Another Girl, Another Planet

Meet Our Minister: He's Incompetent and Corrupt

2011-09-13T09:53:00.002+08:00

The Afghanistan Embassy in Norway apparently gave a frank character assessment of the Minister for Counter Narcotics when it posted the following biography:

Zarar Ahmad Moqbel was born in 1966 in Parwan central province. He studied at the Habibia High School before doing graduation from the Pedagogy Institute in his native province. It is not proofed that he is a graduate from Kabul Polytechnic University.

He joined the Jihad against the USSR in 1988 and was in charge of construction of Shura-i-Nazar in northern Takhar province. From 1992 to 2003, Moqbel worked as Kabul police chief and secretary at Afghanistan's Embassy in Tehran.

Moqbel served as deputy interior minister under President Karzai from 2004 to 2006 and then briefly served as interior minister. He worked earlier in the police department of Parwan province, was Governor of Parwan and an ambassador.

Engineer Zarar Ahmad Moqbel briefly served as the Interior Minister under President Karzai. During his tenure the ministry became infamous for selling senior police positions. Provincial police chiefs would then make a return on their investments by extorting bribes from civilians and protecting narcotics and kidnap gangs. Moqbel was sacked and replaced with Mohammad Hanif Atmar.

President Karzai tried to appoint Moqbel instead as the Minister of Refugees after a cabinet shuffle on October 11, 2008. Moqbel did not show up to his confirmation by the Parliament.

He is seen by many outsider oberservers and Afghans as an incompetent and corrupt civil servant. He has the backing of Vicepresident Fahim.http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif

A former Shura-ye Nazar commander, Moqbel has turned into a Karzai loyalist. But he is still close to Vice President Muhammad Qasem Fahim.

Moqbel was confirmed as Minister Counternarcotics by Wolsesi Jirga in January 2010 (161 for, 56 against, 4 blank, 1 invalid).

He can speak Dari, Pashto and English.

The article posting went viral on twitter and facebook - and then was suddenly removed from the embassy's website. Hackers? Funsters? Or truth in advertising? You decide .... but the bad spelling and many typos may give you a clue.

This first appeared in Huffington Post on 12 September 2011.

Obama's Winning Move: Negotiate with the Taliban

2011-09-03T09:17:00.003+08:00

Last week, Kabul was more-than-usually atwitter with rumors. President Obama's campaign heavyweights were just about to come to town. The whispers gathered pace: Obama's campaign is desperate for a new Afghan policy. The polling is pretty easy to read: it sucks; get out of Afghanistan -- now.

How does Obama suddenly do an armstand back-double-somersault with one and a half twists and save face? To be able to push forward the 2014 withdrawal deadline, wouldn't it have to be based on newly acquired information, new strategies and results, better processes and outcomes of the ongoing war? Could Joe Biden's long-term skepticism of the newfangled, fancy-pants counterinsurgency techniques favored by retired General Petraeus now get traction? Could COIN get trashed on the road to an Obama reelection?

It's negotiation, not political campaigns, that ends wars. In the face of genocide, assassination, terrorism, desertions and chaos, it's the quality of negotiations -- often fraught or grudging -- that will broker some sort of peace, no matter how unsteady or uncertain that peace may be.

Everyone involved in the seeming endlessness of Afghanistan knows that. Its how and who the NATO alliance negotiates with, and where and when and what constitutes a reasonable settlement, has never been publicly well-defined.

Afghanistan's President Karzai uses almost any and all occasion to call upon his Taliban "brothers" to forgo violence and hurry up to the various negotiation tables where the big boys sit. He did it again on Eid-ul-Fitr (the end of Ramadan) this past Tuesday.

(Taliban leader Mullah Omar issued his own unique Eid message, praising rising foreign troop casualties and the murder of several high-level Afghan officials and claiming that the Taliban is expanding its territory and close to victory. Such bloodshed, murder and carnage represents "good news of an imminent victory and a bright future!" he happily announced.)

Of course, negotiations that lead to early withdrawal for the sake of a reelection campaign are of no interest to Taliban leaders like Mullah Omar. The December Bonn Conference (which is not a negotiation but is, sadly, billed as a "challenges and progress report" on the disastrous 2001 Bonn Agreement) has already attracted tit-for-tat statements. Mullah Omar says the Taliban aren't going, Ambassador Ryan Crocker says the Taliban aren't invited. Afghan President Karzai says he will represent Afghanistan. Sound depressingly familiar?

Karzai, too, is in a difficult of position. Regarded by many diplomats as a failure at best, and at worst an unstable and untrustworthy ally who is suffered rather than welcomed at negotiations, he has been included in and at times excluded from the process.

Since the late winter of 2010, there has been a consistent round of negotiations, some of them attended by Karzai deputies. The sessions have been classified as "direct talks" (the word "negotiation" somehow indicates a compromise, a win-win, a leavening out).

The Taliban (and their particularly vicious partners, the Haqqani Network) have no interest in being seen to be in "negotiations" -- it hardly fits their image. But a settlement that ends with Taliban inclusion into Afghan political life may yet appeal if formulated through strength, deftness and discretion. The late Richard Holbrooke was the master of this style of tough, persistent negotiation. His successor, Marc Grossman, has stepped into the mess. It's doubtful that he wihttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifll be impressed with Karzai's constant leaking of details of these most delicate stages of dialogue to burnish his image and to avoid what he most fears: being seen as irrelevant.

Negotiated settlement could well be the most important part of the 2012 reelection campaign. Getting negotiations underway and reporting genuine results could deliver an election-decider to Obama, because it could mean an earlier withdrawal.

Negotiated settlement is inevitable. It's getting to the table and imagining the end that is the hard part. With the 2012 election being a third wheel is this delicate, knife-edge process, the most fervent hope is that President Obama honors his priorities and gets them right.

This article originally appeared in Huffington Post, 2 September 2011

Clear and Present Danger: The Haqqani Network

2011-08-03T14:32:00.003+08:00

He might be enthusiastically eyeing the door marked 'retirement' but his pace hasn't slowed. Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has just popped into Afghanistan and Pakistan for a quick whip round the troops and some tough talking. While on the border with Pakistan he cautioned - strongly - that the biggest threat to regional stability now is the Haqqani network. He had talks with Pakistan senior officials about tightening up the noose - currently set at "loose and limp" to strangulation point.

While the NATO forces have significantly chipped into the Taliban ranks this past year, it's not going to be easy getting the Haqqani network to its death throes. The network - based in reliably thought to be based in Waziristan in Pakistan, has much of the border regions of Af-Pak tied up, and made a true art form out of bloody minded thuggery, extortion, murder, and bastardry. Its urban cohort, the Kabul Attack Network - is crammed full of ex police men, Afghan National Army officers along with militants, aspiring warlords and politicians, rat-cunning strategists, cannon fodder, yahoos and ratbags.

Intelligence has been upped on Haqqani, the Taliban and the KAN, though not enough to thwart the June 28 Intercontinental Hotel bombing or the May 18 suicide attack on a Kabul military hospital. Both attacks were carried out by men in military uniforms.

It appears that despite a reputation for a laissez-faire freewheeling attitude, Afghanistan intelligence sources have thwarted several potential deadly attacks recently. A foiled plot to blow up the Kabul airport was widely reported, though rumoured planned attacks on the ISAF headquarters and a government ministry were less widely aired. That's the good news.

The bad news is that the discovery of a cache of weapons and uniforms linked to the Kabul airport plot suggest either midnight stealth into snoozing soldier's dorms, or more realistically, extensive and corrosive infiltration.

Bad for NATO forces and bad for Afghanistan. Afghan security forces have taken the "security lead" in a number of relatively stable regions. Insurgents are not only stepping up their attacks on these previously peaceful areas but are also targeting Afghan forces in a bid to show that government and military can't maintain security and a stable rule of law.

Late last month an army officer, Gul Mohammad who was in charge of security at "pivotal" Kabul checkpoints was arrested. He's been charged with a laundry list of crimes - from passing classified information "to Pakistan", possessing Iranian-made explosives, to being a member or associate of the Taliban and plotting the suicide attacks on ISAF and the ministry.

Across the border, Pakistan continues to shy away from routing out the terrorist networks from the safe havens. Unwilling? Unable? Uninterested? Whatever, it remains a critical point of contention within the US - Pakistan relationship, with Pakistan consistently citing its own timetable and strategic interests.
Admiral Mullen said he was confident that Afghan security forces would increase in size and strength and continue to push the variety of active insurgents into retreat. He also mentioned that he seemed much more impatient that the Pakistanis to see this task completed. Afghan President Hamid Karzai, for his part has been talking about possible negotiations and taking meetings with the Haqqani crowd. War always ends with negotiation but Karzai seems to be talking a big game, with no one tuning into his often loopy frequency.

Thirty three thousand of the additional American surge troops are still on track to begin withdrawing from the country this summer, according to Admiral Mullen. Although NATO has been chest-beating lately about it's routing of Taliban forces, darkly there has always been concern that the Haqqani network is much more wily, dug-in and dangerous. Admiral Mullen aired those concerns on his trip to Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Will troop withdrawal leave a vacuum rapidly filled by the march of the Haqqani network?

First appeared in the Huffington Post, 3 August 2011.

Aid to Pakistan: America's Big Headache

2011-06-09T15:58:00.003+08:00

Since the killing of Osama bin Laden and the shakeup in Defense and CIA personnel, aid to Pakistan - never far off the list of ulcer inducing topics in Washington - has been causing the usual double doses Maalox to seem not quite enough to treat the pain.

Given the huge rifts and schisms of power in Pakistan - an elected government, a powerful intelligence agency that often seems to side with the darkest forces of humanity, a military that runs its own agenda, and the assorted jihadists, militants, yahoos, illiterates, the Taliban and everything in between running riot in lawless territories assessing not only needs but effectiveness and performance is the hardest task.

Pakistan's economy is a basket case. Development banks ring alarm bells that the country is virtually running on empty. Add to the economic and governance woes, polls consistently show that across the board in Pakistan, the US is not regarded kindly - by anyone, regardless of a concerted hearts and minds campaign stretching back decades.

USAID alone has spent over $5 billion in civilian aid since 2005, which makes Pakistan one of its largest recipients. (The sum total of US aid to Pakistan is close to $20 billion over a decade). President Obama wants to increase that aid through Pakistani government departments and non government organizations. But Islamabad has proven to be ill prepared and ill equipped to handle such large amounts, and local NGOs often possess even less capacity to work, are riddled with inefficiencies and are often open to outright exploitation.

(The scrupulous and highly regarded British based Oxfam has started investigating financial irregularities in their 2010 flood funds - not from their own employees but from Pakistani charities working as partners.)

Last week a US official told the Financial Times that the US would slash its funded projects by two-thirds (down from 160 to 50) with a renewed emphasis on countering anti-American sentiment.

The radical option of cutting out and cutting all aid to Pakistan is gaining some favor in surprising quarters (though entirely unlikely to happen). The theory goes that cold turkey will drag the country out of its aid dependency and it will learn - quickly - how to organize its finances, deny the ascendancy of the dangerous crackpots and depend more on a highly mobile and committed middle class. Oh if that would be so.

Washington's Center for Global Development recognizes the power of the middle class but rather than abandon them to fight on behalf of the good guys the CGD suggests supporting them even more by not only creating the obvious educational and health opportunities but by developing incentives for investment, and development of small and medium private enterprises.

"They could be the best advocates for a U.S.-Pakistani relationship that goes beyond security issues--but only if they feel like the United States is listening to them and being open and honest about what U.S. development programs are doing,´ Wren Elhai CGD policy analyst who worked on the CGD's recent Pakistan study, told the Huffington Post via email. "That said winning hearts and minds should not be the primary goal of U.S. aid to Pakistan. Expanding Pakistan's middle class matters most because they will play a key role in building a strong economy and healthy democratic system there."

But with the majority of Pakistan's population skeptical at best and hostile at worst towards the US, there is also a deep vein of suspicion that aid comes with strings attached - an unspoken demand to influence and shape Pakistan's political process and outcomes.

"There is no evidence that aid has the ability to make Pakistan's military or civilian leaders to act against what they perceive as their interests," says Wren Elhai. "Pakistan's history offers plenty of examples of donor programs that sought to leverage aid to secure economic reforms--many of them the same reforms currently under discussion--with nothing to show for it. The United States cares about the outcomes of Pakistan's political processes, (h)owever, it has to be more nuanced in how it tries to nudge those processes forward.

CGD also emphasizes the commitment that USAID has towards education - spending more money in Pakistan last year than in any other country. Successful, broad based and long term education funding is necessary.

"What's important is to make sure that budget is spent in ways most likely to achieve the desired outcome, namely more kids learning more in school," says Wren Elhai.

And in the end, despite calls to 'get out of Pakistan' and 'leave them to their own devices' this does matter to global security, and not just because of Pakistan's expanding nuclear capability. Setting performance goals for the government would strengthen its position, and create achievable conditions. Common humanity would also wish that with Pakistan on track to be the fourth largest country in the world, its citizens should live in a stable and prosperous society, no longer looking outside its borders for blame and revenge.

When Will Aung San Suu Kyi Really Tackle Sanctions?

2011-06-02T16:28:00.002+08:00

Since her November release from house arrest, Aung San Suu Kyi has been "talking and listening" to her followers in Burma.

Perhaps what she was hearing may have surprised her - feelings in Burma have changed radically over the past decade, as young people desert the staid and dug-in National League of Democracy and its often intractable council of elders. She later admitted that sanctions are unpopular and considered a failure by a new generation of not only urban Burmese but also by millions in the countryside.

Sending a message to the World Economic Forum in Davos in late January, Daw Suu seemed to indicate that she had listened to those concerned with the NLD's hidebound intransigence about economic matters. (In last year's elections, many deserted the NLD to vote with the economically progressive National Democratic party - formed by disenchanted NLD members. The NLD instructed its members to boycott the election).

While not mentioning the word sanctions she did urge economic involvement and investment in Burma:

We need investments in technology and infrastructure. We need to counter and eventually eradicate widespread poverty by offering opportunities that will allow the entrepreneurial spirit of our people to be gainfully harnessed through micro lending programs. We have already missed so many opportunities because of political conflicts in our country over the last 50 years.... Despite an abundance of natural resources, Burma's development has lagged far behind its neighbors.

But then in February, Daw Suu quietly announced that she "recommends" maintaining Western sanctions on Burma, because sanctions affected the military regime and their cronies and not the broader population. The NLD has "carried out a study" into the impact of sanctions and will release the report this week.

It no doubt bitterly disappointed many millions of ordinary Burmese living in grinding poverty, unable to feed their families, educate their children or plan for the future. With no industry, commerce, trade or tourism, they are stuck in a vacuum of a stagnant economy that benefits only the military and their cronies.

Calling for responsible foreign investment in Burma is good economics. But a real economic and social commitment needs the abolition of sanctions. The junta still do big business - oil and gas, teak and gems - with the rest of Asia and still use the Euro and other world currencies. The generals and their cronies monopolize all those contracts so it would be simple to conclude that given they are doing well, they would only do better if sanctions were dropped.

But small business owners do exist in Burma - mom and pop operations are the backbone of villages all around the country. If tourists are able to visit and stay in Burmese accommodation, eat at road side stalls, buy tchotkes from local vendors and ride in local taxis, a revolution - even if it is minor - would take place. And in the absence of travel being able to broaden Burmese minds, we could always hope it works in reverse.

Daw Suu has often underlined the need for her to be mindful of the duty she has to protect the interests Burma. It is time to understand the broader picture of her beloved country and time to lift the sanctions.

On May 16 the United States renewed its economic sanctions against Burma, while urging the government to quite stalling and offering excuses for shilly-shallying around on the edges of reform.

"It is not enough to say, 'be patient, give us time.' There has been an enormous amount of time and substantial patience," Kurt Campbell assistant secretary of state for East Asia, said.

This week, Daw Suu and the NLD formally dropped their 15 year opposition to tourists visiting Burma, saying that the money is needed and so is contact with the outside world. She also announced a series of rallies - many in the country side. My bet is that yet again, Daw Suu will have to admit that sanctions are deeply unpopular with the people she claims to represent. The question remains, what will she do about it?

This article first appeared in the Huffington Post on 1 June 2011.

Memories of Abbottabad

2011-05-05T14:36:00.005+08:00

As we were eating lunch one cold day in October, our guard opened the big iron gates to our compound and in rolled three bright and shiny SUVs. Six Americans emerged – apparently they just happened to be in the neighbourhood – and invited themselves into the house.

We offered them tea, and a place by our kerosene heater and they got down to business. How well do you know the area, they asked. And have you noticed anything unusual or interesting? Not that we think you might know anything in particular, it’s just perhaps you’ll look around a bit and notice something. Here’s our business cards, do give us a call if there is anything ...anything at all .... we might be interested in.

The location was Abbottabad, a few years ago. And the discussion we had just had was so cheerfully and politely vague that we knew we’d been talking to the CIA. But no matter. While we weren’t exactly shocked, we did think Abbottabad was one of the safest places in Pakistan.

I worked with Pakistani journalists – male and female - creating a viable evening radio show that was somewhat similar to ABC’s PM (or so I hoped) and was broadcast throughout Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province. Our compound housed a radio studio, newsroom and living quarters. I was the only white woman in the group and most of the staff had come from other cities. Many were graduates from the impressive and surprisingly liberal University of Peshawar J-school.

When we weren’t producing radio - we worked six days a week - or suffering from the long chilly winters, our days off were spent driving up into the mountains and having picnics, or gently trekking along the wooded trails of the Sarban Hills. In Abbottabad I would go shopping with the female journalists to buy material for new salwar kameez and learn the intricacies and subtleties of having a fashionably cut outfit. (The difference between a 6 inch and 9 inch trouser cuff is the difference between chic and why bother?) After shopping we would go to the juice bar or coffee shop, and sit in the ladies section to keep from prying male eyes.

As you drive further north, it is less common to see women on the streets, even accompanied by a man. In Abbottabad I would go for afternoon walks around the middle class streets, where houses were fenced, gated and guarded – much ritzier and more elegant that the monstrosity that Osama bin Laden was killed in. Most of the male journalists had a hard time letting me go out by myself but had to agree I was in no danger. Abbottabad seemed a gentle town, full of good decent people.

Nights were spent having great feasts, listening to music, watching Bollywood films (which were considered a bit racy) or dancing. Boys and girls (everyone aged up to about 55 is called a boy or a girl) singing competitions were always a good evening’s entertainment. Sometimes we would drive up into the hills, to the late night cafes open in the national parks and have soft drinks and dangle our feet in the river. Or we would just go outside and sit on the porch, eat watermelon and listen to the crickets.

The drive from Islamabad to Abbottabad is longer than the 50 kilometres distance would suggest. Winding roads up mountains and then down, long haul trucks, constant road blocks and checks and the general disposition of Pakistanis to drive cautiously, means the journey can take more than two hours. If you take a public bus it could take as long as four hours – prayer stops, tea and pee stops, and driver rest breaks made the journey interminable. Abbottabad is not like Islamabad with its concrete soulless boulevards. It is a lovely city defined by its army heritage. A great deal of the town was built by the Raj – and there are still beautiful parks and roundabouts, buildings and monuments from colonial times. Old tanks and cannons frame ornate garrison gates, statues of fallen generals with big handlebar moustaches are scattered around town.

Abbottabad is mostly middle class. The shock that residents have expressed in the past few days about having a terrorist in their midst seems to me totally genuine. It is not the kind of place for radicalism or ferment. It has good schools and a teaching hospital, there are many excellent doctors and nurses and academics and teachers. There were also retired army officers with beautiful clipped accents, booming voices and firm handshakes who can make you swoon with their good manners and correct upright posture.

One day before I reluctantly left Abbottabad the house was broken into when we were at a picnic. We gunned it back into town, arriving shortly before about 20 police filed through the front door, automatic weapons at the ready. The police moved from room to room, ready, it seems, to take out the miscreant in a hail of bullets. By this time half of our street and anyone within a five mile radius had cottoned onto this rare event – a robbery in the neighbourhood. The house was filled with people, everyone insisting on giving their version of events - which given the house was empty at the time of the break in, was poetic embroidery at its best.

The cops started talking darkly about 'interrogations' and 'confessions'. They seemed to be indicating that an interrogation automatically meant a confession and that they would be able to stitch up their man by close of business that day. My friends told me that really, there wasn’t a hope in hell of getting it sorted, the cops were next to useless and we all better have tea. Within half an hour the kettle was on and the automatic weapons were propped up, forgotten, in the entrance hall.

And you’re surprised about Osama bin Laden?

On Monday my friend Jamal wrote this on my facebook page:

“Virgie can u believe that we were living so much near the most wanted person on the planet. I am speechless! I appeal all the unwanted people to leave our cities and villages. Please let us live. We want peace, peace and peace. Abbottabad is famous for the best residential education institutions. Yes there is a lot of talk about Abbottabad but for (the) wrong reason. Virginia can you please share some of .... weekend outings of the beautiful hill station of Abbottabad. Let us show the world the true Abbottabad.”

This article first appeared on the ABC Drum website on May 5 2011

Julian Assange: Arrogant, Humble, Sour and Humorous: Biographer

2011-04-14T15:29:00.003+08:00

Julian Assange seems to love the spotlight, yet won't confront his critics. He claims to be innocent of any wrong doing in Sweden but resists fronting the courts there. He courted the heavy hitting media (The New York Times, The Guardian and der Spiegel) and then complained and bitched about their treatment of him. He has been deserted by many previous acolytes.

He certainly is the most fascinating civilian in the world. Even videos of him dancing in a night club (and not well) can attract over 500,000 hits on youtube. And a slew of books have been written about Assange and wikileaks, film rights traded, scripts in development.

The Most Dangerous Man in the World is by Australian investigative journalist Andrew Fowler. (Disclosure: I worked with Andrew for several years).

Andrew Fowler's research spanned continents, including several meetings with Assange at the Norfolk (UK) Manor House where he is waiting on his Swedish extradition appeal. But this is not an authorised biography. "He was helpful and seemed to be looking for friends, giving insights into a life he'd kept close before," Fowler wrote in email from Australia where he is promoting his book. "(He) is a mixed character - brilliant with an IQ supposedly around 170, he's arrogant, humble, sour and humorous, all in the space of a few minutes. His politics are a cross between the anarchist left and the libertarian right; he believes in social justice but at the same time opposes the secrecy and the power of big government."

The most surprising aspect of the story, according to Fowler is the relationship between Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg and Julian Assange. Ellsberg has thrilled some, dismayed others with his public support of Assange although it hasn't always been a smooth relationship. "Daniel Ellsberg (revealed) that he contacted Assange about the Afghan War logs naming of informants and told him it was a mistake. He fear(ed) that wikileaks might be counter-productive and produce a more secretive American state," says Fowler.

Read an extract of the book's Ellsberg revelations here.

Fowler has respect for the wikileaks founder's intellect. "Assange has a detailed understanding of world events, more than many other journalists I have met. He certainly understands the high stakes involved, but appears fearless."

Fearlessness, Fowler agrees, can lead to a sanctimonious self regard and lack of empathy. He says that "often" Assange projects an air of judge-and-jury who comes across " a priest demanding unquestioning obedience from his flock."

But personality aside, the greater issues of the impact of the leaking of wikileaks documents on the future whistle blowing is the intellectual heart of this story.

It's too soon to have a reliable rear-vision mirror but Fowler says "The mass document drop is the new whistleblower weapon. We are used to combing through the records 30 years after events to understand what went on. This time we got an insight into last year's news."

And while some revelations like those of the US ambassador's observation on Burma are heartening, Fowler feels that "it should come as no surprise that the US State Department, which employs some of the best educated people to work at its overseas missions, should be able to faithfully report the local scene. What is surprising, particularly in North Africa, was the failure of US political will to more vigorously support a change to democracy.

"The evidence so far is that the impact of wikileaks has had a negligible negative impact on US overseas interests. The big test," says Fowler "will be how the US responds domestically and whether, as Ellsberg fears, there may be a move to introduce an Official Secrets Act, with curbs on freedom of speech in the US."

As an investigative journalist who sorts, contextualizes and edits leaked material Andrew Fowler is well placed to comment on the wikileaks modus operandi of mass leaking of material without editing.

"Wikileaks made major errors in releasing the Afghan War logs, naming informants and identifying regions and even towns where they lived. The identifying of facilities which the US believes are crucial strategic assets has also been criticized, particularly by Ellsberg in the book. It is important, however, to remember that of the 650,000 US State Department cables only about 4000 have actually been released and published."

Fowler is certain that Assange's feared extradition to Sweden to face the rape and sexual molestation charges will go ahead. But he also concerned about the fate of Bradley Manning. Fowler believes there is every indication that " the US military has been trying to force a confession out of him which implicates Assange. The fact that this tactic does not appear to have been successful does not mean that the US will not try to find a lesser charge by which Assange can be extradited."

Andrew Fowler has sold film rights to his book to Michelle Krumm , producer of Bobby and Factory Girl.

From Huffington Post 14 April 2011.

The No Fly Zone and the Delay of Democracy

2011-03-20T05:57:00.004+08:00

The no fly zone is denying the Libyan people their right to self determination. That may seem like the oddest statement, but watching the grass roots, home cooked and home grown revolutions over the past weeks and months, it has become obvious that now is the time for the Arab Spring.

Putting aside the muddled thinking about the endgame and outcomes of a no fly zone (can some one tell me please, what happens after its allegedly "over"?), and the mixed messages we are getting from the coalition forces - this is about regime change, this isn't about regime change...... there are also issues about the foundations of free societies that need considering.

Throughout the Mid East people have shown extraordinary courage and determination to be part of a movement that has exploded spontaneously (in some cases) and after years of suppressed opposition and bloody tyranny. This is a moment. This is their moment.

It's surprising then that so many who decried the Iraqi war and other Western interventions have supported the Libyan no-fly zone. It is, they say, unconscionable to watch Libyans being slaughtered. The no fly zone will not - has not - prevented further bloodshed. It also cannot fight the fight that leads to democracy and emancipation for Libyans.

Democracy rarely - if ever - comes without a bloody fight. Freedom fighters understand that - embrace that - and launch determined battles knowing that death is a constant threat. It's part of the process, and inescapable if the outcome is to have meaning sovereignty and durability.

I lived in Burma last decade and had many frustrating discussions with many Burmese who thought that the answer to their situation was an invasion by America. They watched in awe as George W Bush bigfooted his way round the world. Why won't he invade us, many lamented. We need rescuing! Why don't you do it yourself? I would ask. It will be hard and heartbreaking and bloody and long but it will work, it will work.

And this is what we have seen in Egypt and Yemen and Bahrain and Libya. Brave and determined people who want what is rightfully theirs and are fighting and dying for it. It is shocking to watch and it is also heartening and inspiring to watch.

This is a home-grown revolution that should be played out by the people, for the people. They will fight, they will die, but they will win.

Microfinance: The Backlash Begins

2011-02-10T06:16:00.005+08:00

International aid work is always coming up with new models to end world poverty. ("It's so simple! Why didn't we think of it before?!") Simple mechanisms for water purification or cleaner latrines, to odd sounding notions like child-centered schools, and cash-for-work schemes have all been touted as ways to turn desperation into dignity.

Much of the same hope and excitement was invested in microfinancing when it first began being hailed as the solution du jour. A $10 loan to an illiterate village woman could be turned into a mini empire, female emancipation and regional security. It wasn't a hand out, it was a power tool! Thumbs up! And here, Mr. Mohammed Yunus of the Grameen Bank -- take this Nobel Peace Prize for your efforts.

The benefit of microfinance, is is said, lies in the small sums loaned, then paid back with interest in order to loan money onto other worthy borrowers (usually women), while enabling the lender to expand their tiny businesses into sustainable enterprises. But as time has gone on, many development wonks and economists are unable to pin down the long term benefits of microfinance.

