather than a merely lawyers' movement. That difference needs to be understood by all that matter in the politics and power of Pakistan.

At the moment, there is no check on the functioning of the government at the centre or the provinces. There is no will and no competence to address public issues. The whole country is beset with unbearably high inflation, widespread poverty, extremely poor law and order, economic stagnation or recession in the commercial and industrial sectors, absence of fair legal and social justice, political wranglings, sectarian, ethnic and religious divides of all sorts.

Pakistan has today become a country where the values of its founding fathers are fading away to give way to greed, corruption, class conflict, religious intolerance, social and economic inequalities and non-participation of the people in the decision-making of the government at all levels. Even the political party in power does not engage its rank-and-file echelons in the decision-making process of the party and the government.

As the Founder of the Pakistan's largest, most diversified and globally-searched Good Governance Forum, I call upon the US and its allies as well as the Pakistan military to help establish and strengthen the institutions i.e. parliament, judiciary and media to exercise checks and balances on the functioning of the executive. All the stakeholders have to act with absolute determination and indomitable will to put the country on its track as fast as possible.

Mumtaz A. Piracha

Founder & Moderator

Good Governance Forum

Karachi - Pakistan

--

Good Governance Forum, founded by Mumtaz A. Piracha, is indexed on hundreds of search engines across the globe. It is the largest, most diversified and most global platform of its kind for the exchange of views, opinions and ideas of learned men and women from almost all walks of life.

It is a non-political, non-ethnic and non-profit platform for exchange of views among the network members numbering 1000+. The actual number of our email readers runs into hundreds of thousands as our network members circulate emails of the forum in their social circles.

It does not assume any liability whatsoever for the network members' views nor does it necessarily agree
with them.

We respect privacy. Anybody can join in or opt out of the network any time by informing the forum via email.

Anybody can post his/her comments by visiting the blogsite and clicking on the link COMMENTS on its home page

Blogsite: http://ggovernance.blogspot.com
Email:
good.governance@gmail.com

What Mr Obama is to say?

mumtazpiracha — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 11:06:36 EST

Printed from

Redrawn South Asia map shows truncated Pakistan; sparks fear
23 Nov 2008, 1304 hrs IST, PTI

NEW YORK: A redrawn map of South Asia showing a truncated Pakistan, reduced to an elongated sliver of land, has sparked fear among military planners in Islamabad who think India and Afghanistan are "colluding" to destroy the only nuclear powered-Muslim nation with the US help, a media report said on Sunday.

The map, first circulated as a theoretical exercise in some American neoconservative circles, has fueled a belief among Pakistanis that what the United States really wants is the breakup of their country, the New York Times reported.

That notion, it says, may strike Americans as strange coming from an ally of 50 years but as the incoming Barack Obama administration tries to coax greater cooperation from Pakistan in the fight against militancy, it can hardly be ignored.

Pakistan, says the Times, is upset over the Indo-American civilian nuclear deal as also big investments made by New Delhi in Afghanistan.

In this context, the paper makes special reference to the Iranian border road which, it says, would ultimately provide access to India to Iranian port of Chabahar, circumventing Pakistan.

Also Read → Pak will not use N-weapons first against India: Zardari → PM proposes 100-day roadmap to tackle terror → Pakistani court indicts five over Bhutto assassination

Besides, India has offered training for Afghanistan's military, given assistance for a new Parliament building in Kabul and has re-opened consulates along the border with Pakistan, it adds.

The consulates, the Pakistanis allege, are used by India as cover to lend support to a long-running separatist movement in Baluchistan Province.

US military commanders, including Gen David H Petraeus, have started to argue forcefully that the solution to the conflict in Afghanistan, where the American war effort looks increasingly uncertain, must involve a wide array of neighbors.

Obama has said much the same. Several times in his campaign, he laid out the crux of his thinking. Reducing tensions between Pakistan and India would allow Islamabad to focus on the real threat the Qaeda and Taliban militants who are tearing at the very fabric of the country, he has argued.

But the Times says such an approach faces sizable obstacles, the biggest being the "conflict" over Kashmir.

Pakistan's army and intelligence agencies have long fought a proxy war with India by sponsoring militant groups to terrorize the people in Jammu and Kashmir, it noted.

After the 9/11 attacks, the paper says that Pakistan reined in those militants for a time, but this year the militants have renewed their incursions. Talks between the sides made some progress in recent years but have "petered out."

Pakistanis, it says, warn that the US should not appear too eager to mediate. First, they say, India has always regarded Kashmir as a bilateral question. India, they note, also faces a general election early next year, an inappropriate moment to push such an explosive issue.

Second, some Pakistanis are concerned about the reliability of the United States as a fair mediator, it adds.

"Given the US record on the Palestinian issue, where the Palestinians had to move 10 times backwards and the Israelis moved the goal posts, the same could happen here," Zubair Khan, a former commerce minister, is quoted as saying who has watched Kashmir closely.

If the Obama administration is indeed to convince Pakistanis that militancy, not the Indian Army, presents the gravest threat, it will not be easy, stresses the paper.

The new democratically elected President Asif Ali Zardari has visited the US twice since assuming power three months ago. He has been generous in his praise of the Bush administration. But that stance is criticized at home as fawning and wins him little popularity among a steadfastly anti-American public, the paper noted.

Among ordinary Pakistanis, many still regard al Qaeda more positively than the United States, it says, citing polls.

Talk shows here often include arguments that the suicide bombings in Pakistan are payback for the Pakistani Army fighting an American war.

Some commentators suggest that the US is actually financing the Taliban, the paper says, adding the point is to tie down the Pakistani Army, leaving the way open for the Americans to grab Pakistan's nuclear weapons.

Recently, in the officer's mess in Bajaur, the northern tribal region where the Pakistani Army is tied down fighting the militants, the paper says, one officer offered his own theory: Osama bin Laden did not exist, he told a visiting journalist.

Rather, he was a creation of the Americans, who needed an excuse to invade Afghanistan and encroach on Pakistan, he told a visiting journalist.

The map originally accompanied an article by Ralph Peters published in the US-based Armed Forces Journal in June 2006. About Us | Advertise with Us | Careers @ TIL | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Sitemap
Copyright © 2008 Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. All rights reserved. For reprint rights: Times Syndication Service
This site is best viewed with Internet Explorer 6.0 or higher; Firefox 2.0 or higher at a minimum screen resolution of 1024x768

What if it is true?

mumtazpiracha — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 10:33:17 EST

I Remember When a Trillion
Dollars Was Real Money

1) The Fed Pledges $7.2 Trillion of YOUR Money. Bloomberg News reports that the U.S. government is prepared to lend more than $7.4 trillion — approximately half the value of everything produced in the nation last year — to rescue the financial system, which has been in cardiac arrest since the credit markets seized up.