The backlash started a few years ago when it became evident that even a $10 loan was crippling for some. Some women, some men, some villages became mired in debt, continually borrowing to extend their businesses and defaulting on loans. Commercial for-profit lenders became involved -- attaching the word 'microfinancing' to inflated loans and revenue raising practices (one noted African micro-lender charged 120% interest).

The new magic carpet of the development gurus has begun to look a little tatty around the edges. A Danish documentary has alleged Mr Yunus's Bangladesh based operation has been involved in complicated and multifaceted financial transactions that lead up one road and then disappear down another. (Mr Yunus has strongly defended himself).

One former microfinance project officer told me she was deeply disillusioned with the schemes -- as she saw people getting into debt they began using microfinance as an easy way to pay for their every day family expenses (and therefore not creating an income which would enable the loan to be paid back).

If the model is flawed, is there hope for microfinance with some re-tweeking? Or have the sharks and the commercial lenders destroyed what once seemed so promising, and yet again those least able to rise to the challenges they face, are left to manage with handouts, restrictive financing and the circle of desperation.

This article first appeared in Huffington Post on 9 February 2011.

Aung San Suu Kyi endorses sanctions (again!)

2011-02-07T13:53:00.004+08:00

Since her November release from house arrest, Aung San Suu Kyi has been talking and listening to people in Burma. What she heard may have surprised her - feelings in Burma have changed as young people desert the staid and dug-in National League of Democracy and its often intractable council of elders.

In a move that will blind side many of even her most loyal supporters, Daw Suu has announced that she "recommends" maintaining Western sanctions on Burma, because sanctions affected the military regime and their cronies and not the broader population. The NLD has "carried out a study" into the impact of sanctions and will release the report this week.

This recommendation is a surprise. It will bitterly disappoint many millions of ordinary Burmese living in grinding poverty, unable to feed their families, educate their children or plan for the future. With no industry, commerce, trade or tourism, they are stuck in a vacuum of a stagnant economy that benefits only the military and their cronies. Only a few weeks ago it sounded so different, so promising.

Sending a message to the World Economic Forum in Davos in late January, Daw Suu seemed to indicate that she had listened to those concerned with the NLD's hidebound intransigence about economic matters. (In last year's elections, many deserted the NLD to vote with the economically progressive National Democratic party - formed by disenchanted NLD members. The NLD instructed its members to boycott the election).

While not mentioning the word sanctions she did urge economic involvement and investment in Burma:

We need investments in technology and infrastructure. We need to counter and eventually eradicate widespread poverty by offering opportunities that will allow the entrepreneurial spirit of our people to be gainfully harnessed through micro lending programs. We have already missed so many opportunities because of political conflicts in our country over the last 50 years.... Despite an abundance of natural resources, Burma's development has lagged far behind its neighbors.

Hearing the speech, many Burmese were thrilled at what seemed to be a veiled admission by Daw Suu that sanctions (and therefore her support of them) had failed. The listening tour she had undertaken seemed to reap rewards - she was admitting that sanctions are unpopular and considered a failure by a new generation of urban Burmese and with millions in the countryside.

Calling for responsible foreign investment in Burma is good economics. But a real economic and social commitment needs the abolition of sanctions. The junta still do big business - oil and gas, teak and gems - with the rest of Asia and still use the Euro and other world currencies. The generals and their cronies monopolize all those contracts so it would be simple to conclude that given they are doing well, they would only do better if sanctions were dropped.

But small business owners do exist in Burma - mom and pop operations are the backbone of villages all around the country. If tourists are able to visit and stay in Burmese accommodation, eat at road side stalls, buy tchotkes from local vendors and ride in local taxis, a revolution - even if it is minor - would take place. And in the absence of travel being able to broaden Burmese minds, we could always hope it works in reverse.

Daw Suu has often underlined the need for her to be mindful of the duty she has to protect the interests Burma. It is time to understand the broader picture of her beloved country and time to lift the sanctions.

This article first appeared in Open Salon 8 February 2011.

In Burmese opposition, there will be no reform: Aung San Suu Kyi

2010-12-21T15:43:00.007+08:00

In what must surely be a blow to the dwindling ranks of young and progressive supporters of the Burmese opposition National League for Democracy (NLD) the just-released figure head of the movement, Aung San Suu Kyi has categorically ruled out any reorganization within the party's top ranks.

"We are not going to ask our older leaders to leave because they want to serve as long as they have strength to serve the party and I think that is a good thing to be encouraged," Daw Suu said in an interview with Agence France-Presse.

The hope and joy that was felt when Daw Suu was freed must certainly now be tinged with those familiar feelings of frustration and near despair that the rigid and ancient hierarchies within the party are set to remain in place - indeed seemingly set in cement.

In Burma, respect is not primarily earned by actions and deeds. Simply hanging in for the long haul and getting old has traditionally demanded the respect of others. This is not to suggest that the dedication and commitment of many opposition apparatchiks is under question. But generational change is urgent according to the NLD's younger supporters who, despite the restrictions placed on them, know how to campaign via social media and often have displayed ideals and ideas very different from their elders.

"I think this should be the time to reform the party because party's future is our country's future," an exiled 31 year old journalist (and NLD supporter) told the Huffington Post. "Old people at the party ha(ve) endured all the disturbance from the regime strongly for the party for 2 decades. We see no significant changes made by the party to the country especially during (Daw Suu's) house arrest which means old people in the party had no idea how to deal with the regime without her. So rather than letting them rule the party, let the new flesh come in and the old people can surround them and support them as the old do not need to step down completely."

Interviewing or meeting senior members of the NLD has become a tiring task. While available and willing to talk, their world view can be (understandably) restricted and their views inflexible and arrogant. Recent wikileaks have shown that the US embassy in Rangoon has understood the limitations of the freedom campaign because of rigid, old fashioned rule-by-the-rod methods in place that have driven droves and droves on younger people from the NLD.

"The way the Uncles run the NLD indicates the party is not the last great hope for democracy and Burma," said a leaked cable. "...new ideas are not solicited or encouraged from younger members, and the Uncles regularly expel members they believe are 'too active'," it said.

The Central Executive Committee is the powerhouse that drives the NLD and is mostly populated by politicos over 80. Breathing new life into the CEC means creating a modern pragmatic platform that takes into account contemporary economic policies as well as human rights and democracy. But Daw Suu says there will be no reorganization of the CEC.

Daw Suu has called an opposition 'youth meeting' this month, but many remain pessimistic about her will to take ask the heroes of the past decades to step down.

But the growing discontent with the NLD has been obvious inside Burma for most of the past decade. It came to light internationally when, during the November elections, desperate discussions were held about the official boycott. Many argued that the NLD had to step up and be a part of the process - however flawed and corrupted. They were dismissed out of hand and a breakaway group created the National Democratic Force in order to contest the elections (16 candidates were elected). There was - nd is - a deep fury aimed at those who left to start up - or vote for - the NDF.

Daw Suu has her work cut out for her. Since her November 13 release her overtures to the arthritis riddled iron fists of generals that have been met with silence. She has held many peace talks within her own party and other opposition camps but has acknowledged that deep divisions remain. If she - and the NLD - fail to treat the fault lines within the opposition, the future for Burma will remain, indeed, grim.

This article first appeared in Huffington Post on 20 December 2010.

Wikileaks: Burma's Opposition Stifled By Old Farts and Uninformed Analysis.

2010-12-10T13:34:00.003+08:00

The US embassy is Rangoon is not known as the most diplomatically radical outfit in town. In the year I lived in Burma, I don't think I ever encountered the Ambassador. Several other chefs de mission from high profile and influential countries were constantly out and about. You would run into them at fetes and fairs, in the local pub, at a karaoke night. The US mission, with its barbed wire-like defences and Big Brother surveillance systems remained aloof and secretive.

Now the latest tranche from wikileaks has revealed that behind those forbidding doors busy fingers were sending perceptive, well observed missives about the state of Burmese misery. Casting an eye on the generals that hold Burma in their iron fisted grip, the departing Political Economy Chief reported that "uninformed analysis and wishful thinking of the exiles and outside observers" may hope for the demise of the generals that control the country, but ..... "we should not expect an imminent coup to save us from the hard-line senior generals...... while talking to the generals may be unpalatable, their firm control over Burma and the weakness of the pro-democracy opposition are a reality we must consider when working to promote change in Burma." And while sanctions "give us the moral high-ground, they are largely ineffective because they are not comprehensive."
The most astute observation is for the national league of democracy -

While many outside Burma perpetuate the impression of Aung San Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy (NLD) party as a large movement with massive support waiting to take the Parliamentary seats they won in the 1990 election, the reality is quite different. Without a doubt, Aung San Suu Kyi remains a popular and beloved figure of the Burman majority, but this status is not enjoyed by her party.

Already frustrated with the sclerotic leadership of the elderly NLD "Uncles", the party lost even more credibility within the pro-democracy movement when its leaders refused to support the demonstrators last September, and even publicly criticized them. The way the Uncles run the NLD indicates the party is not the last great hope for democracy and Burma. The Party is strictly hierarchical, new ideas are not solicited or encouraged from younger members, and the Uncles regularly expel members they believe are "too active." NLD youth repeatedly complain to us they are frustrated with the party leaders.....lack of unity among the pro-democracy opposition remains one of the biggest obstacles to democratic change in Burma.

The "Uncles" have repeatedly rebuffed the most dynamic and creative members of the pro-democracy opposition, who reinvigorated the pro-democracy movement throughout 2006 and 2007 by strategically working to promote change through grass-roots human rights and political awareness and highlighting the regime's economic mismanagement.

....the party (has not) made any effort to join forces with the technically sophisticated bloggers and young, internet-savvy activists, who have been so clever at getting out the images which repeatedly damaged the regime and undermined its international credibility. Instead, the Uncles spend endless hours discussing their entitlements from the 1990 elections and abstract policy which they are in no position to enact. Additionally, most MPs-elect show little concern for the social and economic plight of most Burmese, and therefore, most Burmese regard them as irrelevant.

Ending Burma's isolation will also be integral to any successful long-term change in the country. No matter how democratic transition comes about in Burma, the military will be involved given its vast control over the political and economic structures of the country. We should make an effort to seek out and speak with the more progressive military officers and to those who have access to the senior generals. Their hostility to democratic change is motivated by paranoia and distrust of the West, and a belief that we seek to punish them and obliterate a significant role for them in Burma's future. If we want to counter this, we should pursue dialogue directly with them rather than through intermediaries who can sometimes garble messages.

It's refreshing of course, to read a document that you fundamentally agree with. After all that frustrating "no-talkies" from the embassy in Rangoon, that there was good judgment and willingness to do the tremendously difficult work of drilling down into the often seemingly impenetrable layers of Burmese society is reassuring. Burma has for so long been blighted by "uninformed analysis and wishful thinking of the exiles and outside observers" and the bone headed notion that NLD = good, Generals = bad. The truth is more complex and unless those complexities are understood and embraced the country remains doomed.

The last word goes to the cable writer:

Though most Burmese do not believe the NLD will be able to bring about democratic change.....they have not given up on working for democracy. Instead, they are taking matters into their own hands and creatively working in what space is available to improve the lives of their communities.

This article first appeared in Huffington Post on 10 December 2010.

Jafar Panahi: I am Iranian and I will remain in Iran.

2010-11-14T08:16:00.003+08:00

Acclaimed Iranian director Jafar Panahi was jailed in Tehran's notorious Evin prison, this past March. Iran never revealed why Mr Panahi was detained, but the film maker is a high profile supporter of Iran's Green Movement opposition and his films reportedly upset the government.

In May, after a hunger strike and an international campaign, Mr Panahi was freed "on bail".

Mr Panahi was back in court this weekend, and his defense statement was released. Here is an excerpt.

"You've put me on trial over a film that at the time of my arrest even 30 percent of it had not been shot yet. You have certainly heard the example that if you only say 50 percent of 'La elaha elllalah' [There is no God but God] which is a testimony to the unity of God, it is considered blasphemy. How can someone be charged over a film that [has not been completed]? Allow me to produce the rest of the film, then make a judgment about it.

"I've been accused of attending [public] gatherings. In the social cinema a filmmaker is an observer of social events. With regard to this view I should have been an observer of the events that were happening in my country. Even though a filmmaker observes through his camera, they didn't give permission to use cameras to any filmmaker. An artist sees so that maybe one day he would be inspired to create art. I was an observer and it was my right to see. No one has the right to force an artist not to see. Why is an artist deprived of this right and charged with a crime?

"I've been accused of signing statements. I signed one statement and that was the statement of the 37 Iranian filmmakers. During those days any group would express its opinion about the events that were taking place in the country, 37 of the most prominent filmmakers of our country expressed their concern over the future of the country and I was one of them. Unfortunately, instead of paying attention to the concerns of those artists, who love their country, parts of the statement have been selected and they've turned into evidence of a crime.

"It's been said that I was in charge of organizing demonstrations outside the country at the time of the opening of the Montreal Film Festival. Any charge needs to be backed by a bit of truth and fairness. I was the head of the jury at the Montreal Film Festival and I arrived there only a few hours before the opening ceremony. I who didn't know anyone there, how could I have done such a thing? Have we forgotten that during those days, wherever in the world there was a ceremony, our compatriots living abroad would gather and make their demands? It was even happening at sports events. Do we have now to charge the soccer players who were wearing green wristbands or the head coach of the team of organizing the behavior of the spectators?

"It was said that I gave interviews to media based outside the country. Where in our laws have we been banned from giving interviews?

"Whatever history forgets, be sure that it won't erase from its memory the way artists are being dealt with. The sentence you will give will be not be a sentence against me, but a sentence for Iran's independent cinema. The cinema of Iran has in the past 30 years brought this country honor and a [good] reputation. You are giving your vote to that reputation.

"This is not my trial only. It's the trial of the art and artists of this country. The witnesses to any country's history are artwork and the way artists are being dealt with. Therefore any sentence that will be given by the court will be a sentence against all the artists, particularly the filmmakers of this country. And even a sentence for the Iranian society that has been for years the audience of that art. My sapling and the saplings of all the artists of Iran have their roots in the soil of this country and the fruit of our art tree is the result of the beauties and ugliness of this land. Therefore, any sentence that you give for my thought is a sentence against the people of this country.

"Despite all the unkindness, I, Jafar Panahi, announce that I am Iranian and that I will remain in Iran. I love my country and I have paid the price for it and if needed I will pay it again."

Burma: democracy banned but NLD lifts tourism boycott

2010-11-07T12:09:00.002+08:00

On Sunday, as Burmese heads to the polls (or more likely stay indoors, in an opposition inspired boycott) a far reaching decision by the main opposition party, the National League for Democracy has gone largely unheralded.

In an interview with the London Times this week, NLD elder statesman, U Win Tin said that foreign tourists should now consider putting Burma on their itineraries. "We want people to come to Burma, not to help the junta, but to help the people by understanding the situation: political, economic, moral - everything," he told the Times.

This is a stark and dramatic turn-around: for the past 15 years the NLD has held fast and unbending to a tourism boycott policy.

Boycotts and sanctions have long been one of the lightning rods for conflict within the opposition forces of Burma. Many of the more liberal, forward looking activists have argued that it is essential for people to be allowed in. They argue that visitors would spend money, injecting currency into a desperately poor economy and then spread the word about conditions inside this mostly closed country.

Older and less progressive members of the opposition have often expressed fear that lifting sanctions would simply channel foreign dollars into government run tourism operations, tourists would be shown model communities full of smiling happy peasants and be fooled by the propaganda.

Aung San Suu Kyi - from her house arrest in Rangoon - has always asked people not to visit Burma as tourists, as part of the wider NLD platform of boycotts and sanctions. Growing criticism of the policy from the younger members of the NLD may have been part of the shift.

"The matter is not so very easy for us, so we haven't decided yet whether we reverse Aung San Suu Kyi's request. But our thinking nowadays is that we should allow people to come, to see how people are suffering under the regime ... There's no response from [Ms Suu Kyi], so I think she may agree," U Win Tin told the Times.

One young activist from Rangoon told the Huffington Post via email, "I am very glad they lift the tourism boycott. Actually, most of the spending spent by the tourists goes to local communities rather than government. Apart from visa fee and some small cost, the rest of the money go to local communities includes restaurants, shops, staffs at tourism companies, tour guides, taxi drivers, ethnics communities at the tourist attraction sites."

The activist believes that tourism will "increase the employment opportunities and a lot of young and educated people in the country can get opportunities to work in tourism sector."

"Interacting between local population and foreign tourists will help local people to understand more about foreign countries and foreign tourists can actually understand Burma," he said.

An exiled journalist told Huffington Post "of course they should lift the boycott. Let me share you what Myanmar travel industry used to tell me. Of course it still contributes to the government, but they said that most tourist money goes to (ordinary) people."

"I agree on this (lifting the boycott)," A New York based Burmese dissident said. "This would put the junta in a difficult position. They want to promote tourism, however, they don't want tourists to wonder around during the elections period. In recent days, you can see reports coming out from inside Burma from undercover journalists posing as tourists. I think more tourists would help surface the wrong doings of junta in the elections. Of course, tourists can choose where their money should go wisely by not spending their money with government businesses."

As the polls open for an election where victory for the party of the ruling junta is assured, most young people will join the boycott and not vote. But the pressure from young people for the NLD to lift their tourism boycott is one success in the long bitter struggle for democracy in Burma.

This article first appeared in Huffington Post on 8 November 2010.

Negotiating Afghan Peace : Pros and Cons Outlined

2010-09-20T20:20:00.004+08:00

When you have an election where there is a small voter turnout, massive corruption and bribery, hostage taking in several provinces, several random acts of murder, and fraud at the ballot box and the UN hails it as a 'success', then you know you are dealing with the low expectations of Afghanistan.

That elections were possible at all is an achievement on the very slow and torturous road to solving the knots of problems and disasters that the coalition forces face in Afghanistan. To the public, nothing seems to be working; no strategy seems to be successful. The idea of embracing the wide range of insurgent forces in Afghanistan (usually bound together by the term "the Taliban") is a deeply difficult sell.

The United States Institute of Peace has just released a very readable report, Navigating Negotiations in Afghanistan. Compiled by veteran Afghan researcher, Matt Waldman, it's more of a crib sheet to negotiate your way around the negotiations. Waldman outlines the pros and cons, outlining the potential process and outcomes.

Working in Afghanistan, he says that he found "that most people I spoke to believed that there should at least be efforts to explore the potential of talks. I was surprised to find so many Afghans, from different parts of the country, different ethnicities and backgrounds, supporting the idea of talks. Many had real concerns about the process and its implications, and some felt that there was simply no other apparent route to resolving the conflict".

A negotiated peace has been the end of every war in modern history. It has been the end-game to every conflict and the reason for lasting peace. It has also often been a deeply flawed process and, with the Taliban sitting on the opposite side of the table you can bet things won't go smoothly. The USIP report states that although the insurgent forces are "fragmented", and are currently displaying little interest in negotiation, should they come to the table there is a grave danger of flawed concessions which could affect women and girls, children and the country's large ethnic minorities. Mr Waldman says that getting to negotiation is a major process in itself, that planning and "confidence building" would take years.

"A rush to negotiations would be self-defeating. (T)he biggest obstacle to talks is mistrust - and to overcome that will inevitably take time," he says. "Confidence-building between warring parties can take years. Spoilers on all sides - whether they are within the Afghan government, political factions, the insurgency, or the region - may try to disrupt the process. If anything, we are seeing and intensification and spread of the conflict - which underscores the difficulty of achieving constructive talks."

There is debate about whether the NATO surge is working or will work (Matt Waldman says it isn't), but negotiations aren't the short straw, or the last ditch effort. Mr. Waldman says that the move towards the negotiation table must be seen as a serious and necessary move. "If insurgents think the coalition - especially the US - is serious about talks, they are far more likely to take them seriously".

This article originally appeared Huffington Post on 20 September 2010.

Pakistan: Are we facing a flood of Jihadists?

2010-08-15T13:24:00.005+08:00

One afternoon, in the aftermath of the 2005 Pakistan earthquake, I was sitting in the lounge room of my house in the North West Frontier Province. I shared it with half a dozen Pakistani friends. After a perfunctory knock on the front door, the room was suddenly filled with four well dressed Americans, identifying themselves as 'from the embassy" and smilingly asking us about 'the terrain'. What did we know, who did we know, and how did we know it? The female American showed particular interest in me - the lone westerner seemingly out of place in a house full of Pakistanis. She asked me about 'activities' I had witnessed. After distributing their name cards and entreaties to call if we had any interesting information ("anything at all"), they piled into their SUV and were gone.

We concluded, of course, they were CIA. The earthquake had created open routes in and out of Kashmir and previously off-limits areas, and thousands of people were daily trekking in and out, over rubble and ruins and suffering. It seemed that not only aid workers but those in the battle for hearts and minds were swarming in and assessing the lie of the land.

Late one afternoon in Kashmir, we clambered up a hill to visit a make shift radio station. In a flimsy one-person tent a bloke transmitted religious sermons and songs and barked out a bit of ideology. We had tea. My local colleagues cracked up laughing when he asked me to teach him interviewing skills. "He's Taliban," they said as we slid down the hill in the dark.

Poor old Pakistan is again in torment. Floods have destroyed the homes, livelihoods and health of millions of its most vulnerable citizens. The majority of Pakistanis are helpless in the face of their self absorbed and corrupt government, an army and secret service that have their own agenda, and their country's western allies who can be ham fisted in their attempts to negotiate the landscape of South Asian politics and culture, and are often thwarted by the treachery of the government they are trying to assist.

There is now great concern about jihadi groups moving in to fill in humanitarian holes left by apathetic countries unwilling to stump up dollars and resources for flood aid. They will take over the hearts and minds, goes the reasoning, as their hand out medication and clean water. This may be a good fear tactic to motivate the tardy, but the Taliban, it's splinter groups and unrelated Islamist groups have been active throughout Pakistan for decades, and the flood while giving them an opportunity to assist their fellow citizens (instead of just brow beating them) is not actually creating jihad groups.

The hard line Islamist groups were some of the most efficient during the 2005/2006 earthquake crisis. All over north Pakistan, camps and workers funded by jihadi organisations provided shelter, food and health care. It was not unusual to hear loud speakers blasting out anti-western rhetoric in the crisis areas urging people to refuse "western aid". But in reality, the UN co operated with many of those groups, who were far more efficient than the hide bound UN, which fussed over distribution lists and created complicated vehicle rosters. In an interview with Australian TV, UNICEF's chief of mission at the time said he wasn't aware that that such groups were 'political' while at the same time UNICEF HQ was voicing concern about madrassa schools popping up everywhere.

The International Crisis Group analysed the situation in 2006 and reported the same issues that are causing deep concern now.

Jihadi groups are moving into the flood areas with a ruthless efficiency, providing basic needs for the population. Is this new? No. Is it cause for concern? Absolutely. But it is neither a flood nor an earthquake that is giving the groups opportunities for their own brand of psy-ops. The problem is far greater than that, and right in front of our noses, all of the time. Until Pakistan's government destroys the treachery within its own ranks, delivers on its endless broken promises to its allies and makes educating and feeding its citizens a priority, the ruthlessly efficient ideologues will continue to recruit successfully, come hell or high water.

This article was first published in Huffington Post on 15 August 2010

Unable to Let Go .... Mourning Vinyl ... Still.

2010-08-03T12:34:00.009+08:00

When amazon.com announced last week that they are selling one-third more electronic books that they are paper versions it started a flurry of concern about the death of the book. Now it’s true that an online book store may attract people more inclined to electronic wizardry, but if you’ve still got one foot in the old fart department (despite your best efforts to maintain a high cool quotient) your anaphylactic shock and luddite push back is totally understandable.

I haven’t got my head around electronic books – but then, hey, I still haven’t recovered from compact discs being introduced in the 1980s. No more gate fold sleeves and dust sleeve inserts, or gazing at the members of the band while conjuring up wonderful fantasies.... remember all those shots of the band members with their girl friends, dogs and kids in a paddock? Lead guitarist with all his instruments in a circle on the front lawn of his castle? Photo montages of the tour, the studio sessions, the Johnny Walker bottles and an ashtray full of joints?

Those old albums and their covers (hauled from share house to share house in a filchered milk crate) were like a journal and personality test all in one. At 15 if you owned the first Kate Bush album – a classic ‘girls’ album if ever there was one – it was a subtle but important indicator that you were smarter than that girl who liked Stevie Nicks.

And look at dear old Nick Drake – why so sad? (Try doing that with a Sparklehorse CD and the recently passed Mark Linkous).

Television, Patti Smith and Nick Cave albums tell another story. Like the pencil marks next to the kitchen door to show how much you’ve grown – the album covers at the front on your pile indicated a progression from those - long unplayed - at the back.

So much was in the package and design, but the written content was often a gold mine. Lyrics on the back to pore over. For the real snobs, a list of session musicians held many opportunities for showing off: “Oh look Jimmy Cobb on drums! Good choice man, good choice.” Those inner sleeves and liner notes could be read with the naked eyed - you didn’t need a magnifying class and the light from a nearby window to kind of work out that the artist might seemingly be giving thanks to “Jimmy Bob and his mum”.

Unless you lived in a vacuum, all records eventually developed pops and scratches at certain points; those flaws becoming so much a part of the music itself that if you heard the LP at someone else’s place, it didn’t feel right if it didn’t skip on the third track.

And have you heard anyone going bananas about ‘mint copy’ CDs like those record collection weirdos, who always uncannily looked like Philip Seymour Hoffman as Lester Bangs in Almost Famous? They never actually played any of their albums “they might get damaged” – but lined them up lovingly in a complicated and highly indexed order. Where are the weirdos now? (Actually, I don’t mourn the loss of those bores at all. There is a statute of limitations on being a sad record collector).

You may indeed be thinking that there should also be a statute of limitations on people mourning the loss of vinyl. I mean seriously, it happened a long time ago. Todd Rundgren is not the only one who has sung that time heals.... but when he did, he sang it on vinyl and it was so much better then.

This article first appeared in Salon on 3 August 2010.

Wikileaks: After the Goldrush: Then What?

2010-07-28T19:45:00.007+08:00

The wikileaks papers have created a frenzy that cannot be sustained once the initial thrill and mystery of the leak has been solved. The story now seems to be who did the leaking, and if it is indeed 22 year old Bradley Manning - who is a suspected of earlier leaks to wiki - how the heavens did he have such such access?

The man the documents were leaked to, Julian Assange says he is a journalist - but he really gave up that right when he foremost described himself as an activist. (Nothing in his past indicates a journalism background - he has long been an activist and hacker). But attacking him for passing himself off as a journalist (as several commentators have done this week) is on this occasion, a little beside the point. Assange knew the limitations of releasing the documents through wikileaks and went straight to The Guardian, Der Spiegel, and the New York Times, believing, rightly, that they would hit higher and heavier than he ever could.

Does the problem lie then, in the breathless way the documents were delivered to the world by these esteemed publications? Or in the way other analysts and journalists struggled to find their own relevance by rummaging around to find any relevance in the documents - which of course they could not have read in their entirety?

I have no particular access to any intelligence documents now, but I have seen plenty of leaked material over my career and I know that 'leaked' adds a patina of mystery and capital I Importance to documents that they sometimes do not deserve. The scale and minutiae that appears to be in these papers is monumental - not for the content necessarily, but for the sheer volume.

The major 'revelations' - Pakistan's security service, the ISI is friendly with the Taliban (the enemy of my enemy - India - is my friend), civilian casualties in Afghanistan are high, the Karzai government is corrupt, and that specialist training for forces to attack insurgents is ongoing - are not news to journalists who report on the war regularly. As Fred Kaplan wrote in Slate "If any of this startles you, then welcome to the world of reading newspapers. Today's must be the first one you've read."

Anyone who follows what is going on in the Afghan theater knows it is a multifaceted and complicated arena. The old saying "only stupid people never change their mind" holds true in war in triplicate. Every day General David Petreaus - and before him Stanley McChrystal - makes a million decisions and probably change minds, thoughts and mind sets while still trying to stay on course and hold steady. They have arm chair generals, liberals, neo-cons and old mutliateralist GOP stalwarts like Richard Haass (who in his recent article in Newsweek pretty much suggested that the US - and therefore NATO/ISAF - cut and run) freely offering their opinions, lobbying and pressuring and creating their own fog of war.

So the question remains - what is the value of the 76,000 documents? Can they be disseminated in a meaningful way? How? While commentators initially filled air time with "oh gosh" commentary, in the past few days cooler heads have prevailed, and it seems the blizzard of documents that have created a storm of excitement, may add up to a thrilling, but merely temporary diversion from the disastrous war in Afghanistan.

This article originally appeared in Huffington Post on 28 July 2010.

The Funniest Lines From Scathing SATC2 Reviews

2010-05-28T18:35:00.000+08:00

You could grow out your bangs, or met your future husband, conceive and give birth or you could could go see the groaningly long Sex and the City 2.

But why bother when you can read some really clever reviews that skewer the film and actually make you laugh out loud. And you don't have to buy a ticket.

To save you endless trawling, here are some highlights (and add your own at the end).

You could say the backlash starts here but I prefer adjusting the lens and putting these in the file marked "Greatest Movie Write Offs of 2010."

Oh c'mon.

Michael Patrick King and those gals couldn't care less. Could they?

This film is an epic eyesore. It's as if they set out to make a movie that said, "You're right! We are hideous!" ---- David Edelstein - New York magazine

The ugly smell of unexamined privilege hangs over this film like the smoke from cheap incense......
Your watch will tell you that a shade less than two and a half hours have elapsed, but you may be shocked at just how much older you feel when the whole thing is over.
AO Scott - NY Times

The women-too old now to pout, whine and babble about their wet dreams, affluent and successful for reasons that are never clear-are all vain, narcissistic, selfish, superficial and really rather stupid. The actors work hard to perform triage, but they've been playing these roles so long they've grown moss. ---- Rex Reed - New York Observer

As tasteless as an Arabian cathouse, as worn-out as your 1998 flip-flops and as hideous as the mom jeans Carrie wears with a belly-baring gingham top, "Sex and the City 2" is two of the worst movies of the year......
Despite its "Lawrence of Arabia" length, this film -- the Sexless and the Self-Pitying -- is as unfunny and shapeless as another famed desert epic. Just think of it as "Bitchtar." ---- Kyle Smith - New York Post

The movie's visual style is arthritic. Director Michael Patrick King covers the sitcom dialogue by dutifully cutting back and forth to whoever is speaking. ..... Carrie narrates the film, providing useful guidelines for those challenged by its intricacies. Sample: "Later that day, Big and I arrived home." ---- Roger Ebert - Chicago Sun Times

Thanks to writer-director Michael Patrick King, I now have a fair idea how it might feel to be stoned to death with scented candles. ----- Cliff Doerksen - Chicago Reader

I sensed a claustrophobic panic growing at the screening I attended. Like Martin Sheen waking from his uneasy slumber in Apocalypse Now and thinking: "Shit, I'm still in Saigon," various members of the audience would emerge from their periodic reveries and mumble out loud: "Shit, Carrie and her friends and by that token, we the audience, are still in Abu Dhabi. ---- Peter Bradshaw - Guardian UK

What might I have done wrong, in a past life or in this one, that I deserve to have my eyeballs seared by Sarah Jessica Parker's loony desert-princess getups? To suffer the agony of watching four actresses who have previously given me so much pleasure become undone by crap dialogue and, in one case, an overinflated ego? To gaze upon a couple of amazingly well-groomed camels and realize that they have better hairdos than the human movie stars astride them? ----Stephanie Zacharek - moveline.com

Most horror films try to get you with shock value, loud scores and copious gore. But not Sex and the City 2, which grinds away your suspension of disbelief and confronts you with the prospect of endless mental torture. ---- Phil Villarreal - OK Magazine

It would have been more merciful for writer-director Michael Patrick King to have rented Carrie, Samantha, Charlotte and Miranda out to the "Saw" franchise, or to Rob Zombie, so we could watch them get shot in the head or skinned alive by Arkansas rednecks. ---- Andrew O'Hehir - Salon.com

And the last word to Lindy West of Stranger.com

If this is what modern womanhood means, then just fucking veil me and sew up all my holes. Good night.

This article first appeared in the Huffington Post, 28 May 2010

First Photo on Release From Evin Prison

2010-05-26T00:03:00.000+08:00

First photo of Jafar Panahi upon release from Evin prison, Tehran.

First Message from Jafar Panahi

2010-05-25T23:24:00.000+08:00

Translations : I'm freed beside my family and I believe more and more that: Cinema is Cinema. I thank you all

Jafar Panahi Released - But The Fight Continues

2010-05-25T21:44:00.000+08:00

It was a campaign that mobilized thousands of the rigorously non-political on social media, seasoned human rights campaigners and international film glitterati. The efforts to free Iranian film director Jafar Panahi came to a brilliant end today when he walked out of the notorious Evin prison in Tehran, released on bail.

It was never clear why Mr Panahi was detained - various reasons were given over the two months of his incarceration (threatening public morals and treason were the general tone of the accusations) - but it is clear that the soft spoken, strong headed director posed a threat to a regime that likes to have its hands firmly round the throat of its citizens.

The movement to free Jafar Panahi grew spontaneously but quickly. His films are popular in the west for their unflinching but often humorous look at life in Iran.

Many doubted that a facebook and twitter campaign, worldwide screenings of Jafar Panahi films, petitions from Hollywood directors and Juliette Binoche crying at Cannes would have any effect at all on Tehran.

On twitter, film critic Roger Ebert said as much. Today he was happy to tweet that he was wrong. "I thought protest petitions would do Iran's jailed Jafar Panahi a fat lot of good. I was wrong, and I'm happy I was."

But Professor of Iranian Studies at Columbia , Hamid Dabashi always believed that the movement would be successful. He told the Huffington Post that "the global outcry, especially during Cannes, has been the sole reason" for Mr Panahi's release. "Otherwise like hundreds of other nameless and faceless political prisoners he would still be in jail."

The release of Mr Panahi on bail is a wonderful day for those who prayed for his release. But no one can forget the many thousands of other political prisoners in Iranian jails. Sham trials, torture, deprivation, humiliation and inhuman living conditions inside a cramped jail is a daily threat to Iranians who wish to express their feelings and live free and with dignity.

"The laws of the country as stipulated by the regime are not being adhered to and international norms are being violated (by) the Iranian regime against its citizens," says exiled film maker, Babak Payami.

Both Mr Payami and Professor Dabashi are convinced that the opposition Green Movement are a genuine threat to the regime and that Tehran is rattled.

"The regime is caught between a rock and a hard place," says Professor Dabashi. "It cannot crush the Green Movement. It will strengthen it if it tries to crush it; it will strengthen it if it yields to it. The Islamic Republic may have let go of Jafar Panahi; but Jafar Panahi will not let go of the Islamic Republic. "

Jafar Panahi is free, for now. The fight goes on.

This artcile first appeared in the Huffington Post on 25 May 2010

Iran Film Director to Be Freed on Tuesday - Wife

2010-05-25T16:51:00.000+08:00

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Jailed Iranian film director Jafar Panahi, who has been on hunger strike for more than a week, is expected to be released on Tuesday on bail of 2 billion rials (about $200,000), his wife said.

Panahi, winner of many international awards and a supporter of opposition leader Mirhossein Mousavi in last year's disputed presidential election, was arrested in March along with his wife and daughter. His family was later freed.

"Based on what we have been told, Panahi will be released tonight between 7 and 11 p.m. (10 a.m. ET-2:30 p.m. ET)," ILNA news agency quoted his wife Tahereh Saeedi as saying. She said the bail had already been deposited.

Panahi is held at Tehran's Evin jail, where human rights groups say many political prisoners are detained.

Tehran prosecutor Abbas Jafari Dolatabadi told ISNA news agency on Monday that Panahi would be released on bail, but he did not say when it would happen.

French film star Juliette Binoche criticised Iran for imprisoning Panahi during her acceptance speech for the best actress award at the Cannes film festival on Sunday, saying "his fault is to be an artist, to be independent."

Panahi had said he would not end his hunger strike until he was allowed to have access to his lawyer, receive visits from his family and be unconditionally released until a court hearing was held. His family and lawyer visited him last week.

"We had a meeting with him on Thursday along with the prosecutor and although his general health condition was good he looked physically weak," Saeedi said.

Panahi, whose films portray ordinary life in Iran, often examining social issues faced by women in the conservative Islamic state, had been due to sit on the jury of the 2010 Cannes festival.

He won the festival's Camera d'Or prize for his 1995 movie, "White Balloon" and senior French government ministers called on Iran this month to free him.

Original source - ABC News website.

Reporters Without Borders PSA - Iran 2010

2010-05-22T09:16:00.000+08:00

Fear and Loathing, Or Why Pakistan Banned the 21st Century.

2010-05-21T18:31:00.000+08:00

Pakistan has a small but surprisingly liberal and progressive middle class. Politically connected and motivated, they are a solid pillar in the fight for the development of human rights, rule of law, freedom of speech and economic responsibility.

Does this sound like a group of people who would casually accept a ban on Facebook and YouTube (and over 400 other sites) on the basis of "sacrilegious content" and "blasphemous materials"? Not likely. And they're not.

The wave of bannings this week (which was started by a Lahore court after being petitioned by an alliance of conservative lawyers over the Facebook group "Everybody Draw Muhammad Day" and now includes YouTube and over 400 other sites) is another step in the chipping away at the Pakistan new media scene, which has been a vibrant and increasingly influential part of Pakistan in recent years.

But along with the growing middle class, "the country still has an extremist segment and this segment often hijacks the moderate majority through the simple manipulation of faith," says lawyer, TV host and blogger Farrukh Pitafi Khan. "Since the issue of blasphemy can drive even some of the moderates to the extreme the government is surely afraid of an extremist backlash."

Media commentator Adnan Rehmat agrees that the ready compliance by government with the court order is a case of taking into account varying degrees of the population's faith, while trickily balancing concerns about growing militancy and an Islamist insurgency in the north west of the country. "There have been bloody riots in the past - with fatalities in the streets - over alleged blasphemy by western media and with (former President) Musharraf having to pay a heavy political price of 'not doing enough' to condemn it. Being in the middle of a 'war on terror' against Islamic radicals, the elected government did not want to give an issue to the Islamists and militant groups to beat it up with."

One of Mr Rehmat's main concerns about the prohibition is that by banning (which has never proved successful elsewhere) the courts are also removing a civil right and responsibility to engage. "By banning Facebook altogether for a week, I, along with the 2.4 million Facebook users in Pakistan, have been deprived of our right to protest the allegedly offensive Facebook page by going to the offending page and expressing ourselves."

Pakistan, like the rest of the world, is still grappling with the realities of an instant, online world. " Pakistani courts are ill prepared for handling the issues regarding new technologies and cultural changes brought about by them," says Mr Khan. "Consider the fact that a right wing group of lawyers approaches the court for a ban and without thinking twice (the) Chief Justice decides to impose the ban."

Adnan Rehmat says that despite all the breast beating about sacrilege and blasphemy, the state has failed to notice that it for all the fear and terror that is constantly predicted, previous offences have not resulted in the sky falling in. "The political parties have failed to educate citizens and voters on the values of pluralisms," he says. "No heavens have collapsed after any alleged blasphemy - clearly 'God' is unruffled."

This article first appeared on Huffington Post on 21st May 2010

Letter from Evin Prison

2010-05-19T09:11:00.000+08:00

Film maker Jafar Panahi has gone on a hunger strike in Evin Prison, in Tehran. In a letter published by his family, Mr. Panahi stated that he has been threatened with the arrest of his entire family. Human Rights International published some of the translated letter -

On Saturday night [15 May 2010] agents attacked Evin’s Cell 56, forcing me and my cellmates outdoors without any clothing and kept us in the cold weather for one and half hours.

On Sunday morning, they took me to interrogation room and accused me of filming the inside of my cell, which is absolutely false. They then threatened that they would arrest my entire family and transfer them to Evin Prison, and that they would send my daughter to an unsafe detention center in Rajaie Shahr.

I have not taken any food or liquids since Sunday morning [16 May 2010], and I would like to announce that unless the following demands are met, I will continue to refrain from eating and drinking, as I do not wish to turn into a guinea pig who is put under various torture, psychological and mental abuse, and subjected to false accusations.”

1. Contacting and visiting with my family to ensure their complete health.

2. The right to having and consult with a lawyer after 77 days of detention.

3. Unconditional release until my trial date and final verdict.

I swear upon the cinema in which I believe, that I will not stop my hunger strike until my demands are met. My only demand is for my body to be delivered to my family to bury wherever they like. This letter was written at 11:00 a.m. on 18 May 2010.

Letter about Jafar Panahi from Iranian film maker Abbas Kiarostami

2010-05-18T21:57:00.000+08:00

This is a letter from Iranian film maker Abbas Kiarostami. It was published in the New York Times on March 9th, and got little coverage elsewhere. On May 19 at Cannes, Mr Kiarostmai distributed the letter at his press conference in Cannes. He asked that it be published in its entirety around the world. I am doing my small bit by publishing it below :

I don’t quite know to whom I am addressing this letter, but I do know why I’m writing it and I believe that under the circumstances it is both critical and inevitable because two Iranian filmmakers, both of whom are vital to the Iranian wave of independent cinema, have been incarcerated.

As a filmmaker of the same independent cinema, it has been years since I lost hope of ever screening my films in my country. By making my own low-budget and personal films, it has also been years since I lost all hope of receiving any kind of aid or assistance from the Ministry of Guidance and Islamic culture, the custodian of Iranian cinema.

In order to make a living, I have turned to photography and use that income to make short and low-budget films. I don’t even object to their illegal reproduction and distribution because that is my only means of communicating with my own people. For years now I have not even objected to this lack of attention from the ministry and cinema tic authorities .

Even if we choose to disregard the fact that for years now, the cinematic administrators of the country, who constitute the main cultural body of the government, have differentiated between their own filmmakers (insiders) and independent filmmakers (outsiders), I am still of the opinion that they are oblivious of Iranian independent cinema. Filmmaking is not a crime. It is our sole means of making a living and thus not a choice, but a vital necessity.

I have found my own solutions to the problem. Independent of the conventional and customary support granted to the cinematic community at large, I make my own short and independent films with hopes of gaining some credit for the people I love and a name for the country I come from. Sometimes the necessity to work calls for the making of films beyond the borders of my country, which is ultimately not out of personal choice or taste.

However, others, like Jafar Panahi, have for years tried to summon official government support, exploring the same frustrating path, only to be confronted with the same closed doors. He too has for years held hopes of obtaining public screenings for his films and receiving official aid and assistance from the relevant governmental bodies. He still believes that based on the merits of his films and the acclaim they have brought the country, he can seek legal solutions to the problem. The Ministry of Guidance and Islamic culture is directly responsible for what is happening to Jafar Panahi and his like. Any wrongdoing on his part, if there is any at all, is a direct result of the mismanagement of officials at the cinematic department of the Ministry of Guidance and it’s inadequate policies which in no way leave any choice for the filmmaker other than to resort to means that jeopardize his situation as a filmmaker. He too makes a living through cinema.

For him too, filmmaking is a vital necessity. He needs to make himself heard and has the right to expect cinematic officials to facilitate the process, rather than become the major obstacles themselves. Perhaps the officials at the ministry can not at present be of help in solving Jafar Panahi’s dilemma, but they need to know that they are and have been responsible all these years, for the dreadful consequences and unpleasant and anti-cultural reflections of such policies in the world media.

I may not be an advocate of Jafar Panahi’s radical and sensational methods but I do know that the cause for his plight is not a result of choice but an inevitable [compulsion].

He is paying for the conduct of officials who have for years closed all doors on him, leaving open small passages and dead end paths.

Jafar Panahi’s problem will eventually be solved but there are numerous young people who have chosen the art of cinema as their means of expression and careers.

This is where the duty of the government and the Ministry of Guidance and Islamic Culture, as the government’s main cultural body, becomes even more critical, for they face a large group of Iranian youth who aim to work independently and away from complicated official procedures and existing prejudices.

Jafar Panahi and Mahmoud Rasoulof are two filmmakers of the Iranian independent cinema, a cinema that for the past quarter of a century has served as an essential cultural element in expanding the name of this country across the globe. They belong to an expanded world culture, and are a part of international cinematic culture. I wish for their immediate release from prison knowing that the impossible is possible. My heartfelt wish is that artists no longer be imprisoned in this country because of their art and that the independent and young Iranian cinema no longer faces obstacles, lack of support, attention and prejudice.

This is your responsibility and the ultimate definition of your existence.

Jailed Iranian Film Director Jafar Panahi’s Message From Evin Prison, Tehran to the Director of Cannes Film Festival

2010-05-15T09:29:00.000+08:00

My dear friends, please accept my warm regards from the dark and narrow cell in Evin prison.

Unfortunately today after meeting with my family I was informed about your valuable efforts at opening the first day of your Sixty-third Cannes World Festival.

I salute your dignity and philanthropy from here and salute you all in Cannes Film Festival credits, particularly I sincerely thank Mr. Gilles Jacob.

My special thanks goes to foreign minister Bernard Kouchner and Mr. Frédéric Mitterrand French culture minister for their efforts toward my freedom, I really appreciate it.

Your voice sounds like voices from behind the tall walls of Evin prison when I hear for my freedom from my wife, children and loved ones.

But let us not forget the thousands of defenseless prisoners here, who have no one to pass on the message of their distress. Like me, they have committed no crime. And my blood is no more important than theirs.

Despite being threatened, I can assure you I shall sign no coerced confession. I am innocent. I have produced no film against the Iranian regime.

At these moments I spend life with love to all my friends among juries, filmmakers and all participants in Cannes Film Festival that saw my name in the seats.

With the hope of a better tomorrow,

Jafar Panahi

Tehran Evin Prison ward 209
May 13, 2010

پیام جعفر پناهی از اوین به مدیر فستیوال کن
دوستان عزیزم، از سلول تنگ و تاریک زندان اوین سلام‌های گرم مرا
بپذیرید.
شوربختانه امروز در پی ملاقات با اعضای خانواده‌ام در جریان تلاش‌های
ارزشمند شما در نخستین روز افتتاحیه شصت و سومین فستیوال جهانی کن قرار
گرفتم. از این جا به انسان‌دوستی و شرافت شما درود می‌فرستم و از تمامی
دست‌اندرکاران فستیوال کن بویژه آقای ژیل ژاکوب صمیمانه تشکر می‌کنم. هم
چنین از آقای برنارد کوشنر وزیر امور خارجه و آقای فردریک میتران وزیر
فرهنگ فرانسه برای تلاش‌هایی که در راستای آزادی من انجام می‌دهند،
سپاسگزارم.
صدای شما هم آهنگ صداهایی است که از پشت دیوارهای بلند زندان اوین از
سوی همسر، فرزندان و عزیزان هموطنم برای آزادیم می‌شنوم.
در این لحظات با عشق به همه دوستان سینماگرم در هیات داوران، فیلمسازان و
همه شرکت کنندگان در جشنواره کن که نام مرا در صندلی خالی می‌بینند، زندگی
را سپری می‌کنم.

با امید به فردای بهتر

جعفر پناهی – ایران - بند 209 زندان اوین
خبرنگار پویا خبر – جشنواره کن – فرانسه - 13 ماه مه 2010

2010-05-14T10:20:00.000+08:00

Senator Benigno Simeon "Noynoy" Aquino III, who is leading in the race for the presidency, has been described by international media as a “comfort candidate" who must break the elite's stranglehold on the Philippine economy in order for it to finally take off.

In its editorial Wednesday, Arab News said Aquino, who is from the powerful Cojuangco clan, must break the chains of patronage and give the entrepreneurial middle classes free rein in the economy.

“Aquino’s biggest challenge will be to convince the privileged elite, many of whom are family’s friends and acquaintances, that the country can no longer stumble on with wealth and power firmly clutched in the hands of a few," the editorial read.

“For the economy to take off, for the full potential of this populous and industrious country to flourish, many levers of power have to be surrendered and sometimes murderous clan control much diminished," it added.

The editorial noted that while 75 percent of Filipino voters cast their votes on the Philippines’ first nationwide automated elections last Monday, their longing for change “has been betrayed repeatedly by the governments they have chosen."

“Comfort candidate"

An international correspondent for the American news website Huffington Post, meanwhile, described Aquino as a “comfort candidate."

“Noynoy is the comfort candidate. In a country where crooks, charlatans, film stars, sportsmen and nut jobs routinely stand for, and get voted into office, Mr. Aquino represented a steady and secure vote," said Virginia M. Moncrieff in her column on Wednesday.

Moncrieff also echoed the Arab News editorial, saying Aquino, 50, has to tackle the problem of developing a stable middle class in the Philippines. She said the middle class has “created the foundations for economic, political and social stability elsewhere in South East Asia."

“Keeping the educated, the population of under 30 year olds and the floods of other Filipino workers in the country, ably occupied and properly compensated for their labor has not been solved by any [Philippine] President. If Mr Aquino can tackle that problem and succeed, the millions of Filipinos who queued for hours this week to vote for him shall be well rewarded," Moncrieff said.

Son of an icon

Aquino, son of democracy icons Benigno “Ninoy" Aquino Jr. and the late President Corazon Aquino, gained widespread political mileage when his mother died August 1 last year.

The Arab News editorial said even Mrs. Aquino, known globally as a democracy icon for ending more than 20 years of Marcos dictatorship, had failed to lever the power away from fellow members of the elite.

“Her instincts were certainly right and she personally was never tainted by corruption. However she lacked the political savvy to argue and cajole the elite away from their entrenched position at the top of the Philippines’ economy," it said.

The editorial said that while the last great opportunity for change seemed to come with the ouster of former President Joseph Estrada, his successor, Mrs. Arroyo failed to take advantage of the opportunity.

“It became apparent that behind the movement to get rid of Estrada was the hand of the elite," it said.

Estrada, who is seeking re-election despite his plunder conviction in 2007, is ranking second in this year’s elections.

Arab News said this only showed that many poor Filipinos still believe that Estrada, a former movie actor and a veteran politician, still “offers an alternative." —Source - KBK/RSJ, GMANews.TV 13 May 2010

The Empty Chair

2010-05-13T10:05:00.001+08:00

Jury member of the 63rd Cannes Film Festival Victor Erice sits next to the empty seat of Jafar Panahi as he attends the opening ceremony of the 63rd Cannes Film Festival May 12, 2010.

Two senior French ministers have called on Iran on Wendnesday, to free jailed director Jafar Panahi so he can take up an invitation to sit on the jury of the Cannes film festival.
Pic credit - REUTERS/Yves Herman

Who is this guy? Philippines President Elect - Mr Vanilla of Manila

2010-05-12T13:24:00.000+08:00

With his penchant for badly fitting shirts, dorky hair style, and complete lack of personal charisma, Benigno "Noynoy" Aquino appears the most unlikely person to win an election by a landslide. But with most of the votes counted, Mr Vanilla of Manila has galloped into Malacanang Palace, the official residence of the President of the Philippines.

There were nine presidential contenders in this week's general election and Noynoy seized close to 40% of the vote. In a country with over 7000 far flung islands, the call usually takes days, sometimes weeks, but with a new electronic voting system and such a handsome lead, it was clear 16 hours after the polls closed that Aquino was the winner.

Not that it all went smoothly. There was violence and murder and flaws in the new electronic voting system. One frustrated election worker was even seen bashing a voting machine with a broom handle.

But Noynoy was always the favorite. How could he not be, with such substantial parents? His late father - the assassinated opposition senator Benigno Aquino jr., is a national hero. And who could forget his mother - ex President Corazon Aquino, elevated to virtual saint hood since her death last year?

Noynoy is the comfort candidate. In a country where crooks, charlatans, film stars, sportsmen and nut jobs routinely stand for, and get voted into office, Mr. Aquino represented a steady and secure vote. He campaigned heavily on anti corruption - "If there is no corruption, there is no poverty" is a rough translation of his election logo - and has promised to start prosecuting corrupt officials with weeks of his swearing in.

His anti poverty message reveals a liberal (for the Catholic Philippines) attitude towards family planning, which has been a tough and controversial topic for politicians to navigate. He believes in "responsible parenthood. As to how many, as to what method to utilize, we leave it up to the couple, who can best decide." (The Catholic Church in the Philippines as elsewhere, has always believed it should control family planning).

Mr. Aquino says he will acknowledge the rights of homosexuals, another issue which will have him in conflict with the church. "Gays shouldn't be discriminated against in terms of occupation and other aspects," he has said, although he is "not prepared to support gay marriage."

Mr Aquino will have to tackle the problem of developing a stable middle class, who have created the foundations for economic, political and social stability elsewhere in South East Asia. Keeping the educated, the population of under 30 year olds and the floods of other Filipino workers in the country, ably occupied and properly compensated for their labor has not been solved by any President. If Mr Aquino can tackle that problem and succeed, the millions of Filipinos who queued for hours this week to vote for him shall be well rewarded.

This article originally appeared in Huffington Post, 12 May 2010.

Tribute to Jafar Panahi

2010-05-07T15:03:00.000+08:00

Move Over Ideology, the Taliban is Now Home of the Angry Young Man

2010-05-05T16:21:00.000+08:00

Rather than a zealous religious belief, anger is the main reason young men in Afghanistan join the Taliban, according to new research by the International Council on Security and Development.

"The majority of Taliban recruits aren't motivated by ideological concerns," the president of ICOS, Norine MacDonald QC, told Huffington Post. "Most of them are what we characterise as "Angry Young Men" - disenfranchised youths who lack opportunities and have serious legitimate grievances against their government and the international community."

Ms MacDonald says that because many of the young Taliban recruits lack any genuine ideology they can be "drawn away from the insurgency with the right social and economic tools. There is incredibly high unemployment in Afghanistan, a large part of the population is men under the age of thirty, and marriage is very expensive," she says. "It's a bad mix".

Researchers interviewed a wide range of Afghan men for the report. "There was a lot of emotion during the interview process," says Ms MacDonald. "We focused on men from Marjah, Lashkar Gah and Kandahar as we felt that was the most interesting and relevant group to interview. Yes, there is a definite feeling of hopelessness in that community, but anger is the predominant emotion."

ICOS latest research underlines the ongoing fears of many Afghans about their future, and th
eir inability to see their way past the February surge of Operation Moshtarak in Marjah (Helmand province) and NATO/ISAF activity and presence across the country. The report also decries what Ms MacDonald calls a "piecemeal approach". She says that without integrating pressing humanitarian concerns, the surge will never work.

"We propose this new counter insurgency equation - balance every negative impact with a positive impact. (The) positive impact must be greater than negative impact. We are dealing with major blowback on the hearts and minds campaign, from the impact of the military efforts."

General Stanley A. McChrystal, ISAF Commander, successfully promoted the humanitarian /military approach in the Iraq surge, but in Afghanistan (and over the border in Pakistan) he is dealing with quite literally a different landscape and, the Taliban.

The majority of Afghanistan loathe and fear the Taliban and according the ICOS research, 95% of Afghans interviewed believe that the Taliban have been successful in attracting more members in the last year than previously, are stronger than ever and will just flow back into the areas of Helmand province (such as Marjah) that have been targeted in Operation Moshtarak. Despite not having access to reliable "recruitment" statistics, Ms MacDonald argues that even a perception of a strong and growing Taliban is dangerous.

"The fact that so many Afghans "believe" that Taliban recruitment has increased suggests the insurgency is indeed getting stronger and strengthening their ability to recruit," she says. "It's not good news."

Working within the traditions of Afghan society is essential, according to Ms MacDonald. "We want these young, unmarried men turned into married men, with a family and land of their own: a sense of identity that can inoculate them from recruitment and give them a stake in building peace there. We say from a policy point of view this type of "social actions" should be considered "security instruments" and given the same political and financial support as military and police actions. Our military effort is very expensive, not calming the insurgency, and not sustainable."