How much is that? The pledged money is equal to $24,000 for every man, woman and child in the country. And $2.8 trillion of that has already been spent, according to Bloomberg.
Now brace yourself for the bad news ...

2) The Government Has Already Spent $4.3 Trillion Bailing Out Wall Street. According to CNBC, as of last week, the Federal government had already spent $4.3 trillion in bailouts, from $900 billion for the Term Auction Facility ... to $112 billion bailing out AIG ... to $540 billion backing up Money Market funds ... to $700 billion for the Treasury Asset Relief Program (TARP), and more.
$4.3 trillion — that's more than America spent on World War II, adjusted for inflation. And it's all going down a black hole created by Wall Street bankers.

The Federal government has already spent $4.3 TRILLION in bailouts and has hardly made a dent in the financial crisis.

All that money has to come from somewhere. Investors are stuffing their money into Treasuries with no yield, and the government still has to go out and borrow more. The U.S. Treasury is on course to borrow $1.5 trillion this year, and it's still not enough! Next year's budget deficit will easily top $1 trillion; more than double this year's deficit.

The overall impact of what the bailout will cost ultimately should be very negative for the U.S. dollar ... and that should be bullish for gold.

3) Wall Street Is Probably Going to Need $Trillions More! The financial crisis is really the death of a thousand cuts. Let's take the Citigroup fiasco as an example. You may have heard that Citigroup is getting a $20 billion equity injection on top of the $25 billion it got in October.
But Citi will also carve out $300 billion in troubled assets, which will remain on its balance sheet.
The first $37-$40 billion in losses on those assets will go to Citi.

The next $5 billion in losses will hit Treasury.

The next $10 billion in losses will go to the FDIC.

Any more losses will go to the Fed.

These assets are crap-tacularly bad, so basically Uncle Sam is on the hook for another $260 billion in assets, in addition to the $45 billion in liquidity poured onto the desert of Citi's balance sheet.
And do you notice that the clowns on Wall Street are balking at giving Detroit a $25 billion bridge loan to save America's auto industry (and prevent a chain of dominos as all of the Big Three's suppliers, finance units and vendors go belly up) but Citi — a zombie of a bank that is probably lurching towards failure — gets $45 billion without even a debate.
That brings me to point #4 ...

#4) Obama's Administration: More of the Same? Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson has set the bar pretty low as he limbos past barriers of logic and fairness to bail out his fat-cat friends. So you might think that the new administration, and Obama's nomination for Treasury Secretary, New York Fed President Tim Geithner, would be a welcome change from the crony capitalism at work now.
The widely respected Big Picture blog has a post by institutional risk analyst Chris Whalen titled: "What Barack Obama Needs to Know About Tim Geithner, the AIG Fiasco and Citigroup." I highly recommend you read Whalen's post. He makes the following point:

By embracing Geithner, President-elect Barack Obama is endorsing the ill-advised scheme to support AIG directed by Hank Paulson et al at Goldman Sachs and executed by Tim Geithner and Ben Bernanke. News reports have already documented the ties between GS and AIG, and the backroom machinations by Paulson to get the deal done. This scheme to stay AIG's resolution cannot possibly work and when it does collapse, Barak Obama and his administration will wear the blame due through their endorsement of Tim Geithner.

Read the whole thing. If Whalen is right, the crisis of confidence already shaking the financial markets is nothing compared to the tsunami of trouble that will follow.

For more information and archived issues, visit http://www.moneyandmarkets.com

Politics in Pakistan: as grim as ever

mumtazpiracha — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 23:23:06 EST

Pakistan is a country that is currently lost in transition from the military rule to the civilian rule after the general elections of Feb 2008 and the 'forced' resignation of the former president General (r)Pervez Musharraf in Aug 2008 who had earlier got him elected from the outgoing parliament for another term of five years ending 2012.

General (r) Pervez Musharraf had assumed power in Pakistan by overthrowing the democratically-elected government of the former prime minister Mian Nawaz Sharif in a military coup on Oct 12, 1999 in a reaction to his dismissal by the former prime minister as the Chief of the Army Staff.

President Musharraf struck a deal with the former chairperson of the Pakistan People's Party (PPP), late Benazir Bhutto whereby she and her husband Asif Ali Zardari were allowed to return to Pakistan under the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) aimed at absolving them of all the pending cases of massive corruption, maladministration and criminal acts in the previous two stints of Benazir Bhutto as the prime minister of Pakistan.

Benazir Bhutto was assasinated on Dec 27, 2007 and the investigation of her murder was hushed up swiftly. After her tragic death, the PPP contested the elections and emerged as the largest single party at the federal level and in its home province of Sindh.

Asif Ali Zardari who had assumed the office of co-chairperson of the PPP after the death of her wife Benazir Bhutto contested the presidential election and won it by striking deals with other political parties after the then president Pervez Musharraf resigned per force.

The former prime minister Nawaz Sharif's Pakistan Muslim League (PML-N) received a majority vote in the provincial assembly of Punjab. It also turned out to be the second largest political party in the National Assembly.

Former president Pervez Musharraf-backed ruling party Pakistan Muslim League (PML-Q) emerged as the third largest party in the National Assembly but could not get a majority in any of the four provinces of Pakistan, though it has the second largest position in the Punjab provincial assembly.

As the situation stands today, the PPP is in power at the Centre in coalition with the Awami National Party (ANP), Jamiat-e-Ulema-e-Islam (JUI-F Group) and Motahidda Qaumi Movement (MQM). It heads the government in Sindh in coalition with the MQM. In Punjab, it is a coalition partner in the government headed by the president of PML-N, Mian Shahbaz Sharif, a younger brother of Mian Nawaz Sharif. In Balochistan province, it heads the provincial government in coalition with other small parties. It is also a coailition partner in the NWFP province headed by ANP.

The worst losers are the PML-N and PML-Q. Both factions were once part of a single party headed by the former prime minister Mian Nawaz Sharif. The party split into two factions after Mian Nawaz Sharif opted to go into exile in Saudi Arabia along with his brother Mian Shahbaz Sharif and other family members under a deal negotiate with the then president General Pervez Musharraf. The new faction called PML-Q was headed by Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain who joined hands with the then president Musharraf and formed the governments at the Centre and the provinces after the engineered elections of 2002 to give a civilian facade to the military rule of the then General Pervez Musharraf.

Both PML-N and PML-Q, the second and the third largest in the National Assembly are out of the federal government. PML-N is confined to the home province of Punjab. PML-Q has smaller presence in the provincial assemblies but does not occupy the treasury benches.