This article first appeared in Huffington Post, 5 May 2010.

The Spamdex - How An Election Could Be Decided By Tinned Meat.

2010-05-03T19:33:00.000+08:00

MANILA, Philippines - Manuel Villar is one of the front runners in next week’s national election. He makes much of his humble roots. Born in a squalid ghetto area of Manila, he managed to claw his way out of Nowheresville to become a real estate mogul and one of the wealthiest people in the country. Mr Villar repeats his boot straps story ad nauseum; it’s part of his wide appeal. Not only did he escape the ghetto (hallelujah!) but is he an astute and successful business man – this is the man for you!

Whispers of corruption continue to dog Mr Villar, but there are more disturbing rumors that plague his every step. Apparently, Mr Villar ate Spam when he was a child. An older acquaintance murmured darkly that Villar “pretends his family couldn’t afford Spam, but I think they could.” This scandalous reveal appeared not to need any embellishment. This was a major put down.

Manila tour guide slash social commentator Carlos Celdran believes Spam is an important economic and social indicator. On one of his tours he tells of a dreadful day shortly after the 1983 assassination of Senator Benigno Aquino. His father arrived home with shocking news. “There will be no more Spam”. The assembled Celdran clan reeled back in horror: the Philippines peso had gone through the floor and the family budget could no longer cover tinned meat.

Mr Celdran says that because it was American, Spam was much in demand and readily available during the days of US forces at Clark Air Base and Subic Bay. They had introduced it to the Philippines during WWII meat shortages. By the 1980s and the Marcos mangling of the economy, many could no longer afford Spam, “it signified that good times were over,” he says. “It went from (a) middle class staple to a high end treat after 1983.”

And so the Philippines have unknowingly created a political and social indicator: the Spamdex. Before 1983, almost everyone could afford it, almost everyone ate it. But, says Carlos Celdran, “only the mayayaman (rich) now can pay for the real thing these days.” (The not so well off eat the far cheaper Ma Ling, a lower end Chinese luncheon meat, which one of my friends calls cats’n’rats).

So if Spam was on everyone’s plate before 1983, Mr Villar only has to claim that his family were so poor they couldn’t even afford it and people will understand how poor he really was. Couldn’t afford Spam? Hell, that’s poor! (If you believe him, which apparently, thousands don't).

Front running presidential candidate Benigno ‘Noy Noy’ Aquino says his favorite dish is Spam meatballs and spaghetti. He gave the recipe to a local newspaper, saying his mom, former President Cory Aquino used to make it for him. Spamdex jackpot! That must have been worth a few votes. His formidable sister, the TV personality Kris, who accompanies her bachelor brother on the campaign trail, is a “tinned meat ambassador” for a Spam rival.

Other candidates in the race – to be decided on May 10 – have remained tight lipped about the consumption of Spam during their child hood. Given the condemnation of Manuel Villar for allegedly embellishing his life story with the assistance of tinned meat, they are probably wise to keep away from the Spamdex.

Iran Steps Up Its Crackdown on Culture

2010-04-28T17:13:00.000+08:00

Before his jailing on March 1, for being a 'security risk' to the Iranian regime, award winning film director Jafar Panahi had given extensive interviews about the ways he manoeuvred to avoid dealing with, or catching the eye of the Culture Ministry.

For his award winning 2006 film "Offside", Mr Panahi, who was already under threat from the authorities (in remarkable understatement he said that they felt "sensitive" about him) submitted a fake script for approval by the Ministry, and replaced his own, controversial name with that of an assistant on the shoot.

This week, the Iranian Deputy Culture Minister for Cinematic Affairs, has introduced more stringent measures to clamp down on dissidents and "security threats". New laws, including the banning of foreign names in Iranian films and more rigorous assessment by "religious experts in order to make the cinema more fruitful" have been introduced.

"In two or three years, most of our films (will) be pure," Deputy Minister Javad Shamaqdari told the Tehran Times. "We are trying to implement restrictions in order to get rid of the malevolence resulting from these problematic films."

The attack on culture in Iran has been steadily growing since last year. Two weeks ago, filmmaker and blogger Mohammad Nourizad was jailed for three and a half years for "spreading propaganda against the clerical establishment and insulting the country's leaders".

There is a growing international movement to draw attention to the increasing prosecution and repression of artists, film makers, journalists and academics in Iran.

The movement to free Jafar Panahi has attracted high profile support, including Walter Salles, the Brazilian director of The Motorcycle Diaries.

"Jafar Panahi is a uniquely sensitive artist," Mr. Salles told Huffington Post, "The fact that such an important artist cannot express himself freely and is now under arrest in his own country is not only an act of violence against Jafar Panahi and his family, but also against all those who admire his work and support freedom of expression throughout the world."

Please note: for information on the global movement in support of Jafar Panahi visit to Free Jafar Panahi group on facebook and @freejafarpanahi on twitter.

This article was originally published on Huffington Post 28 April 2010.

2010-04-26T10:29:00.000+08:00

Leading Iranian Dissidents Join Fight To Free Jafar Panahi

2010-04-15T17:14:00.000+08:00

After weeks of silence, the Iranian government has said they detained internationally acclaimed film maker Jafar Panahi for making an anti-government film inside his house. His family completely deny the accusation.

Mr Panahi's films have been internationally acclaimed for their gritty, unforgiving view of modern day Iran. But this style of film making inside a repressive regime comes at a high price; Mr Panahi has been under constant surveillance since his first film over twenty years ago. Last year he infuriated authorities by wearing a green neck scarf (the symbol of the opposition) at Montreal Film Festival, where he was head of the jury. He was banned from leaving the country in February to attend the Berlin Film Festival, and was arrested on March 1st at his residence in Tehran.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, one exiled film reviewer told the Huffington Post that Jafar Panahi had previously been interrogated and instructed to keep silent, "or leave the country forever."

"There's a long history of interrogating the filmmakers in Iran. Sometimes they are warned about activities, and in other cases they are coerced to make a movie that advocates the agenda of the regime," he said.

The reviewer is in contact with the director's family who say that Mr Panahi is pale and ill and "under emotional pressure to sign what his interrogators dictate to him. He was treated respectfully they say, but they have confined him to a very small cell where he can hardly move."

Babak Payami, another acclaimed Iranian film maker was arrested and interrogated in Tehran in June 2003. Mr Payami told the Huffington Post that although Jafar Panahi has yet to be formally charged, "he is undergoing intense interrogation. It is obvious that the regime is making efforts to build a case against him to the best of their ability."

Mr Payami is one of hundreds of film professionals around the world determined to keep Jafar Panahi in the headlines. "All of my focus is to keep the public awareness of his arrest and detention without entering into a speculative scenario which may further complicate his situation. (We need) to make sure that there is no further cause provided to the regime to fabricate a case against him," he said of the delicate balancing act facing those working behind the scenes for Mr Panahi's release.

To esteemed Iranian intellectual Hamid Dabashi, the jailing of Jafar Panahi is another in a long list of causes and grievances against Tehran. Professor of Iranian Studies at Columbia and a highly regarded cultural and film critic, he says that the level of outrage and condemnation must remain high to have any effect in swaying the regime.

"The louder the international outcry against this outrageous injustice the sooner he will be released," he told the Huffington Post. "The Islamic Republic is particularly wary of its international image - all the indications to the contrary notwithstanding."

Professor Dabashi hopes that the agitation on behalf Jafar Panahi will have a positive effect for other prisoners locked in the hell of Iranian jails. "This campaign would be particularly effective if it is combined with equal outrage against the incarceration of many other unnamed, anonymous, and forgotten people who have been arrested on bogus charges since the contested presidential election of June 2009."

Note: International film festivals and supporters are organizing a week of support for Jafar Panahi, by showing his films from 15 - 21 April at venues around the world. Already viewings are scheduled in over 10 countries. For details see the Free Jahar Panahi page on facebook and follow @freejafarpanahi on twitter.

This article first appeared in Huffington Post on 15 April 2010.

Which Way To The Crucifixion?

2010-04-02T23:02:00.000+08:00

"Which way to the crucifixions?" Our driver leaned out the car and directed the question at some auto rickshaw drivers, lolling around in the mid morning sun. To get to the site where three crosses awaited three sinners, we had to proceed slowly -- making way for trails of black hooded men, slapping their naked backs with leather whips, blood spattering over their bodies.

Three hours out of Manila, San Fernando has now become internationally known for its Good Friday blood spilling and nailing. The city takes on a festive air as masses arrive for the spectacle. In typical Filipino style, it's a mixture of pure devotion and Mardi Gras.

This annual ritual started as pure penitence about 40 years ago, but now, with ice cream sellers, souvenir hawkers and kids offering to carry your bags for a few pesos, it's more of a festival -- an enjoyable day out -- a curious Biblical side show.

A neighborhood basketball court is the home of one part of the festival; exhausted flagellators rest under the hoops and free throw line, and have a quick soothing cigarette -- after handing their whips to local school boys only too happy to continue the rhythmic flogging of raw weeping flesh. Media are hustled onto a rickety creaking platform to the right of the crosses for optimum viewing pleasure. Medics tense for the inevitable wound dressing.

The tannoy loud speaker rumbles into life with atmospheric music and the crowd falls silent. Jesus arrives through the crowd, dressed in a simple kaftan, cross on his back. Centurions are with him, roughing him up and pushing him further onto the ground. The press surge forward and break the rope barriers, and are waved back by guards with t-shirts that read "Annual Lenten Rites - Good Friday - Security".

There are already two sinners roped onto crosses. The historial and biblical effect is somewhat diminished -- they are both wearing jeans and have watches strapped to their wrists. (After some very unholy hanky-panky with an Australian comedian being filmed on a cross, this year the Department of Tourism has a strict evaluation procedure for anyone wanting to be crucified. And yes, I am well aware how odd that sentence reads).

Jesus was then really nailed to the cross. Everyone rubbernecked, but we couldn't see or hear -- the cross was lowered for him to be hammered onto it and then lifted upwards. The crucifixion only lasted a few scant minutes before a Keystone Cops formation of volunteers jogged up on a rescue mission. As a Jesus-laden stretcher was trotted at a fast clip to the medical tent, an announcer told us the show was over and he hoped "to see you all next year!" Jesus had his bloody hands seen to (iodine and gauze) then he grabbed his rack sack and disappeared into the amenities block.

In the bathroom Jesus had transformed to Bonjing, struggling with hammered and bandaged hands to put on his cargo pants. Bonjing is a 55 year old welder and native of Pampanga. For the past 13 years, he has had himself hung to a cross on Good Friday. "The nails don't go in very far, only a little," he told me through a translator, who was trying to find him a cigarette.

In truth Bonjing didn't seem to be transported onto a spiritual plain by what he had just been through. The rock star reception when he emerged from the loos must have been fun though. Puffing on a Marlboro Menthol, he was the guy who everyone wanted to be photographed with, even if he was now dressed in a t-shirt and cargoes.

Over my shoulder on the Golgotha re-creation site, families were posing for photos by the crosses and drinking Coca Cola. The Calderon family from Pulilan stood smiling with their arms round each other and made sure the crucifix was in shot. "Yes it was good," said the eldest son. "We might come again next year."

RIP Mark Linkous. Beautiful and Crazy.

2010-03-16T12:20:00.000+08:00

The road to death was long and by all accounts incredibly painful, but when the final moment came it was brutal in its finality. Mark Linkous, singer and songwriter with indie band Sparklehorse, shot himself through the heart on March 6. He was 47.

People who knew Mark have written about him beautifully (Andrew Dansby's piece on chron.com is heartbreaking). But for those of us who just knew his music, those exquisite, delicate, romantic tunes now take on a special quality that will forever be called haunting.

Mark Linkous is not the first musician to die at his own hand; he follows a long tradition. I once joked with a band manager that he should definitely sign one up and coming band because the lead singer had just be carted off - yet again - to the loony bin. Obviously incredibly talented, we agreed. Worth pursuing. But the dark romance of the anguished artist which inspires a deep yearning within us in our youth, takes on darker meaning as we get older - the torment of out of reach agony, the inability to ask for help and the sad realisation that often, the tortured soul can be the most monstrous and unlovable pain in the ass.

But oh Mark Linkous, Mark Linkous. Forever concerned that his musical ambitions were being thwarted or were wasted. Feeling as if his talent was not recognized, or that he was fooling himself. These are the concerns that could cause many artists to fall into deep funks. If you are inclined to clinical depression then the trauma of having so much to give combined with the demons in your head must -as it has in Mark's case - create more pain of the mind than a person cares to endure.

Mark Linkous wrote the kind of music that fans thought they owned. If you haven't heard any of Sparklehorse's albums, try them. He wrote like he knows you and you listen like you know him. His was the kind of talent that people felt good knowing about, as if being part of the Mark Linkous fan club was a special place inhabited by few, but those few just knew. You know, they just knew.

So RIP Mark Linkous. May your restless soul find peace, may your music live on. As you wrote yourself once, so wisely, the beautiful ones are always crazy.

This article first appeared in Huffington Post on 16 March 2010.

Manny Pacquiao: People's Champ or People's Chump?

2010-03-09T13:35:00.000+08:00

In the lead up to his weekend fight with Joshua Clottey, boxer Manny 'Pacman' Pacquiao got some good news from a different arena. Attempts to block his candidacy for Philippines congress under the People Champ Movement failed, and the Pacman will now stand in the May 10 elections.

It is hard to overstate the popularity of Manny Pacquiao in the Philippines, and much of it is richly deserved. Fiercely competitive and tenacious, he is widely considered as the best boxer in the world, having won seven different weight classes. In this weekend's match against the scrappy and determined Ghanaian, Joshua Clottey, he is expected to triumph again - many predict a knock out in the early rounds.

Manny is everywhere in the Philippines. On billboards and television he plugs a vast array of products. It seems there isn't a sponsor that can't broker a deal with Manny; sports shoes, beer, clothing, snack food, milk, shampoo ("With Head & Shoulders he leading us in the fight against dandruff!"). He's on radio, TV, in gossip columns. A movie has been made about his life. Every time he fights, the country closes down, except for the cinemas and clubs where you can see a live telecast of him pummelling his latest opponent into a mound of pulp, and then you join in the absolute mayhem at the cessation of hostilities.

Now Pacman is confident of winning a seat in Congress, or to put it in the words of his legal counsel, nothing can "stop our champion's inexorable march to victory". He is standing in Sarangani, an urban area away from Manila, with a rising middle class. My middle class friends in Manila snort in derision about his candidacy and even outside of the Manila elite, and despite his incredibly popularity, it doesn't seem a lay down misere for an inexorable march to victory. One older friend said she wouldn't vote for him "because he cheats on his wife" as if this only thing that made him unsuitable for high office. But in this deeply Catholic country, that is a factor not to be dismissed.

Manny's People's Champ Movement has joined forces with the Nacionalista Party and endorsed its Presidential candidate Manuel Villar Jr, who is currently running second in most polls behind Noy Noy Aquino (of that Aquino family). "Manny Pacquiao... has thrown his best punches to hoist our country's pride and honor..." said Villar in a cringe inducing welcome to the champ. Villar is campaigning strongly on his credentials of being from a poor background (a sort of Filipino Joe Biden) but has constantly had the whiff of corruption and dodgy dealings follow him. After a strong start his polling numbers are falling.

Pacman meanwhile is limbering up for another wipe out on Sunday. There seems no doubt that despite his opponent's determination, he won't be able to withstand that onslaught of Pacquaio. Pacman seems to be taking it easy, indulging in one of his favorite pastimes - singing karaoke - in front of millions of bemused Americans on Jimmy Kimmel Live! The routine - flat, shaky and unconvincing but guileless may not be reflectionof his performance in the ring, but it may be an indication of the Manny we are about to see on the campaign trail.

This article first appeared in Huffington Post on 9 March 2010.

Journalists in Afghanistan: Another Order To Stop Reporting

2010-03-02T12:12:00.000+08:00

Afghan intelligence has ordered foreign and national media to immediately cease and desist from reporting live from terrorist attack scenes across Afghanistan.

The order was delivered to top managers of media outlets working in Afghanistan, in one-on-one meetings with National Directorate of Security spokesman Said Ansari.

In a series of "friendly meeting(s)”, Mr Said told the media managers that coverage of terrorist attacks causes problems for security and only serves to benefit the enemy. Journalists were also told that this new order was for their protection – to save them from possible injury at a scene not completely secure.

Although the order was conveyed verbally (with a flat refusal to outline anything in writing), it was done so citing an old, rarely used an old clause from the internal security law of Afghanistan. At the end of the discussion with the security spokesman, journalists were warned not to report on the meeting, or the order.

Last week's suicide bombing in central Kabul appears to be the reason behind this new edict - when there was early speculation about those behind the attack, and some initial muddled reporting about the number of bombers and casualties.

Journalists have been told that they may not come near, or report from the scene of any terrorist acts until the initial investigation and government operations were finished. After that, Mr Ansari said, "we will give you the information in a press conference" about the attack.

Minister for Industry and Culture Minister, Mr Said Makhdoum Raheen who overseas media operations in Afghanistan, declined to take a position on the order, only saying he will hold a press conference in about three weeks on the issue.

Huffington Post understands that editors and managers are not prepared to follow any directive issued verbally and in secret. One indicated that unless the edict is official, and in writing, media will continue to report live from scenes of terrorist attacks.

This article first appeared in the Huffington Post, 2nd March 2010

Love and Sex in India: Why Some Men can't Take A Hint

2010-02-15T15:31:00.000+08:00

My friend Hanna Ingber Win writes about the relationship between men and women in India. (Yes I am quoted)

Read it at the Global Post.

The Asia-Pacific Climate Change Video Contest - ADB.org

2009-12-10T11:49:00.001+08:00

The Asia-Pacific Climate Change Video Contest - ADB.org

Plagiarism: Mona Sarika's Disgraceful Career

2009-12-05T07:38:00.000+08:00

The scandal surrounding the writer Mona Sarika continues to unfold after the Wall Street Journal removed an article she wrote for it's online column titled "New Global Indian".

The WSJ's apology said that the article by "Mona Sarika has been found to contain information that was plagiarized from several publications.......Ms. Sarika also re-used direct quotes from other publications, without attribution, and changed the original speakers' names to individuals who appear to be fabricated. The column is the only work by Ms. Sarika to be published by the Journal, and it has been removed from the Journal's Web sites."

Ms Sarika has form. After checking several columns she had written for the esteemed Foreign Policy magazine, Huffington Post sent the FP editors an email, asking about one article called "Pakistan's Coming Horror".

The email sent to Foreign Policy reads -

I note that a Foreign Policy published an article on October 30, 2009 by Ms Sarika titled "Pakistan's Coming Horror".

On checking this article it appears that Ms Sarika may have fabricated a person, and also plagiarized a 'quote' from another source.

In the article, Ms Sarika writes

"When people leave their homes in the morning they fear for their lives," Taj Javed, a freelance journalist, told me. "People are very scared and you can easily see it; there are fewer people on the streets. When I see security forces, I feel there will be soon another attack. We are sick and tired of the attacks."

This is very similar to the following quote from a blog on BBC News article titled "Pakistanis reflect on army offensive" published online on 17 October. The entry was from Basma Khan, from Lahore.

"I support the army action - something must be done to stop the militants. The lack of security is affecting all of us in Lahore. When people leave their homes in the morning they fear for their lives. There are so many security forces here in Lahore that I actually feel more unsafe now. It makes me think there will be another attack soon. Everyday I have my ID checked or my car stopped. I see police and armed security forces everywhere. It is sad that the image of Pakistan has become so tarnished by the terrorists. They are distorting the image of our country and of Islam. The militants recruit young and innocent people who do not have exposure to the cities or the outside world. But most people in this country just want peace. We are sick and tired of the attacks. I hope that actions will speak louder than words, and people will see that the army is doing all it can do to crush these militants. I hope the world will see that it is the Pakistani people who are the most threatened by these terrorists."

Foreign Policy magazine have now removed the article for the site and have replaced it with this statement :

In her Oct. 30, 2009 article for ForeignPolicy.com, "Pakistan's Coming Horror," freelance writer Mona Sarika plagiarized and misattributed quotes from these sources ...... on the BBC's Web site and, we believe, may have fabricated her interview subjects. We have pulled the article and will not run work by Ms. Sarika again. We apologize to our readers. --Foreign Policy

The Huffington Post had previously been a victim of Ms Sarika's style of journalism. On June 24 it published an article titled "Uncertainty Among Sri Lankan After the War." One of the people 'quoted' in the article, Indi Samarajiva who later complained about the article. Read more here.

Huffington Post has now placed a notice on Sarika Mona's bio-line that reads

Editor's Note: Due to repeated instances of plagiarism and misattribution, both on HuffPost and elsewhere, Mona Sarika's work will no longer appear on The Huffington Post.

Mario Ruiz, Vice President of Huffington Post Media relations, responded to questions via email.

"Once we establish that a story or blog post has been plagiarized, we remove the story from our site and revoke the plagiarist's right to ever post on The Huffington Post again. We also remove all other posts by that blogger and add a note as to why we've done so."

"This has actually been a very rare occurrence over the four-and-a-half years we've been publishing," he said. " Our policy on any factual inaccuracy (not just plagiarism) is that any time the factual accuracy of a post is called into question, a blogger has 24 hours to either back up their facts or correct the error. If they don't, their blogging privileges will be revoked."

This article first appeared in the Huffington Post on 5 December 2009.

Twelve reporters slaughtered: the worst day in the history of journalism.

2009-11-24T16:03:00.000+08:00

Twelve journalists in the southern Philippines have been slaughtered, in what will surely be remembered as the worst single day in the history of journalism.

The journalists were accompanying a local political family - the Mangudadatus - on their way to file candidacy papers for local gubernatorial elections on the island of Mindanao. After a vicious hold up 36 people in the travelling group were massacred, in what has now emerged as political clan warfare.

The murderers are hiding in plain sight. Members of the Ampatuan clan - political allies of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo - were seen and readily identified as being in the gang that hijacked the Mangudadatus convoy. The son of the governor was in the attack gang, as was the local mayor.

Pushing aside her her allegiance to the Ampatuan clan, President Arroyo has ordered the "immediate, relentless pursuit" of the killers.

The deadly rivalry of the Mangudadatu and Ampatuan clans may overshadow another shocking aspect of this Shakespearian tale. The Philippines is one of the most unsafe places in the world to be a journalist - and certainly the most unsafe country that's not embroiled in an all out war. The statistics are staggering. With more than 60 journalists murdered in the past 20 years, the Philippines flounders around at the bottom of the Reporters Sans Frontieres world index of press freedom, chumming it up with Iran, Somalia and Saudi Arabia. In this allegedly robust democracy, the violence against journalists which continues unabated with very few arrests or prosecutions, raises questions about the very basis of its democratic credentials.

"A culture of impunity makes the Philippines one of the most dangerous places in the world to be a journalist," Sheila Coronel director of the Stabile Center for Investigative Journalism at Columbia University told the Huffington Post. Coronel, a founder of Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism, agrees that the lack of pursuit of journalists' killers continue to make the reporters fair game, pushing the death statistics even higher.

"In only 3 or 4 instances have the murderers been prosecuted. A compromised justice system and the rule of unaccountable local bosses, especially in places faraway from Manila, have made it possible to kill journalists and get away with it," she says.

President Arroyo's promise to "hunt down" the easily identifiable perpetrators of the Mindanao massacre ("no effort will be spared") may sound credible. In the Philippines, many are waiting to be convinced.

This article was first published in The Huffington Post on 24 November 2009.

Philippines: Gays legally deemed immoral and a danger to youth.

2009-11-23T08:43:00.000+08:00

The Philippines Electoral Commission has refused a group of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender citizens the right to register as a political party to run in the 2010 elections.

In denying the rights of the group Ang Ladlad (Out of the Closet) the national Electoral Commission quoted verses from the Bible ("vile affectations") and the Koran ("....and we rained down on them a shower of brimstone") and stated that the group "tolerates immorality which offends religious beliefs" and encourages "an environment that does not conform to the teachings of our faith..... we cannot compromise the well-being of the greater number of our people, especially the youth."

The Philippines is culturally a strongly Catholic country, but with a Constitution that states there is an inviolable "separation of Church and state" and that "no religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights" this rejection is at the very least, a gross denial of Constitutional rights for the LGBT community.

Jonas Bagas, a member of imMORAL, a coalition formed to fight the ruling, told the Huffington Post that there is potential for greater impact than the refusal to allow Ang Ladlad political party status. "Right now this is only within the realm of electoral contests, (but) it can eventually be used to interpret other laws, and nothing prevents other government agencies from using the same perspective to discriminate against LGBTs".

By any measure the proposed platform of Ang Ladlad is pretty mild. Not for them scaring the local vicar with the alarming thought of gay marriage or adoption rights. The fledging political outfit merely wants to ensure legislation that would prevent discrimination against gays in the workplace or school. (There are now laws against homosexuality in the Philippines, but there is also no legislation enshrining their rights).

It would be had to overestimate that way that the Catholic Church tries to inject itself in every part of a Filipino's daily life. Ongoing attempts to get reproductive health rights passed into law have been met with timidity and fear by parliamentarians who fear the wrath of men in frocks, as opposed to the more pressing considerations of the human rights and dignity of their long suffering, and often over burdened constituents.

Jonas Bagas says that the Catholic Church is the strongest political forces in the Philippines despite the claims of secularity in the Constitution. "It owns tax-exempt schools, and often mobilizes students and the flock on controversial issues like abortion, contraceptives and same-sex marriage. A huge majority of Filipinos attend mass every week, and the ritual is used by the church to attack politicians that go against its teachings. Filipinos choose which part of the doctrine they follow (for instance, despite a huge campaign by the church against contraceptives, a big majority of Catholic Filipinos are for it) but that does not matter - the propaganda machine alone is enough to scare/influence politicians."

The ruling against Ad Ladlad provides an interesting test for the future of the Catholic Church's moral blackmailing over life in the Philippines. As Jonas Bagas says, The Church has become such pillar of the country because of the poor law enforcement and the endemic corruption in the country. "The Church practically the social security system of the country: they provide education, support healthcare, and is perceived to offer help to impoverished communities," he says.

The Filipino population is one of the most highly educated in the developing world according to the US Department of Commerce. It also has one of the youngest populations in Asia. (You could thank the Catholic Church for both these statistics).

Despite the Church's current squirrel-like grip on much of the education system, the combination of upward mobility, youth and education may mean that unconstitutional rulings like that against Ad Ladlad will be questioned and challenged by a population no longer compliant to rulings guided from the pulpit.

This article first appeared in the Huffington Post on 22 November 2009.

Obama at Year One

2009-11-05T08:00:00.000+08:00

I was fascinated by Obama's election campaign - mainly because the notion of him being touted as a real (or indeed, dangerous) liberal seemed so whacky. Obama may be liberal in US terms but as a good friend of mine once said "liberal in America is just a conservative anywhere else".

So the notion that there was going to be a liberal revolution fascinated me - and the many other people viewing from abroad. This of course played out loud and clear with the issue of health care - which grimly fascinates many outside the US. It is hard to underestimate the horror and fear most people feel at the thought of being lumbered by a system as inhumane, ridiculous and as illogical as the US health care system. That was a challenge for Obama to manage and one that looks increasingly mangled and stuffed up as the days go by.

As an journalist working overseas for about 95% of every year, it is safe to say that most Americans I meet abroad have a sophisticated world view and are generally darn fine people. The change in stride of my many American friends since Obama's election has been noticeable. They say that they no longer have an apology or justification ready after they introduce themselves as Americans.

Now is not the forum to give a lengthy dissertation on Afghanistan. It's a headache of extraordinary proportions and I am not among those tapping my foot and banging on my watch impatiently waiting for Obama to make up his mind. I believe in getting in right, as opposed to doing it now.