In Pakistan, it so happened that whenever the party in power lost the confidence of the people, there was no alternate leadership available to step in and form the government except in the 80's and 90's when the PML-N and PPP alternated in power. As a result of the vacuum, the military had the temptation and the backing of the stakeholders to step in and assume power in 1958, 1977 and 1999. The longest tenure of office has been that of the military rulers, each governing for 9-11 years at a stretch. more by force than mass popularity or genuine democratic elections.

Over the last six decades of its independence, Pakistan has remained devoid of democratic political institutions reaching out to the people at the grass-roots. The parliament and judiciary remained subservient to the executive in both civlian and military governments. The media remained under duress under almost all governments with a few exceptions.

Today, the president Asif Ali Zardari is practically the head of the State, head of the government as well as co-chairperson of the PPP. He has not relinquished the dictatorial powers of his predecessor Pervez Musharraf nor the office of the co-chairperson of the PPP. The prime minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani is there to implement what the president wants. The parliament is a lame-duck. The judiciary is filled with loyalists. The civilian bureaucracy is under siege. The military has accepted the PPP per force. There has never been healthy relations between the military, particularly the army, and the PPP right from the first PPP government of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto who was overthrown by the then Chief of the Army Staff, General Zia-ul-Haq in 1977.

Pakistan has been ruled by the military for 34 years of its chequered history of 61 years. Democracy could not flourish primarily because of the palace intrigues, military rule and the failure of the political parties to strengthen them and reach out to the people at the grass-roots by setting up their offices at the various levels in the country to interact with the people, particularly the 70% rural population. The parties were more than happy to get into power through the backdoor, most of the time, and remain in power through wheeling and dealing and the use of coercive power against the opposition.

The present government of the PPP, inducted in March 2008, is still unsettled. It has failed to come up with major innovative policies to bringabout a major change in any sector of the country. It is embroiled in intra-party conflicts as well as inter-party disputes. Inflation has shot up to 25% on the average and 35% in food items. The growth in the key economic sectors like agriculture, manufacturing and services has slowed down. Exports stand at half of the imports. Poverty is raging at more than 33%. Unemployment and under-employment is rampant. Law and order is in bad shape. Terrorism and militancy are going sky high within the settled areas of the country. Povery alleviation program of the previous regime is yet to take off and demonstrate its success. Social and legal justice for the have-nots remain a dream unfulfilled.

In a nutshell, the people of Pakistan, by and large, are losing confidence in the government of the PPP and hope in the future. It is high time the two factions of the Pakistan Musim League join hands and sit on the opposition benches in the National Assembly and the provincial assemblies of the Sindh, NWFP and Balochistan to exercise checks and balances on the ruling PPP governments and force the PPP federal and provincial governments to meet its constitutional obligations and create a social welfare state in peace. In the absence of a strong opposition party, it can be safely assumed that the country will have to face another decade of military rule, sooner than expected.

2.5 million jobs and corporate America

mumtazpiracha — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 12:28:43 EST

There are two significant aspects of the two-year job plan of the president-elect Obama. First, it will save or create 2.5 million jobs. Second, it will save or create jobs in the right sectors by 'investing billions of dollars to rebuild roads and bridges, modernize schools and develop alternative energy sources and efficient cars.'

Under the present and foreseeable economic senario, it is imperative to maintain consumer spending at its optimum level where the corporations could afford to produce and sell their products at affordable consumer prices. The corporations would need to invest in innovative technologies to reduce product cost and increase consumer satisfaction.

The US should expect falling prices and surplus agricultural and manufacturing production in other countries which will make competition tougher for the American companies, whether operating in the US or abroad.

The US needs to look for the avenues of increasing consumer disposable income and accelerating consumer buying to keep its factories running and jobs secured as well as to ensure revenue generation for the local, state and federal governments.

The American corporations need to restructure their organizations without cutting employment to make them more productive and cost efficient and to generate funds for investment in expansion, diversification or research and development for the future. They need to realize that they have to prepare themselves for competing in the global markets, rather than focusing on their domestic market alone.

The American corporations need to reduce their bank borrowings by generating their own revenues so as to reduce their dependence on credit and its cost.

The US needs to avoid deflation which is now the most-feared dilemma in the economic world.

http://mumtazapiracha.newsvine.com/_news/2008/11/23/2142469-obama-aide-promotes-job-plan-warns-automakers-on-yahoo-news

Al-Qaeda vows to hurt Obama's US

mumtazpiracha — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 13:01:58 EST

The second-in-command of Islamic militant network al-Qaeda has called on Muslims to harm"criminal" America.

In a message purportedly from Ayman al-Zawahiri, the al-Qaeda deputy accused US President-elect Barack Obama of betraying his Muslim roots.

BBC News: Middle East: 19 Nov 2008

After 9/11/2001, Al-Qaeda could not carry out a second attack on the US over the past seven years. Yet, the US is apprehensive of another attack from Al-Qaeda. President Bush may be right in his assumptions but the question is why the US is unable to locate, capture or kill Osama bin Laden and his close aides or destroy their hideouts inspite of all the might at its discretion such as the weapons of mass destruction, sophisticated intelligence apparatus, satelittes, hand-picked governments in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Does'nt it reflect adversely on the strength and sagacity of the US administration? Is the US so weak that it cannot eliminate an enemy like Al Qaeda who could not operate on the American soil after 9/11?

The world has diverging perceptions of the America's War on Terror. First, it is assumed to be just a bogey that President Bush has been carrying on his back for the last seven years to malign the Muslims and their religion Islam as well as to hide his own incompetence and failures elsewhere. Second, the US presumably does not have the competence, commitment and courage to disable Al-Qaeda. Third, Osama is assumed to be dead for he cannot possibly be alive after remaining on dialysis since late 90's. But the US is unwilling to accept it for reasons best known to President Bush.

Will President Obama has the moral courage to dig out the facts and tell the truth to the Americans and the world at large?

Challenges & Opportunities for Mr Obama

mumtazpiracha — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 05:43:39 EST

Mr Obama's historic victory bagging overwhelming majority of electoral and popular votes creates a new world perception of America and its people.

The presidential election has re-affirmed the commitment of the American people to their traditional values, beliefs, ethics and norms envisioned by the founding fathers.

It is both a formidable challenge and a great opportunity for Mr Obama to revive and reinforce the American value system by its practical application within and outside the US by his administration.

The Change has to come not only in America but also other parts of the world in the bilateral and multi-lateral engagements of the US administration.

The US will have to live up to the new world perception and American image - an image of a super power out there to protect and secure the world with peaceful co-existence. A super power that will live and let live by peaceful means and will fight against war-mongers and conflict-producers.