The Nobel committee giving Obama the Peace Prize seemed like a rush of blood to collective heads. Obama accepting the prize was incomprehensible.

This post first appeared in Huffington Post, 3 November 2009, as part of a discussion on Obama's first year.

My View -- The Asia Pacific Climate Change Video Contest -- ADB

2009-11-04T14:35:00.001+08:00

Find out more about this competition at : http://adb.org/climate-change/video-contest/

The Asia-Pacific Climate Change Video Contest - ADB.org

2009-11-04T09:46:00.000+08:00

The Asia-Pacific Climate Change Video Contest - ADB.org

Look Who's Not Talking - Bono!

2009-10-27T09:46:00.000+08:00

During U2's live streaming from the Rosebowl it seemed that the unthinkable has happened. Bono has started editing himself. There was still some of that naff self righteous patter but I remember U2 concerts when you could retire to the back stalls for a bit of a snooze between songs while Bono rabbited on about Burma, or Mandela, or whales, or the memory of Martin Luther King or the Troubles......whatever. Don't get me wrong. Among many of my friends I am often the only one who thinks dear Bono is actually doing something incredible during his days off (unlike those people lounging on sofas criticising him, for it seems, working to alleviate world hunger and poverty) but I now prefer my live music served up sans manifesto de half baked.

Now this wasn't always the case. I once saw Courtney Love eat up most of Hole's set slurring her way through an unintelligible stage patter. She was talking total rubbish but yes, it was utterly mesmerizing. At the same festival Iggy Pop spent a great deal of time talking about his dick and then thought the best thing to do was show it to us. (I was too far from the stage to now give an honest assessment of the appendage).

And at the same festival Rage Against The Machine table-thumped against a grab bag of causes that left me totally addled. Cuban refugees, the arms race, Africa, Republicans, pseudo-Republicans, gay Republicans, gay hating Republicans, gay Cuban refugees. Zack de la Rocha raved on ..........and on, and the gaps between the songs were so long that I could have completed a sophomore political science thesis and had time to spare.

This was a very long time ago. Several generations ago in rock years (which if you add up rock years like you do dog years, you begin to feel creakingly old at oh, about 30). There was nothing unusual at all about the amount of time The Ig , Courtney and Zack blathered on.

Now granted, even in the loosey goosey world of rock and roll Courtney Love is the exception to just about every rule, but don't you think that times have changed? No longer are we content to hear the tin pot half-baked undergraduate political ramblings of some bloke who just happens to have the mic. What in the hell would he know? And why is he breaking up the set like that? Start with your first song and don't stop paying until the final bar of your last. Thank you, money well spent.

I realised I was over the political science lessons one night in a gigantic pub venue where some of the best alternative bands were playing. Granted, I was older than most of the audience, but in my defence so I was still pretty young (it was a long time ago). A band with members that I knew quite well played, and the lead singer - a lovely guy who fancied himself a bit of a political activist - chatted between songs from a seeming shopping list of pet causes including the right wing governor of his home state. His diatribe went like this (and I am fairly sure I am recounting this word perfectly). "Now listen, this dude is, you know, like a bad man and yeah! Like yeah! We gotta you know...yeah right! .......it's like bad news man, and he's a fascist and man, he's just bad news, I'm here to tell you......so like wow.....". In fairness this chap was a fan of John Pilger which would dull anyone's political acuity but honestly, I was hoping that he would just shut up and get on with the set.

The last big concert I saw was Nine Inch Nails. Now Trent really knows how to shut up. The band walked on stage and cranked it up. About an hour later Trent spoke for the first time. "Thank you" he said. Then off they churned again with their industrial strength boil-in-the-bag assault. My skull was catapulted onto the back wall of the arena and I didn't want to have to stop for a minute to hear Trent crap on about many of his causes. And he does have them. We all know that Trent is an ardent animal rights activist and musician's rights advocate. Last week he came out all guns blazing about the use of music as torture at Gitmo. But did he give us a lecture and a bit of finger wagging in between Head like a Hole and March of the Pigs? Thankfully, no. Toward the end of the set, Trent mumbled the names of the band with a bit of an arm wave in their direction. Didn't catch the names, didn't care. I was waiting for more songs with naughty words in them.

Maybe I'm just more grown up and going to more grown up concerts although my desire to hear naughty words in NiN songs may be an indication that this is not entirely true. But the need to fly your political colors, or just ramble about the addled state of your brain (refer: Iggy and Courtney) or have meaningless discussions with the audience about how- is everyone-feeling-this-great-day seems to be receding. Is it because rock is the mainstream? Or is it because as esteemed music critic Greil Marcus famously once said, (and I am paraphrasing here) we are just too grown up to get our political education from some numbskull with a guitar? Like I said, I have lived my life in love with numbskulls with guitars, but now it seems cooler than ever to just shut up.

This article first appeared in the Huffington Post on 27 October 2009.

Stanley McChrystal’s Long War By Dexter Filkins

2009-10-15T10:55:00.000+08:00

October 18, 2009
NYT Magazine

(I'm reprinting this as it's a must read)

Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal stepped off the whirring Black Hawk and headed straight into town. He had come to Garmsir, a dusty outpost along the Helmand River in southern Afghanistan, to size up the war that President Obama has asked him to save. McChrystal pulled off his flak jacket and helmet. His face, skeletal and austere, seemed a piece of the desert itself.

He was surrounded by a clutch of bodyguards, normal for a four-star general, and an array of the Marine officers charged with overseeing the town. Garmsir had been under Taliban control until May 2008, when a force of American Marines swept in and cleared it. Since then, the British, then the Americans, have been holding it and trying, ever so slowly, to build something in Garmsir — a government, an army, a police force — for the first time since the war began more than eight years ago.

The Marines around McChrystal, including the local battalion commander, Lt. Col. Christian Cabaniss, looked surprised, even alarmed, when McChrystal removed his protective gear. But as the group walked the rutted streets into Garmsir’s bazaar, they began taking off their helmets, too.

“Who owns the land here?” McChrystal asked, peering up the street and into the shops. “Is it owned by the farmers or by landlords?”

It was the sort of question a sociologist, or an economist, would ask. No one offered an answer.

“If you owned 200 acres here, would you live on it, or would you live somewhere else?” McChrystal asked.

The entourage entered the bazaar. The Afghans sensed that an important American had arrived, and they began to gather in groups inside the stalls. Then the general stopped and turned.

“What do you need here?” McChrystal asked.

A translator turned the general’s words into Pashto.

“We need schools!” one Afghan called back. “Schools!”

“We’re working on that,” McChrystal said. “Those things take time.”

McChrystal walked some more, engaging another group of Afghans. He posed the same question.

“Security,” a man said. “We need security. Security first, then the other things will be possible.”

“That is what we are trying to do,” McChrystal said. “But it’s going to take time. Success takes time.”

The questions kept coming, and the answer was the same. After a couple of hours, McChrystal put on his helmet and flak jacket, boarded the Black Hawk and flew to another town.

Success takes time, but how much time does Stanley McChrystal have? The war in Afghanistan is now in its ninth year. The Taliban, measured by the number of their attacks, are stronger than at any time since the Americans toppled their government at the end of 2001. American soldiers and Marines are dying at a faster rate than ever before. Polls in the United States show that opposition to the war is growing steadily.

Worse yet, for all of America’s time in Afghanistan — for all the money and all the blood — the lack of accomplishment is manifest wherever you go. In Garmsir, there is nothing remotely resembling a modern state that could take over if America and its NATO allies left. Tour the country with a general, and you will see very quickly how vast and forbidding this country is and how paltry the effort has been.

And finally, there is the government in Kabul. President Hamid Karzai, once the darling of the West, rose to the top of nationwide elections in August on what appears to be a tide of fraud. The Americans and their NATO allies are confronting the possibility that the government they are supporting, building and defending is a rotten shell.

In his initial assessment of the country, sent to President Obama early last month, McChrystal described an Afghanistan on the brink of collapse and an America at the edge of defeat. To reverse the course of the war, McChrystal presented President Obama with what could be the most momentous foreign-policy decision of his presidency: escalate or fail. McChrystal has reportedly asked for 40,000 additional American troops — there are 65,000 already here — and an accelerated effort to train Afghan troops and police and build an Afghan state. If President Obama can’t bring himself to step up the fight, McChrystal suggested, then he might as well give up.

“Inadequate resources,” McChrystal wrote, “will likely result in failure.”

The magnitude of the choice presented by McChrystal, and now facing President Obama, is difficult to overstate. For what McChrystal is proposing is not a temporary, Iraq-style surge — a rapid influx of American troops followed by a withdrawal. McChrystal’s plan is a blueprint for an extensive American commitment to build a modern state in Afghanistan, where one has never existed, and to bring order to a place famous for the empires it has exhausted. Even under the best of circumstances, this effort would most likely last many more years, cost hundreds of billions of dollars and entail the deaths of many more American women and men.

And that’s if it succeeds.

A few days after McChrystal filed his report, I sat down with him in his headquarters in Kabul. He seemed upbeat and relaxed. The report was still secret — it hadn’t yet leaked to the public. The ensuing furor was still to come, as was talk that McChrystal was considering resigning, which he was forced to publicly dispel. The atmosphere was not tense — not yet. Only urgent.

“I took this job because I was asked to take it, and because it is very, very important,” McChrystal told me. “Admiral Mullen” — head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff — “specifically said to me: ‘You go out, you decide what needs to be done, and you tell me whatever you need to do that. Don’t constrain yourself because of politics. You tell me what you need.’ ”

I asked him about Obama.

“I didn’t get any assurances from anyone that I would be given any amount of time,” McChrystal said. “I didn’t get any assurances from anyone that I would be given any amount of resources. I didn’t ask for any assurances.”

For a moment, McChrystal paused.

“I don’t feel like the lonely man in the arena,” he said, “with all the pressure on my shoulders.”

II.

THE MARINES WERE walking along the sandy road when the Afghans lined up to watch the bomb.

The Marines, members of Echo Company of the Second Battalion, Eighth Marine Regiment, had plodded through a mile of sodden cornfields in the heat of Helmand Province and climbed a rock promontory to an observation post once manned by soldiers of the Soviet Union. They arrived in early July as part of the big push ordered by President Obama; General McChrystal had visited their command post in Garmsir, 12 miles up the road, three days before.

The Marines had been in plain view for more than two hours. And when they moved down from the old Soviet lookout and walked up the dirt path that runs alongside the hamlet of Mian Poshteh, the Afghans started to come out.

At first, a lone man walked along the edge of one of Mian Poshteh’s mud-brick houses. Then he stopped and turned and stood, watching. Then another man, this one in an irrigation ditch, stuck his head up over the ledge. A pair of children stopped playing. They turned to watch.

“Something’s going down,” Sgt. Jonathan Delgado said. He was 22 and from Kissimmee, Fla.

“Watch that guy,” said Lance Cpl. Joshua Vance, pointing. He was also 22, from Raleigh, N.C.

Two more Afghans arrived. They stopped and stood and looked at a spot just ahead of the Marines. A man on a motorcycle drove past, driving slowly, turning his head. Then the bomb went off. It had been buried in the path itself, a few feet under the sand, a few feet in front of the Marines.

The blast from the bomb was sharp and deep, and a dirty cloud shot up a hundred feet. Waves from the blast shot out, toward the village and toward us. Ten Marines at the front of the line disappeared.

“We’re hit! We’re hit!” Delgado shouted, and everyone ran to the front.

Marines began staggering out of the cloud. They were holding their ears and eyes.

“God, I’m still here,” Cpl. Matt Kaiser said, rubbing his ears. Kaiser had been at the front, sweeping the ground with a mine detector. He was from Oak Harbor, Ohio. “I’m still here.”

“No one’s hit,” Delgado said. “Jesus, no one’s hit.”

The rest of the young men staggered out of the cloud while the Marines trained their guns on Mian Poshteh.

The Afghans were gone.

“My bell’s rung pretty bad,” Kaiser said. He was shaking his head and glancing up and down and half laughing.

The bomber had missed. The weapon had been what the Marines refer to as “command-detonated,” which meant that someone, probably in Mian Poshteh, had punched a trigger — on a wire leading to the bomb — when the Marines came up the path. The triggerman needed to remember precisely where he had buried his bomb. Clearly, he had forgotten. If he had waited five more seconds, he would have killed several Marines.

Delgado, Kaiser and the others gathered themselves and walked toward Mian Poshteh. On their radio, the Marines could hear voices coming from inside the village.

“Is everything ready?” a voice said in Pashto.

“Everything is ready,” another voice said. “Let’s see what they do.”

The Marines stayed back. Earlier in the war, they would have gone into Mian Poshteh; they would have surrounded the village and kicked in doors until they found the bomber. Most likely they would have found him — and maybe along the way they would have killed some civilians and smashed up some homes. And made a lot of enemies. The Marines are a very different force now, with very different goals. They walked to within 50 feet of Mian Poshteh, and Lt. Patrick Bragan shouted: “Send us five men. Five men.”

Minutes passed, and five Afghans appeared. They were unarmed and ordinary looking.

“I have no idea who did that,” an old man named Fazul Mohammed said.

“Maybe they came at night,” a man named Assadullah said.

“I only heard the explosion,” a man named Syed Wali said.

The face of Lieutenant Bragan was pink from the heat and from pleading.

“All you have to do is tell us,” he said. “We’re here to help you.”

The Marines gave up. Near sunset, they started back the way they came, through the head-high corn. Delgado turned to one of his buddies, Cpl. John Shymanik, 22.

“They didn’t get us today,” Delgado said.

“They’re still trying, though,” Shymanik said.

III.

STANLEY MCCHRYSTAL SAT at the head of a U-shaped bank of tables in a sealed room at Bagram Airfield, a main hub of the war. He was surrounded by five giant video screens. On each screen was another general — American, German, Dutch, French, Italian — each commanding a different part of Afghanistan. It was McChrystal’s morning briefing, known as the commander’s update.

One by one, the generals scrolled through the events from the day before: a roadside bomb in Khost, small-arms fire in Ghazni, a British soldier killed in Helmand Province. Then one of the European generals started talking about an airstrike. A group of Taliban insurgents had attacked a coalition convoy, and the soldiers called for air support. A Hellfire missile, the European general said, obliterated an Afghan compound. The general — he cannot be named because of the confidentiality of the meeting — was moving on to the next topic when McChrystal stopped him.

“Can you come back to that, please?” McChrystal said.

McChrystal’s voice is higher than you would expect for a four-star general.

“Yes, sir,” the European general said.

“We just struck a compound,” McChrystal said. “I would like for you to explain to me the process you used to shoot a Hellfire missile into a compound that might have had civilians in it.”

The European commander looked at an aide and muttered something. The killing of Afghan civilians, usually caused by inadvertent American and NATO airstrikes, has become the most sensitive issue between the Afghans and their Western guests. Each time civilians are killed, the Taliban launch a campaign of very public propaganda.

“Were there civilians in that compound?” McChrystal asked. He was leaning into the microphone on the table.

The commander started to talk, but McChrystal kept going.

“Who made that decision?” McChrystal said.

An aide handed the European general a sheaf of papers.

“I’m sorry, but the system is not responsive enough for us to get that kind of information that quickly,” the general said.

McChrystal’s face began to tighten. Generals tend to treat one another with the utmost deference.

“We bomb a compound, and I don’t know about it until the next morning?” McChrystal said. “Don’t just tell me, ‘Yeah, it’s O.K.’ I want to know about it. I’m being a hard-ass about it.”

The European general looked down at his papers.

“It seems it was not a Hellfire missile but a 500-pound bomb,” he said.

McChrystal took off his reading glasses and looked around the room — at the video screens and the other American officers.

“Gentlemen, we need to understand the implications of what we are doing,” he said. “Air power contains the seeds of our own destruction. A guy with a long-barrel rifle runs into a compound, and we drop a 500-pound bomb on it? Civilian casualties are not just some reality with the Washington press. They are a reality for the Afghan people. If we use airpower irresponsibly, we can lose this fight.”

IV.

LATER THAT DAY, during a drive through Kabul, McChrystal told me that he had decided to drastically restrict the circumstances under which airstrikes would be permitted: for all practical purposes, he was banning bombs and missiles in populated areas unless his men were in danger of being overrun.

“Even if it means we are going to step away from a firefight and fight them another day, that’s O.K.,” McChrystal told me.

McChrystal’s missive was the first in an array he has drafted aimed at radically transforming the way America and its allies wage war here. In his first weeks on the job, McChrystal issued directives instructing his men on how to comport themselves with Afghans (“Think of how you would expect a foreign army to operate in your neighborhood, among your families and your children, and act accordingly”); how to fight (“Think of counterinsurgency as an argument to win the support of the people”); even how to drive (“in ways that respect the safety and well-being of the Afghan people”). At the heart of McChrystal’s strategy are three principles: protect the Afghan people, build an Afghan state and make friends with whomever you can, including insurgents. Killing the Taliban is now among the least important things that are expected of NATO soldiers.

“You can kill Taliban forever,” McChrystal said, “because they are not a finite number.”

That strategy is underscored by an extraordinary sense of urgency — that eight years into this war the margin for error for the Americans has shrunk to zero. “If every soldier is authorized to make one mistake,” McChrystal said, “then we lose the war.”

While Afghanistan is not Iraq, McChrystal’s plan does resemble in some ways that of General David H. Petraeus, who took command of American forces in Iraq in early 2007, when the country was disintegrating in a civil war. For four years, the American military had tried to crush the Iraqi insurgency and got the opposite: the insurgency bloomed, and the country imploded.

By refocusing their efforts on protecting Iraqi civilians, American troops were able to cut off the insurgents from their base of support. Then the Americans struck peace deals with tens of thousands of former fighters — the phenomenon known as the Sunni Awakening — while at the same time fashioning a formidable Iraqi army. After a bloody first push, violence in Iraq dropped to its lowest levels since the war began.

“It was all in,” Petraeus told me about that time.

And so if it was Petraeus who saved Iraq from cataclysm, it now falls to McChrystal to save Afghanistan.

Petraeus and McChrystal are in fact close — their bond solidified in the crucible of Iraq. Petraeus, now head of the U.S. military’s Central Command, with overall responsibility for both Iraq and Afghanistan, pushed McChrystal for the job. “He was a key part of the team in Iraq,” Petraeus told me.

Now 55, Stanley McChrystal is the son of Herbert J. McChrystal Jr., an Army general who served in Germany during the American occupation and fought in Korea and Vietnam. Stanley McChrystal was the fourth child in a family of five boys and one girl; all of them grew up to serve in the military or marry someone who did. “My dad was always the soldier I wanted to be,” McChrystal said.

He graduated from West Point in 1976, at the Army’s post-Vietnam nadir. Over the next 30 years, McChrystal ascended the ranks, mostly by way of the elite, secretive wing of Special Operations, in units like the Rangers. He served as a staff officer and an operations officer in the first gulf war and did stints at Harvard and the Council on Foreign Relations (where he is remembered for running a dozen miles each morning to the council’s offices on the Upper East Side).

With his long and gaunt face and his long and lean body, McChrystal looks almost preternaturally alert — coiled, hungry. He pushes himself mercilessly, sleeping four or five hours a night, eating one meal a day. He runs eight miles at a clip, usually with an audiobook at his ears. “I was the fastest runner at Fort Stewart, Ga., until he arrived,” Petraeus told me recently. “He’s a tremendous athlete.” On a recent daylong helicopter trip touring bases around the country, McChrystal yawned throughout the day — the only evidence of his exhaustion. He drank regularly from a large mug of coffee, black.

As McChrystal drives himself, he sometimes affords little tolerance to those who do not.

V.

MCCHRYSTAL WAS ONLY a month into his new job when he strode into the area inside NATO’s International Security Assistance Force headquarters in Kabul known as Destille Gardens. A collection of one-story buildings with a courtyard and patio, it is the only thing at headquarters that resembles a lounge or a recreation area. Soldiers and Marines — most of them staff officers — would gather there for coffee and even, if they were European, a glass of beer or wine. It’s a world away from Helmand Province.

McChrystal was coming for a haircut, and as he walked through the courtyard, he passed a table of coalition officers chatting and drinking. According to several officers present, his face showed immediate disapproval, but no one noticed and he kept on going. Twenty minutes later, when McChrystal walked back across the courtyard, his hair freshly trimmed, the officers were still at their table. Some of them had dozed off. The general’s mouth tightened. He walked over to their table.

He woke one officer and said: “Good afternoon, I’m Stan McChrystal. Is there a problem with your office space?”

He turned and walked off. Six weeks later, McChrystal issued an order banning alcohol from I.S.A.F. headquarters.

Yet for all his asceticism, McChrystal displays a subtlety that suggests a wider view of the world. “If you were to go into his house, he has this unreal library,” Maj. Gen. Michael Flynn, McChrystal’s intelligence chief and longtime friend, told me this summer. “You can go over and touch a binding and ask him, ‘What’s that one about?’ And he’ll just start. His bad habit is wandering around old bookstores. He’s not one of these guys that just reads military books. He reads about weird things too. He’s reading a book about Shakespeare right now.”

Also on his recent reading list this past summer: “Vietnam: A History,” Stanley Karnow’s unsparing account of America’s defeat.

When McChrystal decided to come to Afghanistan, a lot of people signed up to come with him. “I first worked for him in the gulf war, and General McChrystal was the sharpest, fastest staff officer I have ever come across — and I had been serving for 20 years at that point,” said Graeme Lamb, a retired British general and former commander of the Special Air Service, Britain’s equivalent of Delta Force. “He could take ideas, concepts, directions, and he could turn them into language, into understanding, and pass it out at an electric rate.”

Lamb was getting ready to retire earlier this year when McChrystal asked him to join his team. Lamb flew to Washington to talk it over, and the two men sealed the deal at a Mexican restaurant in Arlington, Va. “I don’t think there is a Brit that could have made the same call,” Lamb told me.

One big question hovering over McChrystal is whether his experience in Iraq truly prepares him for the multiheaded challenge that faces him now. For nearly five years, McChrystal served as chief of the Joint Special Operations Command, which oversees the military’s commando units, including the Army Delta Force and the Navy Seals. (Until recently, the Pentagon refused to acknowledge that the command even existed.)

As JSOC’s commander, McChrystal spent no time trying to win over the Iraqis or training Iraqi forces or building the governing capacity of the Iraqi state. In Iraq (and, for about a third of his time, in Afghanistan), McChrystal’s job, and that of the men under his command, was, almost exclusively, to kill and capture insurgents and terrorists.

The rescue of Iraq from the cataclysm that it had become by 2006 is an epic tale of grit and blood and luck. By February of that year, Iraq had descended into a full-blown civil war, with a thousand civilians dying every month. Its central actors were the gunmen of Al Qaeda, who, with their suicide bombers, carried out large-scale massacres of Shiite civilians; and the Shiite militias, some of them in Iraqi uniforms, who retaliated by massacring thousands of young Sunni men.

Breaking the cycle of attack and revenge was crucial to stopping the civil war, and it was here, McChrystal and his colleagues say, that JSOC played a critical role. In a series of operations that climaxed in 2006 and 2007, McChrystal’s commandos set out to destroy Al Qaeda of Mesopotamia.

“The aim was to go after the middle of their network — in a regular army, their senior noncommissioned officers. We tried to cause the network to collapse,” McChrystal told me. “We took it to an art form. It really became a machine.”

McChrystal said that as early as the fall of 2006 — when Al Qaeda was at its murderous peak — it looked like the group was coming apart. “We sensed that Al Qaeda was going to implode,” he said. “We could just feel it. We were watching it and feeling it and seeing it.” In addition to driving the civil war, Al Qaeda gunmen were seen as a main obstacle to Iraq’s Sunnis’ reconciling with the Americans and the Iraqi government. By degrading Al Qaeda, McChrystal and others say, they helped significantly reduce the civil war, and by so doing created a space that allowed a broader movement of reconciliation — the Sunni Awakening — to succeed.

“What General McChrystal was doing with the forces he had under command in Iraq was absolutely essential to setting the conditions that allowed the Awakening to move forward,” Lamb, the former S.A.S. head, told me.

The most significant moment in McChrystal’s tenure was on June 6, 2006, when a crucial piece of information came across one of JSOC’s video screens. For months, according to sources involved in the operation (though not McChrystal), McChrystal and his commandos had been hunting Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian head of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. Zarqawi, of course, was the man responsible for the murder of many hundreds of innocents in car bombings and suicide attacks. McChrystal was so desperate that he created a separate task force to get him. The task force narrowly missed Zarqawi several times; a few months before the June sighting, the operator of a Predator drone, a pilotless airplane, had spotted Zarqawi in a taxicab in Anbar Province. He lost him — and Zarqawi jumped out — when the operator changed the focus on the Predator’s camera lens.

This time, McChrystal believed, Zarqawi was in his sights. The tip was long in coming, a result of thousands of hours of intelligence work, but according to several sources, it boiled down to this: Under interrogation, an Iraqi insurgent who was a member of Zarqawi’s inner circle pointed to an Iraqi named Abd al-Rahman, who, the insurgent said, served as Zarqawi’s spiritual adviser. Whenever Rahman was preparing to meet Zarqawi, the source told the Americans, he would send his wife and family out of Baghdad the day before.

McChrystal and his JSOC team watched Rahman for 17 consecutive days. Then, on June 6, 2006, it happened — Rahman’s family was seen piling into a vehicle and leaving the city. The next day, a Predator drone followed Rahman himself as he made his way northeast out of Baghdad, to a small house in a palm grove near the village of Hibhib. Rahman went inside. McChrystal had a commando team on the ground, 18 minutes away.

As McChrystal and his staff watched through the Predator camera, a man, dressed in black, walked from the house to the edge of the road. The man looked to his right, then to his left. It was Zarqawi. He walked back inside. They were sure it was him.

At an operations center, a senior Special Forces commander, realizing that time was short, ordered an airstrike. Two F-16’s were dispatched; one of them was hooked up to a refueling plane; the second jet was told to go alone. A pair of 500-pound bombs killed Zarqawi. McChrystal and his staff were waiting at JSOC’s headquarters in Balad when the corpse came in.

McChrystal’s tenure as JSOC’s commander was not flawless. JSOC never got its most wanted quarry, neither Osama bin Laden nor Ayman al-Zawahiri. One of JSOC’s units, Task Force 6-26, was cited for abusing detainees, many of them at a site known as Camp Nama, in Baghdad. McChrystal himself was not implicated, but at least 34 task-force members were disciplined. “There were cases where people made mistakes, and they were punished,” McChrystal told me. “What we did was establish a policy and atmosphere that said that is not what you do. That is not acceptable.”

He also signed off on the Silver Star recommendation for Cpl. Pat Tillman, the N.F.L. star and Army Ranger killed in Afghanistan in April 2004. The medal recommendation erroneously suggested that Tillman was killed by enemy fire; in fact he was killed accidentally by his own men, which McChrystal suspected at the time. The medal was awarded at a memorial service for Tillman, in which he was lionized as a man killed by the enemy.

McChrystal said he did indeed sign off on the recommendation for Tillman, because he believed it was warranted. The award was for valor, and Tillman had been extraordinarily brave, regardless of who killed him. McChrystal said he never intended for Tillman’s death to be exploited politically or to convey an incorrect impression about his death. “I certainly regret the way this came out,” McChrystal told me.

As for his current job, McChrystal said there are two lessons from Iraq that apply to Afghanistan. The first is that his role — killing insurgents — worked there only because it was part of a much larger effort to not only defeat the insurgency but also to build an Iraqi state that could stand on its own. “Ours was just a supporting effort,” he said. The second lesson is perhaps more startling. It is that no situation, no matter how dire, is ever irredeemable — if you have the time, resources and the correct strategy. In the spring of 2006, Iraq seemed lost. The dead were piling up. The society was disintegrating. One possible conclusion was that it was time for the United States to cut its losses in a country that it never truly understood. But the American military believed it had found a strategy that worked, and it hung in there, and it finally turned the tide.