Founder & Moderator
Good Governance Forum
Pakistan

Web: www.ggovernance.co.cc

Email: good.governance@gmail.com

Invitation to Mr. Obama to visit Pakistan

mumtazpiracha — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 03:23:50 EST

Dear Mr. President-elect:

It may please you to know that 72% of the people in Pakistan voted for you in the online poll of Vote for President. The world voted 87% in the same poll. You can view the results on country to country basis on voteforpresident.org.

Like the overwhelming majority of the Americans and the people around the world, Pakistan also looks ahead to HOPE and CHANGE in the role of the United States as a super power for promoting peace, prosperity and brotherhood across the continents. The World have had enough of conflicts, wars and destruction. It is now the time to build the world and improve upon the inter-state relations.

By voting you to the White House, the Americans earned immense applaud and appreciation from the rest of the world. The people of the United States have proved that the American values are still in place. The American people handed down a new era of HOPE and CHANGE to fellow beings not only in the US but across the lands and seas of the Mother Earth as well.

As you know, our part of the world comprising Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, India, Russia, Central Asian Republics and China have assumed singular importance for the US and the West. You also stated in your statements during the election campaign that your government's focus will shift from Iraq to Afghanistan and Pakistan.

There are divergent views among the people in Pakistan with regard to the War on Terror in the tribal belt. Many aspects of the war remain unexplained to the Pakistanis. Many issues involved in the War on Terror on Pakistan-Afghanistan fragile and porous border remain unresolved. A great majority of Pakistanis are certainly against terrorism in any form and against any country. There is hell of a difference between terrorism and oft-repeated 'Jihad.' Nowher in the history of Muslim rule spread over the past 1400+ years, one can find a period of terrorism in the name of 'Jihad.'

It appears from the media reports that the whole issue of terrorism is camouflaged in many forms and factors. There are Al-Qaeda, Afghan Taliban, Pakistan Taliban, foreign infiltrators and a host of other groups and sections of people embroiled for known and unknown reasons.

As the pressure builds up in the tribal belt from the US and Pakistan military operations, the people in other parts of Pakistan are subjected to terrorist attacks and many innocent lives are lost, private and public property is damaged and the people are scared.

Before you ascend to the White House, it might be a good opportunity for you to visit Pakistan any time before Jan 20, 2009 to gather first-hand information from more than more source. That will certainly help you and your administration to review the government policy and frame a new policy, more objective, unbiased, and practical. Rest assured, we are with you in your fight against terrorism but we need to know who and where are the terrorists and how they can be eliminated with the least loss of innocent lives, civilian and military, and spread of terrorism in other parts of Pakistan and Afghanistan.

I am the Founder & Moderator of the largest online forum on good governance in Pakistan where the learned people from almost all segments of our society including intellectuals, educationists, civil society activists, media persons, politicians, parliamentarians, religious scholars, businessmen, industrialists, authors and writers, civilian bureaucracrats and military officers, diplomats etc. exchange their views and opinions as well as suggestions and recommendations on key national and international issues.

On behalf of the Good Governance Forum and on my own behalf, I most sincerely extend our most cordial invitation to you to visit Pakistan as the future President of the United States of America and be our Guest of Honour at a special session of the forum at Karachi or Islamabad, if the security concerns do not permit your visit to Karachi. Our learned members would have the rare opportunity of listening to the US President-elect and putting across their considered views in the larger interest of both the countries and the region as a whole.

I sincerely wish you every success in your sincere endeavours for a Better America and a Better World.

Kind regards.

Mumtaz A. Piracha

CLARIFICATION FROM AUTHOR

mumtazpiracha — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 10:52:40 EST

The author of the blog is the Founder & Moderator of Good Governance Forum in Pakistan. Some of the emails addressed to the network members of the Good Governance Forum on topics related to the US over the last few months are now posted on this blog. The blog visitors will, therefore, be viewing the original dates of the emails.

Good Governance Forum, headed by its Founder & Moderator Mumtaz A. Piracha, is indexed among the Top 100 of One Million listings on World's No. 1 search engine Google.

It is a non-political, non-ethnic and non-profit platform for exchange of views among the network members numbering 1000+ belonging to almost all segments of the civil society of Pakistan including scholars, educationists, civil society activists, parliamentarians, politicians, journalists, businessmen, industrialists, bureaucrats, military officers and so on.

Who is a friend: Who is a foe?

mumtazpiracha — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 10:35:14 EST

dateWed, Jul 16, 2008 at 5:26 PMsubjectWho is a friend: who is a foe?mailed-bygmail.com hide details Jul 16 Reply The other day an American posed the following question on a website: Why are we hated?. He meant the whole world, no specific country. That prompted me to sit back and reflect upon the history of Pakistan-US long friendship over the past 50 plus years. History has been one of my pet subjects at Forman Christian College. My great American history teacher, Mr. S. E. Brush, always graded my papers with over 90% marks but never explained why he deducted the balance and I never asked him, either. He was a great teacher, a wonderful conversationalist and true a friend of Pakistanis. I fully agree with President Bush when he asks of President Musharraf: "you are a friend or a foe." As the history of Pakistan-U.S. relations reveals, Pakistan has always been a true friend of America, a staunch supporter and an unwavering ally. But the U.S. administrations invariably let down its friend and ally at almost all critical junctures. Let me briefly state a few facts for our great friend America. 1. Pakistan was winning the 1965 war but President Ayub Khan was made to rush to Tashkent to sign, under duress, the infamous Tashkent Declaration that ended the Indo-Pak war. Why? America suspended supply of military arms, ammunition and spare parts to Pakistan after the war broke out. Why? Either to oblige India or to throw out the government of President Ayub Khan. 2. The U.S. promised help but did not extend it when the Indian forces marched into the then East Pakistan in 1970 and backed up the insurgency against the government of Pakistan which ultimately led to the break up of Pakistan and the formation of Bangladesh. Pakistan lost half of its country, thanks to the U.S friendship. 3. The U.S. let the first democratically elected prime minister of Pakistan, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, be hanged for his defiance of the wishes or orders of the U.S. to roll back Pakistan's nuclear programme. Pakistan, a friend of the US, was not permitted to develop nuclear weapons as a deterrent against its long-time foe India, a friend of the Soviet Union, who already possessed nuclear weapons for possible use against Pakistan. 4. The U.S. put tremendous pressure on the democratically elected government of prime minister Mian Nawaz Sharif to refrain from detonating its nuclear bomb. India, a long-time known friend of the Soviet Union could have the nuclear weapons but not Pakistan, a long-time known friend of the U.S. 5. Pakistan had virtually choked the Indian supply line at Kargill in 1999. The U.S. came to the help of India and forced Pakistan to wrap up its Kargil operation to the detriment of Pakistan and the liberation of Occupied Kashmir where India has time and again grossly violated human rights. 6. Pakistan fought the America's proxy war in Afghanistan from 1979-1989 to protect the U.S. interests in the region and to help the Afghan people force out the Soviet forces from their country. The Soviet-Afghan War was fought with the finest blend of intelligence services, training, strategies, and cost, thanks to Pakistan. Let us have a glimpse of the documented figures of the Soviet-Afghan War: Cost to the U.S: The U.S. has spent over a trillion dollars on its invasion of Iraq and is still spending ten billion dollars a month for its stay there. How much the U.S. spent on Soviet-Afghan War? The United States donated "$600 million in aid per year, with a matching amount coming from the Gulf states." (Kepel, Gilles, Jihad, Belknap, (2002), p.143). Cost to Pakistan: " In retaliation for Pakistan's assistance to the insurgents [Afghan mujahideen], the KHAD Afghan security service, under Afghan leader Mohammad Najibullah, carried out (according to the Mitrokhin archives and other sources) a large number of operations against Pakistan. In 1987, 127 terrorist incidents resulting in 234 deaths in Pakistan. In April 1988, an ammunition depot outside the Pakistani capital of Islamabad was blown up killing 100 and injuring more than 1000 people, the KHAD and KGB suspected in the perpetration of these acts." (Kaplan, Soldiers of God, p.12). Pakistan also housed 5 million Afghan refugees on its soul; most of them are still there. Cost to USSR: Soviet losses: 14,453-15,051 killed 53,753 wounded, 417 missing, 415,93 ( "Россия и СССР в войнах XX века. Потери вооруженных сил. Статистическое исследование. Под общей редакцией кандидата военных наук, профессора АВН генерал-полковника Ф. Кривошеева, Москва "Олма-Пресс", 2001, (Russian) N. F. Ivanov, Operation Storm to Begin Earlier, Chapter 1 Moscow: Voenizdat, 1993) . Cost to Afghanistan: Estimated over one million Afghan civilians and combatants killed, 5.5 million displaced. Pakistan took in millions of Afghan refugees fleeing the Soviet occupation...the influx of so many refugees - believed to be the largest refugee population in the world (Amnesty International file on Afghanistan) 7. The U.S. and Nato are today planning to attack and destroy the very people or their children and their homes and their sources of livelihood who fought for the Americans in the 80's, forced out the Soviet Union in a long-drawn war of 9 years, caused dismemberment of the USSR and made the U.S. the sole super power of the world.
As a student of history and political science, I am confused over the question: Who is the friend, Who is the foe. Can anybody help me understand?

The Taliban: myths and mystery

mumtazpiracha — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 10:27:09 EST

dateWed, Aug 27, 2008 at 11:18 PMsubjectThe Taliban: myths and mysterymailed-bygmail.com Reply The title "Taliban" is now being used as a generic name to refer to militants, terrorists, extremists, Islamists, fundamentalists, Jihadis etc. related to Islam and the Muslims. The history of Taliban, their origin and role in Afghan Jihad, their rule over Afghanistan in the past and the presently available media reports depict an altogether different scenario. During the Afghan Jihad when the Afghans were made to fight the Soviet occupation forces, the casualties on the Afghan side turned out to be far more than those of the Soviet forces. Afghans had never fought such a war with such a trained army with so much of sophisticated weaponry in their history. They were also easy targets for the Soviet air strikes as they did not know how to protect themselves against air attacks. It was altogether a new experience for Afghans who were just ordinary citizens. The regular Afghan army was attached with the USSR-sponsored Afghan government in Kabul. Seeing the growing number of deaths of the Afghan Mujahideen, it was probably felt inevitable to train young Afghans in the religious seminaries called madressahs in the NWFP and Balochistan and imbibe in them the Islamic tenet of 'Jihad' and strengthen their ideological commitment to it. These young students were called Taliban. The word 'Taliban' is the plural of the word 'Talib" meaning the seeker of knowledge (religious knowledge in this context). They went back after completing their basic religious education in the border provinces of NWFP and Balochistan. Contrary to the general assumption, these youngsters did not receive military training in madressahs in Pakistan for the simple reason that the madressahs did not have the resources to provide such training to them. The Taliban were probably employed as back-up force by the Afghan Mujahideen. The word 'Mujahideen' means the persons who engage themselves in Jihad (a holy war for the sake of Islam). The Mujahideen were ordinary Afghans who received military training to use the modern weapons and learn the techniques of modern warfare to fight the occupation forces of the USSR. After the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet forces, the US induced Pakistan to assum the responsibility of helping the Afghan people in their war for the independence, sovereignty and integrity of their country. ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence) was reportedly entrusted the task of mobilizing the various Afghan tribes (70+) and unifying them into the Mujahideen fighting force. These tribes were historically controlling their individual territories and were later referred to as 'war lords' in common parlance. These were the people who fought against the Soviet forces. ISI was reportedly responsible for training the Mujahideen in modern warfare, sophisticated weapons, target killing as well as devising and implementing military strategies in consultation with the Pakistan military, Afghan Mujahideen and the US experts. The ISI reportedly served as the link between the Mujahideen and the US and Pakistan. When the time came for the Soviets to pull out from Afghanistan, the then president of Pakistan General Zia-ul-Haq wanted to install a national government, comprising representatives of the various factions of Mujahideen, before the Soviets pulled out. However, the then prime minister Muhammad Khan Junejo was reportedly enticed by the then US administration to sign the Geneva Accords without the formation of the national government in Afghanistan. Once the Soviets left Afghanistan, the old tribal society structure sprang into being and tribal chiefs or 'war lords' emerged controlling specific territories of Afghanistan. They were now trained warriors equipped with weapons, rockets, tanks, armoured carriers etc. from the leftover of the Afghan Jihad. In the absence of a central authority, the country turned into chaotic conditions, law and order crumbled and the lives of the ordinary people became insecure. There was no authority in place to rebuild the ravaged Afghanistan. There was practically no formal economy in place, no political system in operation and no parliament and judiciary in functioning order. It was a situation of 'Free for All.' In 1996, the then government of Pakistan decided to move in and help Taliban establish their government in Afghanistan to ensure peace and tranquility, not only in Afghanistan but also in the entire region. It was reportedly done on the directive of the then U.S. administration. The Taliban, reportedly numbering 50,000, rose to the occasion and brought peace, law and order and justice to the people of Afghanistan. They ruled for 5 years till 2001. During this time, there was hardly any reference to the existence of Al Qaeda or militants, terrorists, extremists, at least not to my knowledge. Osama bin Laden and his colleagues and foreign warriors might have been there but their existence was not publicly known or publicized. After the tragedy of 9/11, the US administration believed the attack on the Twin Towers in New York was master-minded by Al Qaeda, assumed to be led by Osama bin Laden and his colleagues. The U.S. attacked Afghanistan and installed the government of Hamid Karzai in Kabul. The US and Nato also moved their ground troops to protect the new government. President Hamid Karzai could not enlarge his rule beyond Kabul and a few surrounding small cities. The rest of the territory remained with the Taliban. A number of splinter groups emerged after the establishment of the government of Hamid Karzai who reportedly engaged themselves in attacking the occupation forces of the US and Nato as well as Afghan army and government officials in a bid to force them to leave Afghanistan. These splinter groups called themselves differently but used the word Taliban in one form or the other, although these groups do not appear to be part of the original Taliban who ruled Afghanistan from 1996-2001. The Taliban installed in power in 1996 did not show signs of militancy or terrorism during their entire period of five years. They remained confined to Afghanistan and did not indulge in cross-border excursions. After the disintegration of the Taliban regime, many Taliban and others who had come from abroad to participate in Afghan Jihad reportedly migrated to Pak-Afghan border areas to protect themselves and live in peace. After the US attack on Afghanistan, it was generally publicized in the foreign media that the Taliban as well as their old foreign associates were hiding in the tribal belt of Pakistan-Afghanistan and launching attacks on the US and Nato forces. It was also publicized that the Taliban and/or Al Qaeda (the relationship between Taliban and Al Qaeda remains unclear) could become a major source of terrorism in the whole world, particularly the US and the West, if they were allowed to remain in place. So, the US virtually forced the government headed by the president Pervez Musharraf to launch an all-out hunt to locate, arrest or kill terrorists throughout the tribal belt. The tribal belt of Pakistan is legally known as FATA (Federally Administered Tribal Areas) comprising seven tribes or agencies with a population of almost six million (2003 estimate) and 27,000 kilometres of land space. The entire territory contains open space, valleys and mountains, extremely hazardous for the regular troops who could be easily ambushed, killed or arrested. Air strikes are not effective because the militants could easily take shelter in their hideouts or the mountains. Generally, it is the ordinary people who are hit by the air strikes and who are now migrating to other parts of NWFP for their safety. As far as my knowledge goes, neither the US nor Pakistan has authentic, reliable and actionable information about the precise location, activities and plans of militants. Blind shots are being fired here and there, killing innocent men, women and children, leading to deeper hatred against the Allied forces among the Afghan people. The military operations by the Pakistan Army and paramilitary troops have'nt been able to make inroads into the Taliban or Al Qaeda controlled territories. The largely fragmented information about the organizational structure of Taliban or Al Qaeda is hardly of any use in locating, arresting or killing the key members of these organizations. The 'War on Terror' in FATA is more like Vietnam War fought by the US and its allies for 16 years with far more losses than gains. Fighting people whose nature, customs, and tactics are barely known is always hazardous. The US and its allies learned it the hard way in Vietnam and are, therefore, reluctant to move their ground troops into the tribal belt. Pakistan Army could be aware of the nature, customs and tactics of these people as its troops include Pukhtoons but then there is the horrible risk of preparing the ground for a civil war within Pakistan. Can the Pakistan Army and paramilitary troops afford such a horrendous task is a big, big question, puzzling the minds of the people and the Army itself. What is needed to be done is a thorough, unbiased, and indigenous review of the Taliban and Al Qaeda phenomena to lay bare the facts, remove myths and mystery, and programme measures to eliminate the threat of militancy or terrorism under a comprehensive plan aimed at eliminating the root-cause of militancy or terrorism and creating conditions conducive to peaceful co-existence.