“One of the big take-aways from Iraq was that you have to not lose confidence in what you are doing,” McChrystal said. “We were able to go to the edge of the abyss without losing hope.”

VI.

SHORTLY AFTER HIS ARRIVAL in Afghanistan in June 2009, McChrystal sat down with the commanders of the 82nd Airborne Division, which oversees a broad swath of eastern Afghanistan. The briefing, given by the 82nd’s officers, was sophisticated but sobering: corruption in the Afghan government is pervasive, the officers said; the insurgency, supported from Pakistan, is resilient. Every valley and every village is different, each its own patchwork of ethnic groups and tribes, each with its own history. The Americans are having to learn them all.

“The environment is so complex that there is no overarching solution,” Brig. Gen. William Fuller told McChrystal.

When the briefing was finished, McChrystal looked around the room. “Gentlemen, I am coming into this job with 12 months to show demonstrable progress here — and 24 months to have a decisive impact,” he said. “That’s how long we have to convince the Taliban, the Afghan people and the American people that we’re going to be successful. In 24 months, it has to be obvious that we have the clear upper hand and that things are moving in the right direction. That’s not a choice. That’s a reality.”

In a tour of bases around Afghanistan, McChrystal repeated this mantra to all his field commanders: Time is running out.

Yet even if McChrystal’s plan succeeds, even if he can turn the Afghan venture around, neither he nor anyone else in the upper echelons of the military believes that the job — the one President Obama has given them to do — will be finished then.

“It feels like Iraq in 2004,” said Michael Flynn, McChrystal’s deputy. “Part of it is that the insurgency is stronger — we didn’t realize how strong it was. What we are trying to do is make sure everyone understands what it is we are facing — a much stronger insurgency, certainly much more capable. Their capacity to lay I.E.D.’s on the battlefield, for instance — it’s just stunning.”

I asked General Flynn to imagine the future here. “We are going to go in and ask for some resources,” he told me. “If those resources are brought to bear in a timely manner, I believe that it’s probably going to take us three years to really turn the insurgency to the point where it’s waning instead of waxing. To do that we have to fix the Afghan security forces, we have to build their capacity and capability, and we have to absolutely culturally change the way they operate. And then I think beyond those three years, we are looking at another two years when the government of Afghanistan and the security forces of Afghanistan begin to take a lot more personal responsibility. The challenge to us is: What can we do in 12 months? What should we expect? If people’s expectations are that we are going to have the south turned around, for instance, it’s not going to happen.”

The strategy that McChrystal, Flynn and the other senior commanders want to employ in Afghanistan has two main prongs: one hard, one soft.

In the military arena, McChrystal wants to put as many of his men as close to the Afghan people as he can. That means closing some of the smaller bases in remote valleys and opening them in densely populated areas like the Helmand River valley. Here, at least, military force will play a central role, at least in the early phase of his strategy, as the Americans fight their way into areas they have not been in before.

“The insurgency has to have access to the people,” McChrystal told me. “So we literally want to go in there and squat among the people. We want to make the insurgents come to us. Make them be the aggressors. What I want to do is get on the inside, looking out — instead of being on the outside looking in.”

“There will be a lot of fighting,” McChrystal added. “If we do this right, the insurgents will have to fight us. They will have no choice.”

And that’s the rub: the population-focused strategy requires more troops — as many as 40,000 more. This is the decision that confronts President Obama and his advisers now.

The other part of the military option is one with which McChrystal is familiar but does not completely control. It’s his old portfolio — killing and capturing insurgents and terrorists. Much of that is being carried out in Pakistan, where Al Qaeda’s leadership has gathered in havens just across the border from Afghanistan. Both bin Laden and Zawahiri are believed to be hiding there.

In Pakistan, a C.I.A.-led program using Predator drones to hunt down and kill leaders of Al Qaeda and the Taliban has proved remarkably successful, even if controversial inside Pakistan itself. To date, American officials say, they have killed 11 of the top 20 Al Qaeda leaders, without having to launch large-scale military operations across the border.

With its 180 million people, several dozen nuclear warheads and havens for Al Qaeda and the Taliban, Pakistan is one wild card in McChrystal’s campaign. “If we are good here, it will have a good effect on Pakistan,” he told me. “But if we fail here, Pakistan will not be able to solve their problems — it would be like burning leaves on a windy day next door. And if Pakistan implodes, it will be very hard for us to succeed.”

The softer side of McChrystal’s strategy has two main thrusts: training Afghan soldiers and police and persuading insurgents to change sides. It is here where the best chances of long-term success in Afghanistan may lie.

The first of these is a vast, expensive and painstaking project. In the ninth year of the war, Afghan forces are neither large nor able enough to take over for NATO. The Afghan Army has about 85,000 soldiers, and the police force has about 80,000 men. McChrystal wants to boost the size of the army to about 240,000 and the police to 160,000. “I think we can do it,” he told me.

But experience suggests that it won’t be easy. In Iraq, the building of the security forces was fraught with disaster: in 2004 and 2005, Iraqi soldiers and the police disintegrated whenever they came under attack. In later years, Iraqi forces became more sectarian, with some Shiite-dominated units carrying out massacres of Sunni civilians. It was only much later — by early 2008 — that the Iraqi Army and the police began to show promise.

And Iraq was an urban and literate society. Afghanistan is neither. The Afghan police are widely seen as corrupt and complicit in the opium trade — the world’s largest. And while many Afghan soldiers have shown themselves willing to fight, it usually falls to the Americans and their NATO allies to pay them, feed them and support them in the field.

Earlier this year, Maj. Gen. Richard Formica, who oversees the training of the Afghan security forces, spoke to me about the difficulties of creating an army in a country where only one in four adults is literate. “What percentage of police recruits can read?” Formica asked when we met at his headquarters in Kabul. “When I was down in Helmand, where the Brits were training police officers, they said not only could none of them read but they didn’t understand what a classroom was. How can you train officers if they can’t write arrest reports?”

Perhaps McChrystal’s most intriguing idea is his belief that he can persuade large numbers of Taliban to change sides. Coaxing insurgents back into the fold was, after all, one key to pulling Iraq back from the brink of apocalypse. Beginning in late 2006, tens of thousands of Sunni tribesmen, many of them former insurgents, agreed to stop fighting and to come onto the payroll, usually as policemen. Almost overnight, the Iraqi insurgency was reduced to Al Qaeda fanatics and a handful of others who could be targeted by McChrystal’s commandos in JSOC. This shaky — very shaky — arrangement is still keeping what peace there is in Iraq today.

McChrystal says he intends to begin a similar effort in Afghanistan. The idea, he said, would not be to try to flip the Taliban’s leaders — that’s not likely — but rather its foot soldiers. The premise of the program, McChrystal says, is that most of the Taliban’s fighters are not especially committed ideologically and could be brought into society with promises of jobs and protection. “I’d like to go pretty high up,” McChrystal said, referring to the Taliban’s hierarchy. “It could be people who are commanders with significant numbers of troops. I think they can be given the opportunity to come in.”

The effort, McChrystal said, is based on his own reading of the Taliban and of Pashtun culture: most of the people fighting the United States, he argued, are motivated by local and personal grievances. They want more of a voice in local governance, for instance, or they want jobs. “Historically, the Pashtuns are very practical people,” McChrystal told me. “Pashtun culture adjudicates disagreements in a way that mitigates blood feuds. The Pashtun people go out of their way not to do things that cause permanent feuds. They have always been willing to change positions, change sides. I don’t think much of the Taliban are ideologically driven; I think they are practically driven. I’m not sure they wouldn’t flip to our side.”

To help him achieve this, McChrystal recruited his old friend Graeme Lamb, who played a similar role in Iraq. The trick in Iraq, Lamb said, was timing: by late 2006, many Iraqis, even the insurgents, had grown tired of fighting. “What we did in Iraq in mid-2006 — had we tried to do it in mid-2004, it would have crashed and burned,” Lamb told me. “Because at the end of the day, people hadn’t exercised their revenge. They hadn’t stood at the edge of the abyss and looked into it.”

Lamb said the time may have arrived for something similar in Afghanistan, if only because everyone is exhausted by so much war. “Now is a good time,” he said, “because people are very serious on all sides.”

The reconciliation plan might end up bringing into the fold some disreputable characters, but neither Lamb nor McChrystal has much of a problem with that. “In my view,” McChrystal said of the insurgents, “their past is not important. Some people say, ‘Well, they have blood on their hands.’ I’d say, ‘So do a lot of people.’ I think we focus on future behavior. They can enter the political process if they want to.”

The notion that large groups of Taliban fighters could be persuaded to quit is not new. Previous efforts have ended in failure, often because neither the Americans nor their allies were able to protect people who changed sides.

Earlier this year, for example, a local Taliban commander in Wardak Province named Abdul Jameel came forward with a group of fighters and declared that he wanted to quit. Wardak’s governor, Halim Fidai, accepted his surrender and told him he was free to go home. Two weeks later, Taliban gunmen entered Jameel’s home and killed him, his wife, his uncle, his brother and his daughter.

“We had nothing to offer him,” Fidai told me.

In another case, Gulab Mangal, the governor of Helmand Province, told me that during a recent American military operation he got a telephone call from a Taliban commander. “He wanted to surrender,” Mangal said. And then the military operation was over — and the American troops went back to their bases. “He never called back after that,” Mangal said.

With more American troops, McChrystal told me, he would be better able to squeeze the insurgents into changing sides. “I think a lot of them need to be convinced that they are not going to be successful,” he said.

So many things could scuttle McChrystal’s plans: a Taliban more intractable than imagined, the fractured nature of Afghan society and, no matter what President Obama does, a lack of soldiers and time. But there is something even worse, over which neither McChrystal nor his civilian comrades in the American government exercise much control: the government of Hamid Karzai, already among the most corrupt in the world, appears to have secured its large victory in nationwide elections in August by orchestrating the stealing of votes. A United Nations-backed group is trying to sort through the fraud allegations, and American diplomats are trying to broker some sort of power-sharing agreement with Karzai and his main rival, Abdullah Abdullah.

But increasingly, McChrystal, as well as President Obama and the American people, are being forced to confront the possibility that they will be stuck fighting and dying and paying for a government that is widely viewed as illegitimate.

When I asked McChrystal about this, it was the one issue that he seemed not to have thought through. What if the Afghan people see their own government as illegitimate? How would you fight for something like that?

“Then we are going to have to avoid looking like we are part of the illegitimacy,” the general said. “That is the key thing.”

VII.

A GROUP OF American Marines were bumping along a sandy road in their Humvee as the twilight turned to dark.

“One guy lost his legs,” Sgt. David Spaulding said, riding in the front passenger’s seat. “They were walking in a field.”

The Humvee bounced along some more.

“You know the guy who got shot in the head?” Lance Cpl. Jeremy Dones said, from a seat in the back. “They got him to Germany. His parents flew to Germany. They took him off life support.”

A moment passed.

“Apparently a guy got blown to pieces, and they can’t find all of him,” Spaulding said. “They don’t know if they have all the pieces.”

The men rode together in silence.

McChrystal’s plans come to earth along the banks of the Helmand River, where members of the 2/8 Battalion are trying to retake a 20-mile stretch of orchards and villages around the city of Garmsir. The 2/8 Battalion, about 800 men, is part of the 10,000 Marines dispatched to Helmand by President Obama earlier this year.

Since arriving in early July, the 2/8 has lost 13 men, most to homemade bombs. About five times that number have been wounded. The Marines here fight nearly every day.

Yet for all their difficulties, the battalion’s progress has been real. Garmsir, a district of about 90,000 people, boasts a functioning government with a governor and a local council. About 300 Afghan soldiers are deployed here, led by an Afghan colonel educated at the United States Army’s school for its best junior officers. About 250 Afghan police officers are stationed at bridges and checkpoints. An array of public-works projects is under way.

Most important, the town of Garmsir and the villages around it are quiet. They are part of an area, roughly six miles wide and six miles long, that has been secured by the Marines along the east bank of the Helmand. They call the area “the snake’s head” for its oblong shape. Outside of Garmsir, the Taliban roam and attack. Inside, life for local Afghans is remarkably sane.

Garmsir is a devastated and impoverished place; 30 years of war has seen to that. None of its roads are paved, leaving the farmers unable to sell their grapes and corn in markets outside of town. There are no cellphones, no electricity, no running water. Building a city here that could function on its own would take many years. But in Garmsir’s calm, the first hints of normal life are beginning to show.

One day in August, I tagged along with a group of Marines to the monthly meeting of Garmsir’s district council. Our leader was Capt. Micah Caskey, a civil-affairs officer from Irmo, S.C. At 28, Caskey had already done two tours in the hardest years of the Iraq war. In 2007, he left the Marines to begin a dual graduate degree in law and business at the University of South Carolina. He spent the summer of 2008 studying law abroad. But he stayed in the Marine Reserve, and a few months ago they called him back.

“I had a job all lined up for the summer,” Caskey said. “And now I’m here for seven months. I can’t tell you it was easy. Sometimes it really makes me wonder.”

Garmsir’s governor, Abdullah Jan, arrived ahead of the meeting, and he and Caskey and a group of Marines sat in the courtyard of the district headquarters in a circle of plastic chairs. Governor Jan is the beneficiary of Afghanistan’s strangely centralized political system; he was appointed by Helmand’s governor, Mangal, who was directly appointed by Karzai.

Caskey’s experience in Iraq shows immediately. He is unfailingly polite, even deferential, to Jan. And each time one of the councilmen enters, he stops the conversation and rises to shake his hand.

“Peace be upon you,” Caskey said to Jan. “It’s very nice to see you after so long.”

Jan, who grew up in the district, told Caskey not to worry about local support for the Taliban — there wasn’t any. But in the absence of a stable government, and with no guarantee of safety, ordinary Afghans were often forced to go along. “I can assure you that the people of Garmsir appreciate what you are doing here,” Jan said. “Unfortunately the people are held hostage by the Taliban.”

An Afghan — one of Jan’s assistants — arrived bearing a tray of tea and cakes while Jan talked.

“Ninety percent of the local people support the government,” Jan told Caskey. “Maybe 10 percent really like the Taliban.”

That seemed an overstatement; there were too many roadside bombs in the area — even inside the snake’s head. But the point Jan was making seemed valid enough: once there is law and order, public opinion begins to change.

“You guys,” Jan said, looking at Caskey and the other Americans, “you come in, you help and then you leave. The Afghan people are not 100 percent sure that you are going to stay. They are not sure they won’t have their throats cut if they tell the Americans where a bomb is.”

The council’s meeting began with its 16 members taking their seats on the floor of a large, airy room. Caskey and the other Americans sat in the back. The agenda for the meeting was to decide on a list of development projects, which the Americans would pay for. As Caskey explained, the Americans didn’t want to direct the projects — they wanted to strengthen the Afghan leaders by funneling the money through them.

“The Americans are only going to pay for projects that we decide on,” Jan announced. “It’s up to us.”

The Afghans — all men — began to talk. Their first choice was unanimous: the main sluice gates that lead to the irrigation canals off the Helmand River, built by American aid workers in the 1950s, were badly in need of repair. Some of the fields were going dry.

“It’s been 30 years since anyone did any work on that canal,” Hajji Anwar, one of the councilmen, said.

With the meeting under way, Caskey and the other Americans got up to leave. “I have one request,” Caskey said to one mullah. “Would you be willing to record a message that we can play over the radio station saying that fighting the government violates the idea of jihad — that it’s not jihad?”

Jan thought for a second and nodded. Caskey and the other Marines strapped on their helmets.

“May you have a son just like yourself,” Jan told him.

VIII.

THE ABANDONED ELEMENTARY school in Mian Poshteh that houses the 240 Marines of 2/8’s Echo Company has no bedrooms, no beds, no electricity, no water. It’s a vacant, dirty building filled with tired and dirty men. They sleep on the floor, a dozen to a room, or they sleep in the dirt outside, shirtless in the heat. They fight every day. When the Marines don’t attack the Taliban, the Taliban attack the Marines.

No Americans have ever come this far south before, at least not permanently. With fewer than 8,000 British troops covering all of Helmand, there never were enough to go around. Garmsir is 12 miles up a single dusty road, where Echo Company’s supply convoys get bombed nearly every day.

Mian Poshteh is like Garmsir but worse. There is no government: no mayor, no city council, no police. Thirty Afghan soldiers live here, only 10 of whom leave the base at any given time. As in Garmsir, the Marines in Mian Poshteh have come to build a government — but they have to defeat the Taliban first.

“We’re not going to clear anything that we can’t hold onto,” said Capt. Eric Meador, Echo Company’s commander.

Even with 240 men, they can’t hold onto much. By the time Echo Company and the rest of the 2/8 leave at the end of October, Meador said, he would like to control a perimeter that extends perhaps a mile and a half around his fort. “I’d be doing pretty well,” he said. To the south, there isn’t another Marine base for miles.

When you see a place like Mian Poshteh — wild, broken and isolated — it’s not difficult to see why McChrystal believes he doesn’t have enough troops to do what President Obama has asked him to.

One of Echo Company’s typical days unfolded in late August, when the Marines set out on foot for a village named Tarakai. Led by a young lieutenant, Patrick Nevins, 24, from Chapel Hill, N.C., Echo Company’s First Platoon walked through a vast field of shoulder-high corn. The fields had been flooded recently, so they were filled with muck. The trek might have been easier had the Marines taken the farmers’ raised footpaths, but the Taliban had taken to laying land mines in those, so the Marines waded straight into the field itself. The mud below was crisscrossed by gullies and rows of broken ground. The helmets of the Marines bobbed above the top of the corn.

The fields, deep and green, were eerily empty of other men.

“I guess all the farmers took the day off,” Nevins said, hacking his way through the corn.

Helmand’s summers are long and merciless, and on this day the temperature hovered around 120 degrees. Crossing the fields, with all the muck, it was hotter still. Nevins and his men tromped through the corn in full gear, including helmets and flak jackets. In the heat, my own boots fell apart.

As he walked, Nevins talked a little about himself. He seemed an unlikely presence in the fields of Helmand. His father is a cancer researcher at Duke University. “My dad is really good at what he does,” Nevins said, hacking and pushing his way through the mud and corn. “I guess I didn’t want to compete with him.”

An hour later, Nevins’s platoon popped out on the other side. Behind them were trails of toppled corn. “Sorry about your field,” Nevins said to an Afghan man standing nearby.

“It’s O.K.,” he said.

We arrived at Tarakai. A group of Afghans lined up. They were talking about the Afghan presidential election, to be held only a few days later.

“We can’t vote,” said Hakmatullah, who, like many Afghans, has only one name. “Everybody knows it. We are farmers, and we cannot do a thing against the Taliban.”

The others said much the same. The Taliban had passed word that they would cut off the right index finger of anyone caught casting a ballot. Not that there was much chance of that: the area around Mian Poshteh was so anarchic that the Afghan government didn’t send anyone to register voters. The closest polling place was in Garmsir.

But there was more to talk about. “The children are frightened,” one of the men said.

And so were the adults. The Taliban owned Tarakai; they taxed the corn and kept watch over the town.

“When you leave here, the Taliban will come at night and ask us why we were talking to you,” a villager told Nevins. “If we cooperate, they would kill us.”

“They will cut out our stomachs,” another man said.

“Is there anything I can do for you?” Nevins asked.

“Don’t come close to our houses,” the first villager said. “Don’t try to negotiate with us.”

Nevins was polite but insistent. The Americans were here now, and they were going to stay. “I will try to be respectful, and I will try to keep my distance,” Nevins told the men. “But I have a job to do, and I need to be able to come by from time to time.”

An old man with a long white beard stepped forward. “We’re afraid you’re going to leave this place after a few months,” the old man said. “And the Taliban will take their revenge.”

“I promise you,” Lieutenant Nevins said, “we will be here when the weather gets cold, and when it gets hot again.”

Nevins shook hands with the Afghans and said goodbye. Then he turned, and his men disappeared into the cornfield.

IX.

IN AMERICA, the chorus is insistent and growing: scale back the Afghan mission. It’s too hard and too expensive, and we’ve overstayed our welcome.

George F. Will, the columnist, recently said as much. So did Rory Stewart, the British scholar-diplomat who has spent years in the region. Vice President Biden is said to favor such a choice.

The exact shape of a scaled-down commitment is not clear, but it goes something like this: American Special Forces units, aided by Predator drones, can keep Al Qaeda off-balance, while American soldiers stay on to train the Afghan Army and the police.

It’s an attractive argument, of course: it offers the hope that the United States can achieve the same thing — American security — at a much-reduced cost. (The fate of the Afghan people themselves is basically left out of this equation.)

Last month, I visited Richard Haass, one of the idea’s chief proponents, at his office in New York, where he is president of the Council on Foreign Relations. (Before that, through June 2003, Haass was director of policy planning at the State Department under President George W. Bush.)

Haass is particularly persuasive, in part because he does not pretend to have easy answers. After eight years of mismanagement and neglect, Haass says, every choice the United States faces in Afghanistan is dreadful. The weight of the evidence, he says, suggests that curtailing our ambitions is the option least dreadful.

“It’s not self-evident that doing more will accomplish more,” Haass told me. “And I’m skeptical about how central Afghanistan is anymore to the global effort against terror. I’m not persuaded that you can transform the situation there.”

The bulk of Al Qaeda’s leadership, Haass pointed out, is now in Pakistan. That’s where the United States should really be focused — in Pakistan, with a population six times larger than Afghanistan’s and with at least 60 nuclear warheads. “No one wants Afghanistan to become a sponge that absorbs a disproportionate share of our country’s resources,” he said.

General McChrystal and most of the rest of the Pentagon say that Haass’s argument is essentially an illusion. If the United States drew down substantially in Afghanistan, they say, much of the country would quickly be overrun by the Taliban, rendering the other things — training and counterterrorism — impossible. Al Qaeda would return, possibly to the place it had before the 9/11 attacks, and Pakistan would be likely to follow.

When I pitched McChrystal’s counterargument to Haass, he said he was glad that he wasn’t in Obama’s shoes. “Let’s not kid ourselves,” he said. “We’re not going to find some wonderful thing that’s going to deliver large positive results at modest costs. It’s not going to happen.”

Haass went on to say: “I keep going back to Yogi Berra. You know: ‘When you reach a fork in the road, take it.’ I bet there are days when Obama wakes up and sees the fork in the road and decides he’s not going to take it. Because both choices are so bad.”

X.

DURING HIS TRIP to Garmsir, Stanley McChrystal took a moment to meet with Abdullah Jan, the governor. The two sat down in the same council chambers where Jan had met with Captain Caskey.

“Tell me how we can do better,” McChrystal said.

Jan thought for a second, then offered an unusual answer.

“You need to live in a building, not a bunch of tents,” he said.

McChrystal gave him a quizzical look.

“Everyone in Garmsir sees that you are living in tents, and they know that you are going to be leaving soon,” Jan told McChrystal. “You need to build something permanent — a building. Because your job here is going to take years. Only then will people be persuaded that you are going to stay.”

McChrystal nodded.

“We’ll stay as long as we have to until our Afghan partners are completely secure,” he said. “Even if that means years.”

McChrystal started to get up, but Jan wasn’t finished yet.

“The Afghan people are impatient,” he said. “We’ve been waiting for 30 years! We don’t want to wait any longer. We’re impatient!”

McChrystal held back a smile.

“Believe me,” he told Jan. “I work for a lot of impatient people, too.”

Dexter Filkins, who first reported from Afghanistan and Pakistan more than a decade ago, is a staff writer for the magazine and author of “The Forever War.”

Philippines notebook: National disaster brings death and blame.

2009-09-28T11:33:00.000+08:00

Like any Asian capital city, Manila is a magnet for people from the countryside wanting to make a better living. The city groans to over capacity; squatter villages and shanty towns spring up and ten years later they have taken permanent hold with their own infrastructure (usually involving illegal electricity and water supplies), their own laws, their own endless cycle of poverty as inhabitants marry each other and the shanty towns spread further and the cycle continues.

Last week, I filmed in a particularly violent, poor part of Manila. A shanty town of such renown that the Filipinos I travelled with cracked jokes nervously as we approached. If we wanted to buy a gun, a woman, drugs or contraband we were heading in the right direction, they said, double locking the car doors .

The night was monsoonal; a steady sheet of rain came down. The area was ankle deep in grime, it smelled bad, there were leaks and drips and mud and garbage everywhere. Open electrical boxes frizzed out wires inviting electrocution. This was an ordinary monsoon night. Happens every year.

Saturday comes and so does tropical storm Ondoy (known internationally as Ketsana). It rained more that day than the storm that caused the Katrina disaster in New Orleans. The wind racketed around my apartment, (safe on the 18th floor, safe in middle class Manila); the rain beat the crap out of the building.

It didn't stop. The terrible infrastructure in this city could not cope with the rain. Throughout the day, the news reported that there was flash flooding. It got worse. It turned into a national disaster as people tried to get away from the rising waters.

An overburdened city is an overburdened city and on Saturday regardless of whether you lived in a shanty town (first and most badly hit) or in a utilities-paying neighbourhood (collateral damage and lots of it), it was time to pay the price. People were literally washed away. There was something so poignant about seeing people clinging to umbrellas as they were literally armpit high in water, as if the last protection they had against death was holding onto a useless piece of nylon.

Blame is an important part of the process. There has not been civil, military or natural disaster in any country that I can recall when questions have not been asked afterwards about government inability to deal with the consequences of rain, riots, or terrorism.

So it is here. On Sunday a photo of Mikey Arroyo (son of the President) taken that day in his local liquor store, choosing between expensive bottles of alcohol went like the clappers round the internet. There was no surprise responses just wicked commentary about Mikey showing his standard form in the insensitivity stakes.

On Saturday opposition representative Teofisto Guingona, citing government audits said that President Gloria Arroyo had violated Philippines budget laws by spending the entire annual $16 million national emergencies fund on her frequent, and very often extravagant foreign trips. (She has been on an average 6 foreign trips a year since becoming President in 2001).

Blame may make you feel better, as if you were helpless in the face of someone else's wickedness, incompetence or corruption. But it doesn't get you off your roof and onto dry land and it doesn't find your missing relatives. The eerie feeling in Manila right now is more than blame, it's mourning.

This article first appeared in the Huffington Post on 28 September 2009

Leaked Stanley McChrystal Memo

2009-09-23T13:38:00.000+08:00

Go here to read the leaked memo August 2009 from General Stanley McChrystal to President Barack Obama.

Obama Is Considering Strategy Shift in Afghan War

2009-09-23T13:19:00.000+08:00

From : New York Times
23 September 2009
By PETER BAKER and ELISABETH BUMILLER

WASHINGTON — President Obama is exploring alternatives to a major troop increase in Afghanistan, including a plan advocated by Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. to scale back American forces and focus more on rooting out Al Qaeda there and in Pakistan, officials said Tuesday.

The options under review are part of what administration officials described as a wholesale reconsideration of a strategy the president announced with fanfare just six months ago. Two new intelligence reports are being conducted to evaluate Afghanistan and Pakistan, officials said.

The sweeping reassessment has been prompted by deteriorating conditions on the ground, the messy and still unsettled outcome of the Afghan elections and a dire report by Mr. Obama’s new commander, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal. Aides said the president wanted to examine whether the strategy he unveiled in March was still the best approach and whether it could work with the extra combat forces General McChrystal wants.

In looking at other options, aides said, Mr. Obama might just be testing assumptions — and assuring liberals in his own party that he was not rushing into a further expansion of the war — before ultimately agreeing to the anticipated troop request from General McChrystal. But the review suggests the president is having second thoughts about how deeply to engage in an intractable eight-year conflict that is not going well.

Although Mr. Obama has said that a stable Afghanistan is central to the security of the United States, some advisers said he was also wary of becoming trapped in an overseas quagmire. Some Pentagon officials say they worry that he is having what they called “buyer’s remorse” after ordering an extra 21,000 troops there within weeks of taking office before even settling on a strategy.