War on Terror: Where Pakistan Stands

mumtazpiracha — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 09:50:43 EST

dateWed, Oct 1, 2008 at 6:33 PM The 'War on Terror' has become the most-talked about, written-about and propagated and publicized topic around the world and particularly in Pakistan. There are more than 16 million entries under the search term 'War on Terror' on the world's #1 search engine, Google. There are over 3 million entries under the search term 'Pakistan War on Terror.' A wide collection of articles, books and documents are listed. It is simply impossible to scan the entire collection or a sizeable part of it. A few glances over the literature, however, do give you an overall picture of global terrorism. Richard Miniter's book "Shadow War," Jordan J. Paust's book " Beyond the Law," Bill Sammon's book "Fighting Back," and the websites www.socialistworker.org, http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/usterror.html, http://www.amnestyusa.org/war-on-terror/page.do?id=1021007&n1=3&n2=821, and a host of articles published in the newspapers and journals provide a 'peep' and food for thought. Since the 'War on Terror' is still in progress and classified information is yet to be de-classified, the historians are unable to pen down authentic, unbiased, and well-documented episodes of the whole war or parts thereof. It is almost impossible to draw ENTIRELY objective, authentic and reliable conclusions from the compilation of documents available on the Internet. There are far more assumptions, conflicting statements and divergent views. As far as I could decipher the documents and understand the phenomenon of 'War on Terror,' I share my conclusions with you within the sphere of limitations cited above. 1. The War on Terror is based on the terrorist attacks that took place against the US establishments in the various parts of the world prior to 9/11 and the 9/11 attack on World Trade Center in New York. All those incidents are clubbed to form an overall picture of the mastermind who is assumed to be Osama bin Laden, leading his 'Al Qaeda' from the rugged mountains of Afghanistan and Pak-Afghan border. 2. The leads from the terrorist attacks in various arts of the globe has taken the US to Afghanistan and Pakistan in pursuit of the perpetrators, assumed to be part of the 'Al Qaeda' network. 3. It is assumed that Osama bin Laden is heaquartered in Afghanistan or Pak-Afghan border alongwith his 'Al Qaeda' leadership, masterminding terrorist attacks on the US and Nato forces stationed in Afghanistan. The focus has shifted and confined to terrorist attacks in Afghanistan and the presumed presence of 'Al Qaeda' leadership in this region. 4. Afghanistan is being ruled by AfghanTaliban, Afghan war lords and Kabul government of President Hamid Karzai in their controlled parts of Afghanistan. There is no single government in place. 5. Afghan Taliban's activities are confined to Afghanistan. It is simply impossible for them to cross the Pak-Afghan border and engage themselves in the tribal belt or elsewhere in Pakistan. 6. The militants assumed to be operating in the tribal belt are altogether a different lot. These are, in all probability, the local armed men who are defending themselves and their foreign 'guests' who fought in the 'Afghan Jihad' against the Soviet Union and later migrated from Afghanistan to the tribal belt after the US attack on Aghanistan in 2001.' These armed men do not have the motive, desire and capacity to enter and attack in other parts of Pakistan or Afghanistan. 7. The terrorist attacks within Pakistan do not appear to have a link to the Afghan Taliban or Fata militants. These attacks, in all probability, are being planned and executed by a multitude of organizations banned under the label of terrorist organizations. They are fighting a 'Jihad' against the US and the 'friends' of America who are supporting the US in its War on Terror. For them, it is obviously a 'Jihad' against the Jewish-Christian forces who are assumed to have their own 'nefarious' designs to eliminate Muslims and Islam. 8. A fourth force at work, in all probability, comprises the hired mercenaries who are carrying out terorist attacks within Pakistan at the behest of our great neighbour who assumes and propagates that every terrorist attack in its country or Kashmir is planned and executed by Pakistan's intelligence agencies through 'Jihadi' outfits. 9. A fifth force at work, in all probability, comprises the localized armed fighters who are trained to fight against the government in Pakistan for their rights at the behest of their localized eaders "The comprehensive study analyzes 648 terrorist groups that existed between 1968 and 2006, drawing from a terrorism database maintained by RAND and the Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism" is worth reading. I will be emailing it to you. The whole situation is a cobweb of linkages from various sources. There is a Afghan Taliban-led war of independence against the US and Nato in Afghanistan, there is a resistance movement in Fata, there is a conglomerate of 'Jihadi' outfits operating against the US and its Pakistani friends, there are India's sponsored terrorist groups and there are localized armed human rights activists in sensitive parts of Pakistan. I am of the view that we need a comprehensive multi-faceted strategic plan to deal with terrorism. There is NO all-embracing single solution. The strategic plan will certainly need investment of billions of dollars and rupees in our civilian intelligence network, law enforcement agencies, infra-structural development in the affected regions, consistent and sustainable reforms in education to undo the brainwashing of people in sensitive parts of the country and systematic support linkage between the civilian and military intelligence agencies. I sincerely and strongly urge you all to please ponder over the scenario, think about the possible solutions and email them to me asap. It is our national duty to be concerned about our national issues. All of you, Masha Allah, are learned persons and should have no difficulty in accessing the Internet, forming your own views and suggesting measures. Being indifferent won't turn back the catastrophe or change the course of history. A dynamic society prepares for the future; a status quo society waits for the future. You better decide.

The missing persons and their families - an humanitarian appeal

mumtazpiracha — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 09:38:34 EST

H.H. Anne W. Patterson US Ambassador to Pakistan Islamabad Your Excellency: I take the liberty of requesting for a few moments of your precious time to help solve an ongoing humanitarian issue in our country. I am confident your personal attention will be of great help to the missing persons as well as their families living in constant state of anxiety, tension and grief. It is hard to say whether the missing persons are hauled up by the civilian intelligence agencies, military intelligence agencies, kidnappers for ransom, human traffickers or any of the militant organizations. Nor it is discernable as to whether a missing person is picked up for interrogation within Pakistan or outside Pakistan. Generally, it is assumed that the intelligence agencies, civilian or military, pick up suspects for interrogation for their suspected links to militant organizations either on their own or at the behest of the US. The exact number of missing persons, especially those assumed to have been picked up by the intelligence agencies, is uncertain. Estimates vary from 150 to 400 persons in all, as reported in the newspapers from time to time. On behalf of the Good Governance Forum and on my own behalf, I would request you to kindly help in establishing a channel of communication between the intelligence agencies in Pakistan and the US and the aggrieved families of the missing persons in Pakistan. The affected families of the missing persons should at least know whether or not their dear ones were REALLY picked up by the intelligence agencies in the first place. If the missing persons are found to be in the custody of the intelligence agencies in Pakistan or the US, there should be some form of communication between the missing persons and their families. Knowing a dear one is alive, safe and living does make a difference to the family. It gives the family hope of a possible reunion in the future. Good Governance Forum does not intend to take a position on the issue. The issue may be far more complex than what one can visualize. Our concern is primarily focused on the humanitarian aspect of the issue and what best can be done to meet the basic requirement of law and human rights in whatever way it is feasible. Kind regards. Sincerely, Mumtaz A. Piracha Founder & Moderator Good Governance Forum Karachi

Obama is coming

mumtazpiracha — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 09:32:02 EST

ateWed, Oct 29, 2008 at 4:33 PMsubjectOBAMA IS COMING: TESTING TIMES FOR POLITICIANS IN PAKISTANmailed-bygmail.com Reply God be willing, Obama is all set to win the presidential election by a landslide victory. I am worried about the politicians of Pakistan Who will be able to speak to him? And speak to him on the same level of intelligence, knowledge and understanding of national and international affairs? Our polticians in general are hard pressed for time; they dont read news, articles, and editorials pubished in Pakistan and abroad. They dont read history of Pakistan and the world. They dont read biographies of world leaders including Mohammad Ali Jinnah. They dont look outside the tinted glasses of their airconditioned 4 x 4 motor vehicles. They dont interact with the public; they interact only with their sycophants. They dont listen to criticism; they only listen to 'praise' of their courtiers. They dont know what is happening in the length and breadth of their own constituency, province, and country, not to speak of the world. They dont know what are the public issues in Pakistan, region and the world at large. They dont know how to serve their electorate. They dont know how to serve the nation. They dont remember their own public statements and commitments, past and present. They dont know what to speak about in parliament. Our politicians in general are devoid of a sense of duty to their country, nation and electorate. They dont know how to serve the people, the man on the street or men, women and children living in unhygienic and inhuman conditions in huts and hutments. They dont know how it feels to be hungry and thirsty, without food and water. They dont know how to feel when one is sick, one wife's is sick or one's child is sick but there is no money to travel to a doctor, pay his fee or buy medicines.They rush to London for medical checkups on party's or government's expense, but expect others in Pakistan to go to government clinics and hospitals without adquate and qualified staff, equipment and medicines. They live like Kings, spend like Kings and think like........, nothing beyond. Mumtaz A. Piracha Founder & Moderator Good Governance Forum Karachi

How this happened

mumtazpiracha — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 09:26:22 EST

From: Good Governance Forum <good.governance@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 9:45 PM
Subject: Re: How this happened
To: Barack <info@barackobama.com>
c.c. senator_obama@obama.senate.gov

Dear Mr. President-elect: It is a great day for all Americans. It is a great day for the whole World. It is a great day for the entire history of mankind. My heartiest felicitations and best wishes for you, First lady-to-be Michelle and your lovely daughters Malia and Sasha. May God help you do what He has designed for you. Warmest regards. Sincererly, Mumtaz A. Piracha Founder & Moderator Good Governance Forum Karachi - Pakistan

On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 6:21 PM, Barack Obama <info@barackobama.com> wrote:
Mumtaz --

I'm about to head to Grant Park to talk to everyone gathered there, but I wanted to write to you first.