Mr. Obama met in the Situation Room with his top advisers on Sept. 13 to begin chewing over the problem, said officials involved in the debate. Among those on hand were Mr. Biden; Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates; Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton; James L. Jones, the national security adviser; and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

They reached no consensus, so three or four more such meetings are being scheduled. “There are a lot of competing views,” said one official who, like others in this article, requested anonymity to discuss internal administration deliberations.

Among the alternatives being presented to Mr. Obama is Mr. Biden’s suggestion to revamp the strategy altogether. Instead of increasing troops, officials said, Mr. Biden proposed scaling back the overall American military presence. Rather than trying to protect the Afghan population from the Taliban, American forces would concentrate on strikes against Qaeda cells, primarily in Pakistan, using special forces, Predator missile attacks and other surgical tactics.

The Americans would accelerate training of Afghan forces and provide support as they took the lead against the Taliban. But the emphasis would shift to Pakistan. Mr. Biden has often said that the United States spends something like $30 in Afghanistan for every $1 in Pakistan, even though in his view the main threat to American national security interests is in Pakistan.

Mr. Obama rejected Mr. Biden’s approach in March, and it is not clear that it has more traction this time. But the fact that it is on the table again speaks to the breadth of the administration’s review and the evolving views inside the White House of what has worked in the region and what has not. In recent days, officials have expressed satisfaction with the results of their cooperation with Pakistan in hunting down Qaeda figures in the unforgiving border lands.

A shift from a counterinsurgency strategy to a focus on counterterrorism would turn the administration’s current theory on its head. The strategy Mr. Obama adopted in March concluded that to defeat Al Qaeda, the United States needed to keep the Taliban from returning to power in Afghanistan and making it a haven once again for Osama bin Laden’s network. Mr. Biden’s position questions that assumption.

Mrs. Clinton, who opposed Mr. Biden in March, appeared to refer to this debate in an interview on Monday night on PBS. “Some people say, ‘Well, Al Qaeda’s no longer in Afghanistan,’ ” she said. “If Afghanistan were taken over by the Taliban, I can’t tell you how fast Al Qaeda would be back in Afghanistan.”

At the time he announced his new approach, Mr. Obama described it as “a stronger, smarter and comprehensive strategy,” and said “to the terrorists who oppose us, my message is the same: We will defeat you.” The administration then fired the commander in Afghanistan, Gen. David D. McKiernan, and replaced him with General McChrystal, empowering him to carry out the new strategy.

But the Afghan presidential election, widely marred by allegations of fraud, undermined the administration’s confidence that it had a reliable partner in President Hamid Karzai. Mr. Obama and Mr. Biden already had raised doubts about Mr. Karzai, which were only exacerbated by the fear that even if he emerges from a runoff election, he will have little credibility with his own people.

“A counterinsurgency strategy can only work if you have a credible and legitimate Afghan partner. That’s in doubt now,” said Bruce O. Riedel, who led the administration’s strategy review of Afghanistan and Pakistan earlier this year. “Part of the reason you are seeing a hesitancy to jump deeper into the pool is that they are looking to see if they can make lemonade out of the lemons we got from the Afghan election.”

Representative Ike Skelton, Democrat of Missouri and chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, sent Mr. Obama a six-page letter arguing the case for more troops for General McChrystal. “There is no strategy short of a properly resourced counterinsurgency campaign that is likely to provide lasting security,” he wrote.

Mr. Obama now has to reconcile past statements and policy with his current situation.

“The problem for President Obama is he has made the case in the past that we took our eye off the ball and we should have stayed in Afghanistan,” said former Defense Secretary William S. Cohen. But now that he is in charge of the war, Mr. Cohen said, Mr. Obama is discovering “he doesn’t have much in the way of options” and time is of the essence.

Mr. Cohen added, “The longer you wait, the harder it will be to reverse it.”

What's in a name: Bong Bong? Precious or Ballsy?

2009-09-21T17:01:00.000+08:00

The news theme pounded out. Bing and Precious announced that Noynoy was going to run for President. The tape rolled, and there was Noynoy Aquino standing on a platform surrounded by his sisters, Ballsy and Pinky.

After the political news, Precious turned to the lighter side of life, and the recent activities of Ding Dong. Ding Dong Dantes is a major star. He was once named one of the world's sexiest men. His peers include Bangs, someone called Boots and bringing up the rear, a woman named Pops.

This is not a drag queen's tea party. Precious Hipolito Castelo and Bing Formento are serious news readers on IBC13 television in the Philippines. Noynoy is the late President Aquino's son. His sisters, who seem like perfectly respectable middle aged women, really are called Ballsy and Pinky.

In this country, everyone seems to have some kind of common, all purpose nickname that long ago rendered their real name obsolete. Politicians with names like Joker, Boy, Butch and Ping are commonplace and no one, least of all them, seems to care that they sound like characters from a Mario Puzo novel. Excuse me for being old fashioned but is Joker the kind of nickname an ambitious politician would really want? Apparently, yes.

The President has, it seems, gotten off lightly. She is known to all and sundry by her initials, GMA. Her husband is making up for her lack of flair - he is called Mike the Big Boy. The Big Boy has been accused of money laundering by a politician named Ping. Ping in turn has been linked with the murder of a political publicist called Bubby. (Did I just mention Mario Puzo?) GMA's predecessor, the notoriously thuggish and allegedly corrupt Joseph Estrada is named Erap - "pare" spelled backwards, which means "pal". Imelda and Ferdinand Marcos have a son named Bong Bong.

Filipinos have a penchant for the too-cute double name. Men and women alike are called Bam Bam, Cha Cha, Chi Chi, Bong Bong, Rap Rap, Bum Bum, Don Don, Mak Mak, Bo Bo. It's like living in a country populated by those exotic Pandas flown in from China that you have to pay extra to see at the zoo.

No name is beyond shortening or changing. A personal favourite is Jejomar - for Jesus Joseph Mary. Even in this intensely devout Catholic country, nothing it seems is too scared to mess with.

I have been served by name tagged assistants called Bum, Cherries, Dunce, Queenly, Fife, and Dinky. And then there is the mysterious use of the letter "h", after the first letter of your nickname. So we get Bhoy, Rhandy, Ghirl, Bhaby, Jhohnny and Jhoy.

Of course none of this even gets close to explaining the usual Filipino greeting of "M'am Sir", (pronounced as one word - mamsir). M'am Sir is not a variation on the term lady boy, but the catch all word for any customer or client, male or female. Such is its ubiquity it now doesn't make me question my sexual identity when I am cheerily greeted with "hello mamsir" ten times a day.

I have yet to be given a nickname - well not to my face anyway. I do believe it's up to each individual to find the one that suits and go with that. I'm not sure I can find one that fits, though Ballsy does have a certain appeal. Maybe I'll try it out. A role in Filippino politics can't be too far away.

Losing Ground: Taliban cover 97% of Afghanistan: report

2009-09-11T17:10:00.000+08:00

New research indicates that 80% of Afghanistan now has a permanent Taliban presence and that 97% of the country has "substantial Taliban activity".

The International Council on Security and Development (ICOS) has followed the movement of the Taliban throughout Afghanistan since 2007, by tracking third party public daily reports of incidents that indicate Taliban presence. Presence is defined by "(an) average of one (or more) insurgent attacks (lethal and non-lethal) per week."

Even with this new data outlining a 97% presence, ICOS President Ms Norine McDonald QC told the Huffington Post that she believes that figure is "conservative".

MacDonald says, "it's bad numbers and bad news. They (the Taliban) have the momentum, their strategies and tactics are working, and ours are not... it's not a question of where they are operating, it's more a question of where they are not."

Combined with instability and uncertainly after the August 20 elections, allegations of wide scale electoral fraud and an alarming increase in violence and deaths, the new research further emphasizes the deterioration in Afghanistan.

Historically the north of Afghanistan has enjoyed a relative stability and little insurgent activity. The new ICOS data shows that the northern provinces of Kunduz and Balkh are "heavily affected by Taliban violence" and across the entire north there has been a dramatic increase in insurgent attacks.

MacDonald says that the increasing Taliban presence in the north is alarming and without "simple explanation" although a combination factors such as potential access to American supply chains, relatively good roads and a less dynamic NATO presence could be contributing factors.

When ICOS has released their "presence reports" in the past, they have been dismissed by NATO and international diplomats. However, given the lack of any other published material, ICOS research is the only available indicator for the public to rely on. "There are no official public NATO, UN or Afghan government maps that reflect the situation," says MacDonald. "If they have maps they are not making them public. Nor (are they) refuting our methodology with another one that they suggest is a more credible way of judging the situation."

Top US Commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, is thought to be lobbying heavily for more combat troops. The Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, influential Democrat Carl Levin said Thursday he would not support sending more combat troops to Afghanistan unless there were steep improvements in the training and capabilities of Afghanistan's own army and police.

This article first appeared in the Huffington Post on September 11, 2009.

In the Philippines, another Aquino stands for President.

2009-09-09T16:56:00.000+08:00

The Philippines has not yet recovered from a period of mourning for former President Corazon Aquino, the "mother of democracy" who died last month. The monsoonal waves of love are still washing over her family and the pressure on her only son Senator Benigno 'Noy Noy' Aquino III to make a tilt for the presidency in the 2010 elections reached a near-hysteria point. "Yes Yes! Noy Noy!" screamed one local newspaper headline.

The Philippines has not yet recovered from its official mourning period for former President Corazon Aquino, the "mother of democracy" who died last month. Monsoonal waves of love are still washing over her family. There has been near hysteric pressure on her only son, Senator Benigno 'Noy Noy' Aquino III to make a tilt for the presidency in next year's elections. "Yes Yes! Noy Noy!" screamed one local newspaper headline.

On Wednesday he announced he would "continue the legacy" of his mother and stand in 2010. He trotted out the usual candidate cliches at his announcement. "I want to make democracy work not only for the rich and the well connected but for everyone," he said.

Noy Noy's sister, TV personality Kris, has elected herself as being in charge of her rather dorky brother's makeover. She's encouraging him to use hair regrowth treatment, get a bit hipper in the wardrobe department and has warned any woman interested in her 49 year old unmarried brother that she will be a total "monster sister-in-law".

Despite the handicap of a sister who hasn't quite mastered the art of appropriate public utterances, the family name will come in handy for Noy Noy because, despite ten years in national politics, there's not much to indicate what he actually stands for. Several young voters I spoke to said they hope he spends the time between now and the election showing what his values are, because quite frankly, they have no idea what he represents.

Although there is one thing. Noy Noy supports the controversial Human Reproductive Health Bill which allows Filipinos access to information on family planning. The Catholic Church - which could be considered an influential wing of the government in the Philippines - has been apoplectic about the bill and is using strong arm tactics on national politicians to elicit a 'no' vote.

Noy Noy's support for the bill may deliver him some of the youth and progressive vote but next year's polls are wide open. As well as the journeyman politicians, the usual array of novelty candidates will most likely stand. There is talk of local hero and world champion boxer Manny Pacquaio standing though his appeal is limited ("You have to be joking!" say my middle class friends). Also in the ring, Joseph "Erap" Estrada - the discredited former President and film actor (a dreadful ham even by the Philippines movie industry's low standards). Estrada is currently attracting strong popular support despite having being guilty of the rather Cromwellian sounding charge of 'plunder'.

(President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo who is badly out of public favor, will step down from the premiership in June and is not eligible to stand for election again).

Can Noy Noy continue to ride on the genuine love felt for his mother (while at the same time recognizing her limitations) through to the May elections, or create a new and electable persona of his own?

The votes won't be in for another eight months. By then Kris Aquino may have made over her brother, who this week took his first steps into claiming what he sees as his family's dynastic destiny.
This article first appeared in the Huffington Post on 9 September 2009.

Western sanctions are doing nothing for the people of Burma

2009-08-18T13:02:00.000+08:00

Like everyone else, Aung San Suu Kyi saw it coming. "I'm afraid the verdict will be painfully obvious," the symbol of Burmese democracy said last month, during her trial. And so it was: yesterday, she was convicted of breaking the terms of her house arrest. As a result of these manifestly trumped-up charges, she will serve 18 months further detention, removing her from the political playing field during next year's elections.

Just as predictable as the sentence were the subsequent calls from Western governments and activists for further sanctions. Yet, as Hillary Clinton acknowledged shortly after becoming Secretary of State, sanctions against Burma have not worked. Indeed, many people are beginning to realise that, as the Burmese historian Thant Myint U puts it, "in some ways, sanctions lock in the status quo".

Mrs Suu Kyi, who has supported sanctions, has spent 14 of the past 20 years in jail or under house arrest. Meanwhile, sanctions have been extended, covering everything from the garment industry, where there have been heavy job losses, to timber and precious stones.

Yet, according to a local economic analyst and former supporter of sanctions whom I met when I was last in Rangoon a few months ago, these measures "never hurt the government". The reason is that Burma enjoys lively trading relations with its neighbours. China is hungry for natural resources and for the strategic access Burma offers to the Indian Ocean. India is wary of allowing China a free rein, so it is joining in, partly in the hope that links with Burma can help develop its own restive and impoverished north-east.

Thailand relies on Burmese gas to generate electricity, while Singapore, South Korea and others are all keen to do business. On the United Nations Security Council, any resolution criticising Burma – or imposing an arms embargo, as Gordon Brown proposed yesterday – receives a double veto from Russia and China.

There is, of course, an element of self-interest to this. But many Asian politicians genuinely believe that Western policy is misguided. In their part of the world, economic development is the priority. Democracy comes second, if at all. So, while Burma is certainly the worst offender, other governments in south-east Asia also hold political prisoners, control the media and suppress dissent to various degrees. Yet most of these nations have still become better and freer places than they were a generation ago, as a result of trade, economic development and ties with the West. Burma, shut out of the international system, remains the same.

That wasn't inevitable. Mark Canning, until recently the British ambassador in Burma, told me earlier this year: "I think if we had done things differently in the mid-1990s, when there was an opening up, everything was booming and you couldn't get a table for lunch, things might be very different."

At that time, tourists were welcomed and Microsoft, Pepsi and others began to invest. Then they were driven out by Western democracy activists who put them on "dirty lists". As a frustrated Thant Myint U asks, "If North Korea wanted to open up to foreign investment and tourism, would we say 'No, not until you are a democracy'?"

Further attempts to attack the junta saw aid agencies being targeted: in 2005, the Global Fund, which fights Aids, tuberculosis and malaria in some of the world's toughest places, was forced to withdraw under political pressure. Today, despite being one of the world's poorest countries, Burma receives only £1.70 in foreign aid per person annually, compared with £33 for Sudan, where the president has been indicted for alleged war crimes, and £30 per capita for the nasty communist dictatorship next door in Laos.

The logic of the sanctions lobby is that if the junta is put under enough pressure, it will be forced to "restore" democracy. Yet the truth is that Mrs Suu Kyi's stolen election victory was a generation ago, and there has been no democratic government since 1962 (an eternity in a country where the average age is 28). The opposition is desperately weak and divided, mostly consisting of ethnic rebel armies operating under fragile ceasefires. The military has taken over all of the broken economy and national life.

The growing consensus is that even if Western governments condemn the regime for another 20 years, nothing will change. Only trade, economic growth, foreign aid, and the assistance of agencies such as the World Bank and the IMF can enable Burma to emulate the rest of Asia and begin to change for the better.

Sanctions and isolation are the surest way to keep it like Cuba – poor, oppressive and stuck in the past.

Reprinted from The Daily Telegraph (UK).

Burmese Opposition Leader Not Opposed to Lifting Sanctions

2009-08-18T08:13:00.000+08:00

BANGKOK, Aug. 17 -- Aung San Suu Kyi, the detained Burmese opposition leader, might support the lifting of some sanctions against the regime, according to a U.S. senator who met her Saturday.

"It was my clear impression from her that she is not opposed to lifting some sanctions," Sen. James Webb (D-Va.) told journalists on Monday.

Webb met with Suu Kyi for 40 minutes at her home in Rangoon during a weekend trip to Burma, but he declined to comment further for fear of misrepresenting her position.

Suu Kyi has always been represented as a staunch supporter of sanctions, but given that she has been held almost incommunicado for most of the past six years, there is little consensus on whether her position might have changed.

The senator supports modifying the tough sanctions that the United States has imposed on Burma, also known as Myanmar, not least because they have given free rein to China, Burma's northern neighbor and one of the junta's few remaining supporters.

China is about to start building a gas pipeline from the Andaman Sea to the impoverished Chinese province of Yunnan.

"My personal view is that sanctions only work when you have all the countries potentially involved participating," Webb said Sunday. "The sanctions that have taken place in this situation have essentially driven Myanmar more towards China, making their country more vulnerable in my view and cutting off contact from the Western world."

There is growing sentiment among policymakers in the United States and Europe that the current sanctions regime has failed to bring democratic change in Burma and that new policies need to be discussed.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said earlier this year that the country's sanctions policy would be reviewed, with potential incentives for the Burmese if they were willing to modify the way they run the country.

Proponents of sanctions say that any loosening of the embargo would entail rewarding the regime for its intransigence, a view Webb does not share.

"This does not mean that we should in any way abandon our goal of trying to bring fairness and democracy to Myanmar and to other countries as well, but we should be looking for ways to change the formula to develop a way that can assist the people of Burma in bettering their daily lives," he said.

Western analysts say there are some faint signs that the Burmese regime is becoming more flexible, as evidenced by its decision to allow Webb to meet both Suu Kyi and the leaders of her National League for Democracy without supervision.

But one Burma-based analyst, who declined to be named, said it was still unclear whether the generals who run the country are genuinely interested in a limited rapprochement with the outside world, or if they are grudgingly making concessions to international pressure, particularly from China.

Webb also said he brought up the recent allegations that Burma might be pursuing some kind of military nuclear capability, perhaps with assistance from North Korea.

"It was communicated to me early on that there was no truth to that," he said.

By Tim Johnston
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, August 17, 2009 9:22 AM

PLEASE ALSO SEE THIS STORY - OPPOSITION LEADER ON CONTINUED SANCTIONS

Aung San Suu Kyi Back in Prison : Now Let’s TALK to the Generals.

2009-08-17T12:11:00.000+08:00

In an ending we didn't have to take bets on, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi was sent back to the prison that is her own home. John Yettaw - the obviously mentally damaged man who tried to warn her of the impending doom that he saw so vividly in his head - has been liberated by Senator Jim Webb, who went to Burma to - shock, horror! - talk to the generals.

Hard to imagine what actual eyeballing could achieve with a bunch of calculating, internationally sidelined and despotic military thugs. Could it open dialogue? Could it lead to negotiation? Could it lead - slowly and ever so gently - to those standover nut jobs being bought into a political process where they are only half the equation?

The days of "no negotiation just agree to what we demand" that has been the hallmark of both the National League of Democracy (led by Daw Suu) and the military State Peace and Development Council must pass.

The unbending stance of many in the pro-Burma lobby, who have fought so long and hard for the liberation of their land, is beginning to have the taint of George W. Bush neo-conservatism. Wasn't it Bush who said you never sit down with your enemies? Wasn't it Bush that refused to talk and negotiate to try and make better out of very bad situations? And let's just pause a minute and think about HIS legacy. It's not pretty.

The mere suggestion that there should be negotiation or lifting of sanctions is usually shouted down and dismissed. The few people who have questioned whether Daw Suu should continue to be the absolute and only point on which every Burma issue pivots have been ridiculed and sometimes violently attacked and always, always called apologists for the junta.

Those who cling to the hope that passive resistance, economically and socially crippling sanctions, and western finger wagging about Daw Suu's imprisonment will lead to any solution in Burma must think again. Where has it gotten the situation so far? How much closer are we to defining a future for 50 million Burmese while we put our hands on our hips and play no-talkies?

Yes indeed, sometimes the start of every negotiation feels like sucking down a big bowl of crap. The idea of seemingly legitimizing anything the SPDC does is antithetical to every stand that has been the hallmark of the long and painful fight for democracy in Burma.

But isn't it time we said, ENOUGH? Remove the absolutes from the equation. Get in and start talking. That means Daw Suu, the UN and the Obama administration. Be the first to sit at the grown up table and say "let's talk". Then see what the generals do. And after that? Well, then we can take another small step.

This article first appeared in the Huffington Post on 17 August 2009

Let's Talk to Burma: China Sure Is.

2009-08-17T08:19:00.000+08:00

By Thant Myint-U
Sunday, August 16, 2009

Twenty years of sanctioning and lecturing Burma's military regime have failed. The West needs to engage with Burma's leaders, increase humanitarian aid and reopen commercial relations with the country. If it doesn't, not only will positive change remain as elusive as ever, but the country will turn quickly and irreparably into an economic vassal of China.

In a sign of just how impervious the regime is to Western pressure, last week, opposition leader and Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi was sentenced to her fourth spell of house arrest. Two thousand political prisoners remain locked up. And a transition to democracy appears nowhere in sight.

I was born in the United States in 1966 to Burmese parents. My grandfather, U Thant, was then serving as the United Nations' third secretary general. I witnessed repression in Burma firsthand when I was 8, during the violent unrest surrounding my grandfather's funeral.

In 1989, just after college, I spent a year in Thailand and along the Thai-Burmese border, working with dissidents and trying help the first wave of Burmese refugees. Thousands had been killed during a failed anti-government uprising. Suu Kyi had just been placed under house arrest. And the ruling junta, after losing relatively free elections, was refusing to hand over power. Later in Washington I argued with members of Congress and others that maximum sanctions were the best way to topple the dictatorship. It was an easy argument to make.

By the early 1990s nearly all Western aid to Burma had been terminated, and development assistance through the United Nations, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund had been blocked. A decade later, embargos and boycotts had cut off nearly all economic ties with the United States and Europe. None of the senior Burmese government officials or their children (these are the only international sanctions targeting children) are allowed to travel to the West.

But as the regime not only survived but began to seek trade, investment and tourism, I started having doubts. My feeling was that the West should use the opening and find a back door to change while the front door remained firmly shut.

In 2006 I published a book, "The River of Lost Footsteps," in which I argued for a shift in the West's approach. Even when, in 2007, new protests were violently crushed, I still believed greater engagement was the right way. I felt that many policymakers and journalists were missing the bigger picture.

Few seemed aware, for example, that Burma was just emerging from decades of civil war. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the government and more than a dozen different ethnic insurgent armies hammered out cease-fires, a breakthrough that went virtually unnoticed in the West. (Today, though the cease-fires remain, there is no permanent peace.) And few seemed concerned by the country's grinding poverty, the result of decades of economic bungling as well as embargos, boycotts and aid cutoffs.

In 1991, UNICEF's country director warned of a humanitarian emergency among Burma's children, arguing that more aid couldn't wait for the right government. Eighteen years later, Burma still receives less than a tenth of the per-capita aid handed out to Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam. Tens of thousands die needlessly from treatable diseases.

These challenges have been ignored in the hope that sanctions and tough talk would lead to political change. But that hasn't happened.

Part of the reason is that the people who fashioned the sanctions didn't consider how the rise of Asia's giants -- China and India -- would transform Burma. As American businesses pulled out in the mid-1990s, Chinese and other Asian companies poured in. Hundreds of billions of dollars worth of natural gas have been discovered offshore, and massive hydroelectric and mining projects are being signed. Within two years a 1,000-mile oil and gas pipeline will stretch across Burma, connecting China's inland provinces to the sea. The U.S. trade embargo led to the near-collapse of the garment industry in the late 1990s, throwing tens of thousands of people out of work, but for the regime this has meant little.

Burma today is in no danger of economic disintegration. Without Western engagement, however, Burma's 55 million people risk becoming a virtual colony of their 1.3 billion Chinese neighbors to the east. There is no nefarious Chinese takeover scheme, but the vacuum created by Western policy is being filled.

The old Burmese generals will soon retire, and a new generation will rise to the top. Gen. Than Shwe, Burma's powerful autocrat, is 77 and ailing. Any chance for change requires support from at least some military leaders. Yet we've done nothing to try to influence the worldview of Than Shwe's possible successors. The upcoming generation of officers will be the first never to have visited Europe or America.

Last winter the Obama administration announced a review of Burma policy. I hope it will reconsider the United States' long-standing reliance on sanctions. It's not just that they don't work, but that they've been hugely counterproductive, taking away the one big force -- American soft power -- that could have played a role in reshaping the landscape.

Asia has experienced many successful democratic transitions, and none came about because of the sanctions and lectures that Western powers and advocacy groups seem to think will work in Burma. Generals don't negotiate away their power in the face of threats. You have to change the ground beneath them.

Engagement is not just about talking -- it's about dealing with the powers that be enough to get a foot in the door and create new facts on the ground, especially through economic contacts with the Burmese people. Nor is it based on the notion that economic development will automatically produce democracy, but that we must tackle simultaneously Burma's political and economic ills.

Many in America and worldwide are again outraged by goings-on in Burma. But without new thinking, 20 more years will pass and the dream of a prosperous, democratic Burma will be more distant still.

thant@post.harvard.edu

Thant Myint-U is the author of "The River of Lost Footsteps: A Personal History of Burma."

Silent outrage as Daw Aung San Suu Kyi remains locked up

2009-08-14T14:34:00.000+08:00

Freelance journalist Kyaw Kyaw writes from Myanmar:
This is from crikey.com - Australia's biggest news website
14 August 2009

After three months of debating, deliberating and stalling, the hammer came down in Myanmar’s trial of the century, with The Lady, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, sentenced to three years hard labour.

And that was that. Only, it wasn’t. A directive from Senior General Than Shwe was immediately read out in court by the Home Affairs Minister, announcing that her sentence was to be reduced to 18 months house arrest.

The directive -- dated August 10, the day before sentencing -- showed just how foreign the concept of an independent judiciary is in this country.
"[U]pon the court finding Daw Aung San Suu Kyi guilty ... half of the sentence to be served is remitted and the remainder of the sentence is to be suspended," it said.
No ifs, no buts -- and no shame.

While there were no large-scale protests, there was a palpable sense of anger at the decision to continue Daw Aung San Suu Kyi’s house arrest (a revered figure in Myanmar, she has spent 14 of the past 20 years locked up at her University Avenue house beside Inya Lake).

As I signed into my gtalk account following the verdict, I was surprised at the number of polite Burmese friends who had changed their screen name to "F_ck Than Shwe" (this also prompted a colleague to ask me on Wednesday what a "motherf_cker" was).

The verdict -- Than Shwe’s "leniency" and "generosity" notwithstanding - was also a cue for international outrage.

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) made clear its "deep disappointment". US President Barack Obama called for Suu Kyi’s "immediate, unconditional release", while Kevin Rudd expressed "deep dismay" at the decision.

But, perhaps more quietly, another debate continues to be played out -- should Daw Aung San Suu Kyi be the focus of Western government’s Myanmar policies?

It’s an argument that, for most of the past 20 years, has been unthinkable, bordering on sacrilegious.

"No matter how great her sacrifice, the future of one country cannot revolve around the actions and ideas of one person," Virginia Moncrieff wrote in The Huffington Post last month. "What has happened to this extraordinary woman is of course criminal. But there are 48 million other Burmese people and they cannot continue to be held captive while the international community listens to, and complies with Daw Suu's policies of sanctions."

Proponents are all too aware of how these comments are viewed by many, particularly those in the exile community.

"The slightest hint of criticism of [Daw Aung San Suu Kyi’s] actions brings howls of protest and accusations. (By writing this article I know I will be shouted down)," Moncrieff added.

But this argument has also gained some traction within the country – helped to a degree by Myanmar’s state media and the realisation the government are almost completely unwilling to budge on the issue.

In recent weeks, the Burmese language Myanmar Ahlin and English New Light of Myanmar have reproduced large sections of the Huffington Post article and another published in the Christian Science Monitor on July 22, which made a similar argument.

This reflects what seems to be a genuine sense of frustration among less senior government figures – perhaps everyone below the Senior General, who calls nearly all the shots -- at how intractable the West is on the Suu Kyi issue and sanctions.