We just made history.

And I don't want you to forget how we did it.

You made history every single day during this campaign -- every day you knocked on doors, made a donation, or talked to your family, friends, and neighbors about why you believe it's time for change.

I want to thank all of you who gave your time, talent, and passion to this campaign.

We have a lot of work to do to get our country back on track, and I'll be in touch soon about what comes next.

But I want to be very clear about one thing...

All of this happened because of you.

Thank you,

Barack

My comments on Obama in The Washington Post

mumtazpiracha — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 09:23:39 EST

he landslide victory of Barack Obama, after a gruelling 21-month long campaign, brings home many a truth about America. His splendid win as the first black American to become the president uplifts the Americans'image as a natin around the world. He would also probably be the first American president who received almost 90% votes in polls and surveys across the world.

Obama stood out in many ways. Throughout his campaign, he focused on issues rather than his opponent's physical or mental characteristics. He presented his views with courage, confidence and conviction. He proved to be a superb orator with fantastic memorization of his words. He spoke extempore and spoke clearly, candidly and convincingly. His campaign theme of America: We Need Change was marvellously projected by his creative team through phenomenal use of web-based emails. Almost every day, one found an email from his campaign office addressed to the receiver by his/her first name telling him/her about what had gone, what was going on and what is going to happen. He mobilized the whole world, not just the United States. He asked for small donations of ten and five dollars but asked them consistently and generated millions from Americans. He has proved his mettle as a campaigner. He will now have to prove his competence as the president. He will be entering the White House amidst huge challenges and tasks from almost all sides within and outside the US. His brilliance as well as mental and physical stamina will be put to hotwater test. He has unified the Americans. The world citizens will expect him to unify the world and overwhelmingly support peace, prosperity and progress, end ongoing conflicts and prevent simmering conflicts between the nations. He will be expected to make the U.S. a super power in peace than in war.

11/5/2008 11:50:49 AM
Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/05/AR2008110501769_Comments.html#
--

Will change in America bring change in Pakistan

mumtazpiracha — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 09:21:03 EST

With the change in America, it is expected that there will be a change in Pakistan. It may appear to be just a theoretical assumption at the moment but the time will Insha Allah prove that it will happen in the same way as I said many a time in my writings in this forum and elsewhere that Barack Obama will have a 'landslide victory, that he 'will make it to the White House, come what may, Insha Allah,' and that he will have 'more than 50% popular votes.' All these categorical statements have proved to be correct.

It is generally believed that the foreign policies of the US government remain almost the same in every government. Yes, they do but only in specific spheres and only in their essence, not necessarily in their modus operandi. At the same time, every US president does try to make his own mark. Barack Obama is, undoubtedly, one of them. He proved many political pundits wrong in many ways. He got 40% of the votes amongst the whites, majority votes from Latinos, and a great majority amongst the blacks. He formed an outstanding team that campaigned for him in many unique ways. He generated millions of dollars from individual donations of as low as $ 5. He mobilized not just Americans, but the whole world. He received almost 90% votes worldwide in online polls and surveys.

After the elections, Roy Morgan conducted a worldwide online poll on the question of whether Obama will be a good president. The answer is Yes, by 85%.

I read Obama's biography many a time, watched his election campaign, and scrutinized his public statements and assertions. I can be wrong, like all human beings, but my intuition is firm. He will, Insha Allah, prove himself to be a totally different president than his predecessor, for the betterment of his country and the world.

One thing that stands out about Obama is very clear and subtle. He will seek or, maybe, demand performance from all, including the US alllies that his administration supports with money or materials, particularly Afghanistan and Pakistan, in their own domestic affairs as well as foreign alliances. He won't be supporting parasites, crooks and incompetent allies. He won't like to carry their burden within or outside their home countries.

My predictions about Mr Obama come true

mumtazpiracha — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 05:24:27 EST

I am the founder and moderator of Good Governance Forum in Pakistan.

It is an online non-political, non-ethnic and non-profit platform for exchange of views among the network members numbering 1000+ belonging to almost all segments of the civil society of Pakistan including scholars, educationists, civil society activists, parliamentarians, politicians, journalists, TV anchor persons, businessmen, industrialists, civil servants, military officers and so on.

I had made three predictions about Mr. Obama. First, he will win by a 'landslide victory.' 'Obama will make it to the White House, come what may, God be willing.'He will poll 'over 50%' popular votes. All of them have come true in the same way as the Americans' dream.

I read Mr Obama's biographical sketches many a time, watched his campaign, and scrutinized his public statements and assertions. He is the right person for the right job for the US as well as the world seeking peace, prosperity and progress.

Although Mr Obama has listed 25 public issues on his website, I am of the view that his top 3 priorities for the first 100 days in office would be to plan and implement measures to takeAmerica out of its financial crisis, to withdraw American troops from Iraq and to bring 'War on Terror' to a logical conclusion.

Mr Obama as the president of the United States, would be expected to make the United States a super power for peace rather than war and make America and the world a safe place for all.

Mr Obama's win has enormously added to the public perception of the Americans, their values and their commitment to change and change for the better for a long time to come.

According to the various online polls and surveys, Mr. Obama received 87% of the world votes.

Let us wish and hope that Mr Obama will come upto the expectations of the Americans as well as the world with the undaunted support of his fellow Americans and fellow beings across the globe.

blogsite: www.ggovernance.co.cc

email: good.governance@gmail.com

Let Obama come for changing America and the World

mumtazpiracha — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 23:19:07 EDT

There is hardly a thing going against Obama. His credentials are impeccable. He is extra-ordinarily intelligent, extremely hardworking, and very confident. He is very knowledgable, straight-forward and endowed with a vision. He knows what America needs and he knows he can provide it.

Change for America will mean Change for the World. The US needs to create a new image of being an all-weather friend of its allies. It needs to carve out a new image of being a friend rather than foe to the world. It needs to develop,sustain and promote a new image of the whole America as a country that has values, ethics and norms to live and let live others on the planet Earth.

Americans must be treated with true love, respect and honour across the globe as a nation that is supportive, caring and committed to the interests of the people around the world. America must not be feared as a super power with military might. It should be perceived as a super power for peace, humanitarian support and a great barrier against aggression in any part of the world.

America must promote peace, security and democracy in the world. It must not support dictators, civilian or military, and the rulers with tainted past or present. It must keep the company of such allies who are clean, enjoy public support in their own countries and share values with the US.

The world has already voted for Obama with over 80% majority. The world, too, needs a Change and it is the super powers or the big powers that have to help the world nations bring about the Change. The world needs to be free of violence, terrorism, hunger, infringement of civil liberties, insecurity and hegemony of foreign bullies.

Let Obama come for changing America and the World.