The Economist’s often excellent Banyan Tree column also weighed in, decrying that "everyone from the UN down views Myanmar through the lens of democracy above all else -- even development".

Inside the country, democracy is a smaller issue than Western governments and exile groups would have you believe. As a friend told me recently, "What we want is a good government, one that gives us more freedom and definitely more opportunities than we have at the moment. That doesn’t necessarily mean we need democracy -- most people don’t even know what it is."

Next week, The Australian National University will hold its biennial Myanmar/Burma Update conference, featuring a who’s who of the Myanmar studies world.
A range of speakers, including several from Myanmar, will present papers on political, economic and social issues.

It will be interesting to see whether there is a similar shift in the academic world. The program appears more optimistic than in previous years -- after the 2007 update, the papers from the conference were published as a book called Dictatorship, Disorder and Decline in Myanmar.

My feeling is more papers will advocate greater engagement and, at least in principle, support for next years elections as a first step forward after 20 years of little or no progression.

The ANU has a relatively large number of academics focused on Myanmar and when I asked Professor Kent Anderson, the director of ANU’s Faculty of Asian Studies, earlier this year about the conference, he said: "I cannot speak for all of them but my sense is that this group of scholars is largely interested in promoting a freer Burma."

It’s becoming increasingly clear attaining a freer Myanmar will only be possible by engaging with the military government, however distasteful that may be.

Pressuring the Burmese Junta

2009-08-13T10:17:00.000+08:00

While the predictable condemnations echo around the world after the Burmese junta’s sentencing of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi to an additional 18 months under house arrest, it may be surprising to hear that, as her international counsel, I would urge caution against focusing too heavily on her plight to the exclusion of the broader situation in Myanmar.

This is not because there is anything remotely just about the outcome of her trial. Indeed, the junta charged Mrs. Aung San Suu Kyi with violating the terms of her house arrest during a sixth year of detention when the law under which she was imprisoned limited her house arrest to five years. The junta blamed her for being in contact with an American intruder in her home when it had exclusive security responsibility for her premises. And her trial had deep procedural flaws, including a lack of regular access to her counsel and unjustified denial of proposed defense witnesses. Moreover, it was closed on all but a handful of occasions to outside observers.

For these reasons, we immediately filed a petition to the U.N. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention requesting what would be a sixth judgment that the terms of her imprisonment are in clear violation of both Burmese and international law.

Mrs. Aung San Suu Kyi herself has repeatedly urged that the international focus not be on her alone. The junta has released her on two previous occasions to relieve intense international pressure, and then used the reduced international focus to clamp down further on its people. The reality is that her freedom will not necessarily yield any real progress in achieving a comprehensive solution to Myanmar’s turmoil. Her situation must be seen in the context of the suffering of Myanmar’s 47 million people under an authoritarian and inept junta.

Few regimes are as illegitimate and cruel as Gen. Than Shwe’s. Since Mrs. Aung San Suu Kyi was first detained before the 1990 elections, more than 3,000 villages have been destroyed under the military’s campaign of killing, torture and rape against ethnic minorities, as reported by Human Rights Watch. One million refugees have fled the country while hundreds of thousands of internally displaced people struggle to subsist in jungle conditions.

Rape is systematically employed as a weapon of war against ethnic minority women, according to groups such as the Shan Women’s Action Network. Last year, when Myanmar was devastated by Cyclone Nargis, the international community had to beg the junta to allow it to save its own people.

Even if Mrs. Aung San Suu Kyi had been released, nothing would have changed. Some 2,100 political prisoners would remain imprisoned. The junta would continue to move toward 2010 elections based on an illegitimate constitution that is designed to make its rule permanent. And the regime’s systematic human rights abuses would persist.

All these reasons — not merely Mrs. Aung San Suu Kyi’s new sentence — demonstrate that Myanmar’s junta constitutes a threat to world peace and security meriting urgent international engagement.

What should be done?

First, the U.N. Security Council must use the international focus on Myanmar created by Mrs. Aung San Suu Kyi’s sentencing as an opportunity to revisit its prior demands to the junta, which have not been met, including the release of all political prisoners, open access for humanitarian aid, a movement toward national reconciliation and a restoration of democracy. As a stop-gap measure against human rights abuses, the Security Council should adopt a global arms embargo on the Burmese junta.

Second, Ban Ki-moon, the U.N. secretary general, should press the junta to respond to his requests for reform, which he presented on a recent visit to the country.

Third, the United States, the European Union and allies such as Australia and Canada should urge China, India and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations to make clear to the junta that repeated flouting of U.N. demands make defending the regime increasingly difficult.

There are no easy answers to the problems in Myanmar. But it is well understood what needs to be done. The sentencing of Mrs. Aung San Suu Kyi has provided a clear opportunity for action. Now, it is up to the international community to move beyond words of condemnation.

Jared Genser is president of Freedom Now and serves as international counsel to Mrs. Aung San Suu Kyi
New York Times
August 13, 2009
Op-Ed Contributor - Jared Genser

The Day They Buried Cory Aquino

2009-08-06T19:07:00.000+08:00

On Wednesday night when I got home, I turned on the TV for some late night viewing. At the witching hour, surfing through the endless channels of crap that is Philippines television, I was mesmerized by the tributes to Corazon Aquino that took up every commercial break. Slow-mo montages accompanied by Michael Buble music thanked the Mother of Democracy. For sure the tributes were corn-syrup but I had a cynicism bypass; I was genuinely moved by the legend of Cory, the self described "simple housewife" who, through a mixture of surprising moxy, timing and the assassination of her husband, became a potent symbol of people power that still has global resonance today.

They had buried her that day - declared a national holiday - and it rained endlessly as the tail end of a typhoon blew itself out. But still, the streets were lined ten deep with people holding anything yellow - balloons, banners, teddies, flowers. Yellow confetti stuck to sodden mourners. (Yellow is the color of Cory's People Power movement). Those not blessed with being able to absent themselves from work huddled around huge screens in their offices, watching the scenes of devotion on the streets and then crying as the eulogies were read. Every TV station devoted the day to Cory's service.

Since Saturday, when Corazon Aquino died from colon cancer aged 76, the middle class neighbourhood in Manila where I live has been awash with yellow ribbons and banners. People wearing yellow shirts queued for her biography at the book store across the road. At my local 7/11, I asked about the yellow ribbons tied to the door and the cashier burst into tears.

"The people's reactions are at once a nostalgic look at a time when change seemed imminent, a critique of the current administration, as well as the celebration of a person who was truly kind and well-meaning to the core," prominent Filipino social commentator Carlos Celdran told the Huffington Post. "In the Philippines, intentions matter a lot, and Cory had the best of them in mind."

That being said, people have been remarkably open about the President that Corazon Aquino was. Editorials have assessed her legacy with honesty but sympathy, pointing out that whatever her failings in policy and achievements, she made up for with unquestionable, incorruptible moral integrity. And after the Marcos years that was almost enough.

"In the eyes of Catholic Philippines, she will always resonate as being selfless, pious, and a symbol of purity in public service," says Celdran. "Remember, this is a woman who did not want to become president, but did so and stuck to it until the bitter end. And being selfless, pious, and pure in public service are values that Filipinos want to see in their leaders today (whether it be effective an attribute or not)."

As it rained on Wednesday, it was a moment for a nation to relive the reality, the myth and the magic of what one "simple housewife" could achieve and what devotion to justice can realize.

This article first appeared in the Huffington Post on 6 August 2009.

Poverty saps local interest in Suu Kyi trial

2009-08-03T13:51:00.000+08:00

AFP report from 3 August 2009

YANGON — While the international community condemns the prison trial of Aung San Suu Kyi, many people in military-ruled Myanmar have more pressing concerns as they struggle to make ends meet.

"I saw some barricades near the jail when I passed by on the bus but I have no interest in the verdict," father-of-two Maung Zaw told AFP.

The 40-year-old said he earns a meagre 1.50 dollars a day through his two jobs in construction and as a shop worker.

"I am only interested in my daily wages for my family which is a more important thing for me," he said.

Speculation is rife among diplomats and foreign observers as to the sentence the Nobel laureate could face if she is convicted of breaching her house arrest rules, after an American man swam to her lakeside home in May.

But while the international community awaits the verdict in the court case at Yangon's Insein prison, now expected on August 11, many in the poverty-stricken country are more preoccupied with daily financial worries.

Cho Mar, the 30-year-old manager of a tourism company who earns 250 dollars a month, was also concerned about the economy in what is one of the world's least developed countries.

"Although we are interested in her we have to see to our own situation first as we struggle in our daily life because our economic situation has been declining in recent years," he said.

As Suu Kyi's trial reconvened in the commercial hub of Yangon Friday, there were a noticeable lack of tourists in the area, which has been shunned by many because of Myanmar's 47 years of military rule.

Visitors were further deterred by Cyclone Nargis in May 2008, which swept through the country's southwest, leaving 138,000 people dead.

At the Shwedagon pagoda, the city's leading attraction, tour guides and photographers milled about with nobody to employ them, while the few Asian visitors who did walk through the compound tried not to slip on loose tiles.

In a middle-class neighbourhood south of the city, two men in a cafe, who declined to be named, joked about "one very famous tourist" -- a reference to John Yettaw, the uninvited US man who swam to Suu Kyi's house, sparking her trial.

Foreign critics say the court case is a ploy to keep Suu Kyi, widely known as "The Lady" in Myanmar, locked up for elections scheduled for 2010.

The junta has detained her for a total of nearly 14 years since refusing to recognise her party's landslide victory in elections in 1990.

The United States and the European Union have imposed sanctions against the Myanmar regime, demanding the release of Suu Kyi and more than 2,000 political prisoners.

But the impact of those sanctions has been weakened as neighbours, notably China, spend heavily on resource-rich Myanmar's natural gas, timber and precious stones.

However, a report in May said that while the country's foreign exchange reserves were at a record 3.6 billion dollars, the junta had not used them to help the people and the country's economic prospects were "bleak".

The report from the International Monetary Fund, quoted by the Financial Times newspaper, said social spending was the lowest in Asia.

This was even as the regime, officially known as the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC), continued to splash out on showcase projects including the building of the new administrative capital Naypyidaw.

There are also serious concerns about the regime's military spending.

A report on Saturday, citing the evidence of defectors, said North Korea is helping Myanmar build a secret nuclear reactor and plutonium extraction plant to build an atomic bomb within five years.

"The poverty endured by the people in Burma is because of the SPDC's policy," said activist Debbie Stothard of the Alternative ASEAN Network on Burma, referring to Myanmar by its former name.

Despite many citizens living a "hand-to-mouth existence", Stothard said she did not believe they were uninterested in Suu Kyi's fate.

"I think many are concerned about the trial and those who have access to information realise that their suffering is linked to the crisis in the political situation".

Htwe Htwe, a 50-year-old housewife in Yangon, agreed that there was a lot of interest in the trial, although it was often discreet.

"People in the market and at the teashops are secretly discussing the verdict," she said. "People want to know what will happen to her."

But some, it seems, have lost hope of a positive future.

One taxi driver, who did not wish to be named, had a dog-eared stash of copies of the state-run newspaper on his passenger seat and laughed when asked if he read them.

"No, I use these for cleaning the windshield when it fogs up. It's a waste of time to read that newspaper," he said.

LRB · Rory Stewart: The Irresistible Illusion

2009-08-03T10:14:00.000+08:00

LRB · Rory Stewart: The Irresistible Illusion

Valuable for archive.

Like Iran, Burma Muddies the Waters for Negotiations

2009-07-31T14:02:00.000+08:00

by Russ Wellen
reprinted from http://www.youblogged.com/node/8565
25 July 2009

It might surprise you to know that Southeast Asian political humor is on a par with America's best like Maureen Dowd, Lee Camp and the Onion. For example, visit Thailand's English-language website Not The Nation. Recent fare: "Kim Jong Il's Pancreas Sent To Labor Camp" and "Thai FDA Approves Production of Flu Amulet."

Shortly after Aung San Suu Kyi was arrested by Burma's junta, the otherwise earnest Burmese exile magazine Irrawaddy published an imaginary letter she wrote to head of state General Than Shwe. A few excerpts:

Dear Senior-General,

I would like to take this opportunity to thank you. ... for your unflinching political support. I thought that the world had forgotten about me, but you made sure that my face reappeared on TV all over the world.

You had previously cautioned foreign governments not to focus so much on one person (me), but now you have magnanimously ensured that my name is on the lips of every diplomat in Rangoon.

The international community has a reputation for having a short attention span.

Thanks to your efforts, Burma is back on the front pages of the newspapers. I believe that the US and the EU were in a bit of a pickle about how to handle the economic sanctions issue and recognition of next year's election.

Now, thanks to your clear-cut methods and no-nonsense approach, those countries will have no hesitation in making decisions with regard to the Burmese government's status.

Yours in captivity,

Aung San Suu Kyi

Few outside Burma know the impassive Than Shwe and the 10 other generals who make up the junta. On the other hand, seldom has one woman been as identified with her country as Suu Kyi. In fact, her fate and that of the junta have become inextricably linked. The harder the junta tries to remove her from the scene, the more prominent she becomes in the eyes of the world.

Not only is this bad for the junta, but at Huffington Post, international reporter Virginia Moncrieff questioned whether Suu Kyi's continued preeminence actually benefits Burma's people. In a piece entitled The Future of Burma Cannot Be Tied to Aung San Suu Kyi, she writes: That old chestnut question "name six people you would love to have to dinner" usually holds no surprises. The guest list from many liberal, forward-thinking (and may I also point out -- male) types will include Aung San Suu Kyi. She is regarded as the epitome of elegance and sacrifice. The pinup girl for human rights causes. [Emphasis added.] Okay, let's get it out of the way -- Suu Kyi has always been a fine figure of a woman. Here's hoping her health doesn't deteriorate in jail. We'll allow Ms. Moncrieff to continue: No matter how great her sacrifice, the future of one country cannot revolve around the actions and ideas of one person. ... there are 48 million other Burmese people and they cannot continue to be held captive while the international community listens to, and complies with Daw [an honorific -- RW] Suu's policies of sanctions.

Daw Suu's strategy [of] maintaining that the regime must be isolated and that Burma must be the target of stringent sanctions only helps the junta reverse further into mad "behind-the-wall" strategies. ... Many pro-democracy activists. . . believe she is wrong about sanctions but such is her position, they often decline to say so publicly.

Australian Daniel Pedersen, who reports from Mae Sot, Thailand on the Burmese Karen ethnic insurgency, added a couple of comments to Ms. Moncrieff's article: In the West [Suu Kyi] is a figurehead. ... [Meanwhile] in Burma she's a hero to many in Rangoon [but] irrelevant to much of the country's population. ...

There are thousands of villages. . . in which Suu Kyi could walk through the marketplace and not be recognised because the images the West sees aren't encouraged inside Burma, to say the least. A recent New York Times article confirms Pedersen's observation: "I only know her name," said Ms. Ei Phyu, a slight and shy 20-year-old [worker in a textile plant]. "I've never seen a picture of her," Ms. Ei Phyu said. "I think she's an old lady. "Meanwhile (from the same article): Mrs. Aung San Suu Kyi's political party, the National League for Democracy, is a shell of its former self, its leaders well into their 70s. Still. . .Mrs. Aung San Suu Kyi has been dismissed as irrelevant before, only to rally Burmese in large numbers.

Returning to the parody-letter, perhaps the junta does know what it's doing. It's easy to write it off as heavy-handed. But keeping Suu Kyi front and center may be a nefarious plot to keep the eyes of the world on her. It thus becomes impossible for her to back down, were she inclined, without appearing to sell out her cause.

Also, with next year's plans for elections and the convening of a parliament (aka, ways of legalizing the military's role in Burma's political system) the junta can look like the conciliatory party. Of course, there's the small matter of the plunder it perpetrates on ethnic Burmans and the under-the-radar genocide it inflicts on the ethnic minorities.

Meanwhile Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is on her way to the forty-second Ministerial Meeting of Asean (the Association of Southeast Asian Nations) in Thailand. Much of the discussion will revolve around Burma, which the Obama administration, once it completes its policy review, seeks to engage.

But, of course, Suu Kyi's incarceration and trial throw a monkey wrench into the works. What state does that remind us of? Of, yeah, Iran, which has muddied the waters for negotiations with the United States by a presidential election that appeared staged and then by repressing the subsequent protests.

Iran's government, however, neither a dictatorship nor a junta, may still be a candidate for rapprochement with the United States. As for Burma, any responsibility that Suu Kyi bears for the West failing to engage with it is beyond negligible compared to the blame that falls on the junta.

Mention in The Examiner, July 27, 2009

2009-07-28T14:12:00.000+08:00

I am little bemused by this mention in The Examiner ... and I hasten to assure everyone that I found by retreat experience very funny.

Minority children and school: Perception vs reality

In a recent offering from Meghan Meyer on Brain Blog, minority students accepting negative stereotypes into their mental world as being valid has been revealed to affect performance in school. Not surprising to those who study the mind, it punctuates what has long been known in Buddhist circles- that what the mind accepts as true becomes reality for that person.

"Whatever one stays obsessed with, that's what one is measured by. Whatever one is measured by, that's how one is classified. Whatever one doesn't stay obsessed with, that's not what one is measured by. Whatever one isn't measured by, that's not how one is classified." - Buddha, SN 22.36

The state of race relations has definitely improved since the onset of the Civil Rights movement. However, until the minorities themselves accept that they are of tremendous merit individually and that their race cannot affect their performance unless they are convinced it will, the cycle of low self-esteem will continue and color their lives like sunglasses in a dark room. When seen as individuals we are all different but also have something in common by being human.

Further, what the mind expects to be true becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy, as was described by Huffington Post blogger Virginia M. Moncrieff recently in her “The week I didn’t become a Buddhist” post. She described the weeks preceding her retreat, in which she geared herself up for an “enlightenment experience” she neither expected nor received, triggering an “I knew it” response. Her impression of the place started out badly before her arrival and was not improved when she found, internally and externally, the resistance she expected. Seeing the improper conduct by the center only served to fuel the upset and disappointment she felt, and tracking back the phenomenon of anger and disappointment usually only serves to fuel those same emotions.

In another account on Huffington Post, Jay Michaelson describes a more profitable retreat experience exploring the nature of attachment to conceived anger.

Similarly, the minority children that experience these low test scores cannot get satisfaction by studying the phenomenon that brought them to that mental place. Studying the horrific racial history that precedes our generation is necessary to avoid repetition, but it is also necessary to educate our children (and adults) on not accepting the negative labels that once were applied to minorities. Hearing that they are likely to behave in certain ways is likely to trigger those behaviors, as has been demonstrated. Given the exponentially increasing number of multi-racial children, this attachment to a supposed stereotype will become more and more invalid as the years pass. However, it doesn’t mitigate our responsibility to teach the invalidity of stereotypes on an individual level.

This is a process of healing that has to be taken on by all races- acceptance, tolerance, and dismissal of stereotypes. While demographic information is useful for commercial enterprises- common favorite colors, tastes, etc.- on a personal level it is a reprehensible way to develop personal behaviors and thinking, in that it is not coming from an internal source. They have no bearing on what reality is, but everything on what it can become.

Recommended : Analysis on Pakistan and Afghanistan

2009-07-28T13:53:00.000+08:00

My good friend Farrukh Pitafi Khan does an excellent - and often times, very brave blog.

If you would like to read some well informed analysis on Pakistan and Afghanistan I highly recommend it to you.

Find it here : http://pitafi.com/

Taliban issues new code of conduct - 27 July 09

2009-07-28T13:26:00.001+08:00

From al Jazeera.net

Al Jazeera has obtained a copy of the Taliban's new military code of conduct, approved by Mullah Omar, its Afghan leader.
It appears to be an attempt to consolidate a disparate movement.

It has thirteen chapters, 67 articles and it lays out what one of most secretive organisations in the world today, can and cannot do.

Following are some key quotes that outline the new code of conduct:

On asylum:
"Every Muslim can invite anyone working for the slave government in Kabul to leave their job, and cut their relationship with this corrupt administration. If the person accepts, then with the permission of the provincial and district leadership, a guarantee of safety can be given."

On prisoners:
"Whenever any official, soldier, contractor or worker of the slave government is captured, these prisoners cannot be attacked or harmed. "The decision on whether to seek a prisoner exchange, or to release the prisoner, with a strong guarantee, will be made by the provincial leader. Releasing prisoners in exchange for money is strictly prohibited."

"If the prisoner is a director, commander or district chief or higher, the decision on whether to harm, kill, release or forgive them is only made by the Imam or deputy Imam."

If a military infidel is captured, the decision on whether to kill, release or exchange the hostage is only to be made by the Imam or deputy Imam."

On civilian casualties:
"Governors, district chiefs and line commanders and every member of the Mujahideen must do their best to avoid civilian deaths, civilian injuries and damage to civilian property. Great care must be taken."

On suicide attacks:
"Suicide attacks should only be used on high and important targets. A brave son of Islam should not be used for lower and useless targets. The utmost effort should be made to avoid civilian casualties."

On unity:
"Creating a new mujahideen group or battalion is forbidden. If unofficial groups or irregular battalions refuse to join the formal structure they should be disbanded. If a governor or leader has in the past had a unit or active group in another province, they should bring it to the attention of the leader of that province. That leader should then take over command of the group."

On relations with the Afghan people:
"The Mujahideen have to behave well and show proper treatment to the nation, in order to bring the hearts of civilian muslims closer to them. The mujahideen must avoid discrimination based on tribal roots, language or their geographic background."

The Week I Didn't Become a Buddhist

2009-07-26T15:21:00.000+08:00

I had been living in Burma for several months when I headed over the border to India and north to McLeod Ganj. I was off on one of those Western rites of passage - the Buddhist retreat. The retreat went for ten days. I lasted barely two and the truth is I was at the cold mountain retreat for just two hours before I thought, "I'm an atheist, get me out of here!"

The problem was that is was all so very very dour and I just wanted to keep laughing out loud. Yes I know that for most people the search for enlightenment is serious but I just kept on finding it absurd -which admittedly hardly fit the spirit of why we were there.

To be honest, on my way to north India I was doing some serious mental house keeping about my own world view and had spent quite a bit of time the week before pondering this. The night before the retreat I had a classic "dark night of the soul', where I scared myself witless thinking about deep stuff, and maybe I had enough heavy contemplation for the time being.

Or maybe in the end, I truly am what many Buddhists would call a "closed mind". The retreat had the exact opposite effect on me that it was supposed to: I had over the previous few days and weeks and months hardened into even more of an atheist, believing that pragmatism and actually doing something about situations is more the go. My grandfather had once said to me "greater are the hands that work than are the hands that pray" and it always stuck. When I saw a sign at the retreat that urged everyone to repeat something called the Golden Mantra 1000 times "as this will stop the killing and bring peace in Iraq" I was bamboozled - it seemed to me to be such a cop out at the worst, muddle headed at best.

There was a ban on talking, and eye contact was discouraged but I managed to find everything funny. One young fellow retreater was given the job of wandering around the compound banging a gong 10 minutes before the beginning of each class. He was dressed in a hippy outfit par excellence (including a ridiculous pixie hat) bashing away at his gong. I just had to catch a glimpse of him and wanted to laugh out loud. I was biting the inside of my cheeks every time he padded past me, banging away.

On a silent walk (strolling around the grounds contemplating the true meaning of our existence) I was heartened to see two women hiding in the bushes away from authoritarian eyes, gossiping their heads off. I so wanted to join them but knew I couldn't gate crash. I just knew they weren't discussing spiritual issues, more likely whether or not they should have bought that Tibetan carpet at such a good price down in the town.

Now to prove the depths of how shallow I really am, I also couldn't get into the prescribed retreat outfit. In my defence it was very very cold. But how I ended up wearing toe socks is as big a mystery to me now as it was then. I will spare you further sartorial details but let's just say I was wearing a blanket as a poncho. My word, I am grateful we weren't allowed mirrors.

Some very serious western nuns and monks sat serenely in the courtyard. I broke the rules and spoke - just had to ask one of them - who I knew to be American - how the Presidential elections were unfolding. Had a winner been declared, I asked? She looked at me with what I assume was pity and declared that such earthly concerns were certainly no concern of hers.

That was it. I folded and decided this was not the way I would find my inner happiness. Among other things I desperately needed to know who had won the election. I went to the office, past the signs which encouraged us to be kind and compassionate to ourselves and each other. I walked in and admitted failure and said that I needed a taxi to take me back to the town.

Compassion was hard to find in the office. Bickering, blaming and moaning broke out among the European staff. "Well I just can't find any money right now to give you a refund....this is very inconvenient...." griped one person. Another started whining about an absent office manager. "Bloody Sabine should not be having showers at this time of the day, she should be here!" Someone else started bitching to me about how chaotic the place was and that no one told anybody anything . Sabine appeared, fresh from her shower and talked about me like I wasn't there. "Well I'm not giving her a refund because it's out of office hours" (It was 11.30. A sign indicated that office hours were 9.30 - 12.30). Someone else retorted, "well I have been working hard and you've been off having a shower, so it's not as if we didn't try and get it done" ....meanwhile outside, all the retreaters were wandering to the sound of a soft banging gong, searching for inner peace and contemplating the Golden Mantra.

This article first appeared in the Huffington Post on 25 July 2009.

US journalist upsets Burma exiles

2009-07-25T13:34:00.000+08:00

This was published in the Democratic Voice of Burma on 24 July 2009.

US journalist upsets Burma exiles

(DVB)–An article published in the US and reprinted in a Burmese state-run newspaper that appeared to criticise Aung San Suu Kyi’s political tactics has been met with alarm by exiled Burmese politicians and activists.

The Huffington Post, a liberal online magazine based in New York, last week carried an opinion piece entitled ‘The Future of Burma Cannot Be Tied to Aung San Suu Kyi’.

The author, Virginia M Moncrieff, said that Suu Kyi’s imprisonment has only added to her “near-secular saint status”, a tactic that is “self-defeating”.

She followed by saying that her policy of sanctions “is fundamentally flawed” and that isolating the regime “only helps the junta reverse further into mad "behind-the-wall" strategies”.

The result, according to Moncrieff, was that “she is penalizing the very people she aims to assist”.

Sections of the article were republished yesterday in the government mouthpiece Myanma Ahlin newspaper, although Moncrieff’s attempts to balance the piece with criticism and praise became the victim of underhand editing.

Sentences such as “what has happened to this extraordinary woman is of course criminal”, were changed to “this woman has broken the law”, while the ending, which called for Suu Kyi’s release, was absent.

Yet the article still provoked a reaction from some members of the Burmese exile community, who are closely following the Suu Kyi trial, which ends today.

“There are groups and individuals working to bring democracy to the country and Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is a leading role model for all these people,” said Aye Thar Aung, secretary of the Committee Representing the People’s Parliament (CRPP).

Khin Omar, head of the Network for Democracy and Development who read both versions of the article, said that she “completely disagreed” with the criticisms of Suu Kyi, particularly those that claim she doesn’t favour negotiation with the regime.

“In reality, she was the one holding a non-violence policy and has been fighting to find an answer to the problems through dialogue with all [political and ethnic] groups participating,” she said.

It is widely expected that Suu Kyi’s trial will end in a guilty verdict, and the charges brought against her carry a maximum five year sentence.

The past six years of Suu Kyi’s house arrest have seen restrictions on movement and communication increasingly tightened, and this will likely continue in the lead-up to the 2010 elections.

Reacting to whether her imprisonment will cripple the future of Burma’s democracy movement, the coordinator of advocacy network ALTSEAN-Burma, Debbie Stothard, said that Suu Kyi’s role “goes beyond being a prisoner”.

“She’s a prisoner because she’s been an effective campaigner and leader of this movement,” she said.

“If she was no longer effective, the regime would no longer see her as a threat and she would not be imprisoned.”

Reporting by Thurein Soe