[Dawn] This week I attended a short seminar entitled, "The Future of Pakistain". London is home to many such events. Pakistain is high on the UK government's agenda -- a country of geopolitical strategic interest, nuclear armed, and poised to become Britannia's biggest aid recipient. Experts flock to share ideas. Consultants congregate to see if there is any money to be made. The event sometimes includes someone promoting a book they have written about Pakistain (this time it was Anatol Lieven's turn); and a panel of speakers each giving their diagnosis of "what the problem with Pakistain is..."
Conversation continues as various notable commentators -- usually with an ex-Ambassador thrown in for good measure -- pick apart the nation. They talk politics, military, relations with Afghanistan, China, India, Iran, religion, gender-issues. Sorry intakes of breath as the thoughts on the devastating floods are uttered. Heads move slowly from side to side, when someone mentions the dreaded letters "ISI". The word "revolution" is used more than once, and not in a positive way -- there is no real talk of potential for positive change. An audience of like-minded people will nod and thank the panel before making similar verbal offerings.
The event this week, surpassed all others as the panel in question tried to "out-do" each other with negativity. But it was a British peer who took this week's prize for being the most ruthlessly negative about the country of her birth. "My view of Pakistain, I'm not ashamed to say is quite bleak" quipped Baroness Kishwer Falkner. Anatol retorted -- "but my book is pretty bleak in places too!" I quietly got up and left the room.
Failed
It's not that I don't want to understand Pakistain's problems, it's just that I refuse to approach the country as if it is a hopeless, "failed state". I'm not sure even how useful it is to rank failed states. It feels uncomfortable that a "Fund for Peace" should issue such a list. Pakistain ranks at number 12, since you asked.
It's considered more failed than Yemen. But then maybe if Germany had been assessed after the Second World War it would have been pretty high up on the failed state list. Its economy was destroyed, cities were flattened by hefty bomb damage, and over six million Germans were dead including their radical and violently extreme leader found in a ditch with a bullet in his brain. But it only took a relatively short time before Germany was back on its feet; doing business with former enemies, raising its economy, and having global influence once more.
So I would challenge anyone, whether they are Pak or not, who assess Pakistain as "bleak" or "failed". In my attempts to squeeze dramatic engaging news stories from a nation of 180 million, I'm not really looking for a post-Bin Laden Marshall Plan, but simply an exploration of potential, opportunity and stories of a resilience nation that I know exists. Keep the messages coming. More of them.
Posted by: Fred ||
06/24/2011 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
#1
I've often thought that %u2026 is a big problem for Pakistan as well.
A view from abroad, but using American political vocabulary.
Today I am in New York on my publicity tour for Watermelons and as I sat at breakfast this morning, chomping on an Ess-a-bagel and reading Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics I found myself wondering -- not for the first time -- why it is that liberal-lefties manage to be so utterly wrong about everything.
"Because they're stupid," said a libertarian friend of mine.
"Oh come on, not all of them surely? A bit misguided, maybe but..." I protested.
"No really they're stupid because they're not interested in facts. They just want to construct their pretty little narrative about the world, regardless of whether or not it has any bearing on reality. And then they want to dump it on us. And ruin our lives. So not just stupid but evil too."
#1
Classical liberalism which promoted equal opportunity, which respected property rights, and that triumphed the basic civil rights of mankind died in the 70s when it found out that the reality of human free will undermined these beliefs. The free will to make bad choices and suffer the consequences. Then like a zombie it morphed into the neo-redistributionist creature that is found in other blind faith totalitarian/authoritarian systems in the 20th Century. It still likes to call itself by its original name but it doesn't even have but a sliver of DNA to its heritage.
#2
Today's "liberals" are not liberal. Read the classic definition of liberal and you will understand the current crop of liberals are nothing but a bunch of dictatorial Leninists. They aren't even socialists.
And as the article says, while they may be well educated, they are Ignorant and not particularly inspired intellectually...maybe even not the brightest light bulb in the lamp.
Posted by: Bill Clinton ||
06/24/2011 9:04 Comments ||
Top||
#3
"Why, I remember way back when a Liberal was someone who was generous with their OWN money!"
-- Will Rodgers, Early Tea Partier
#4
they are Ignorant and not particularly inspired intellectually Stupidity is a quality that has little to do with one's level of knowledge or intellectual attainment. Some of the stupidest people in history were also highly qualified. Alan Greenspan comes to mind. Obama is in the process of redefining the term 'stupidity' although his supporters and worshipers are also doing that.
#7
"as I sat at breakfast this morning, chomping on an Ess-a-bagel and reading Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics"
I don't know what kind of bagel he's talking about, but I like this guy!
Posted by: Barbara ||
06/24/2011 15:56 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Hasdrubal to Hanibal: "You know how to win but not what to do about your victories"
Yeah, but there wasn't a single Jisco in the Roman army...
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
06/24/2011 16:00 Comments ||
Top||
#9
I tire of this talk. I hold upon my person papers for peace or for war; which shall it be?
You choose.
Then war it shall be.
-----------
I'd love to talk Barcas, and could argue and counter argue, but I get the point of the quote. Liberals, part of their deal really is an admonishing of personal knowledge and responsibility. They tend to be the big believer in the uber man. I agree that some people get dealt better cards than others, their deal is that person who seems to be the big thinker is allowed to make those decisions, and with loyalty to uber man, however that is decided, self determination is overruled by one who has been deemed the superior thinker. See, no reason to think, just wait until uber man or whoever in the circle of peers more closely follows the sayings of uber tell the individual what to think, what is ok to like, who is cool or not cool.
The liberal's mind is freed from having to make constant decsions. An peer group becomes interdepenant. The problem becomes when uber man is shown fallable (as they almost always are), the liberal individual must make a personal choice...re examine self beliefs or justify and clear the uber man. Well the easy choice is to justify the uber man, stuff like, "Well Al Gore is a very busy man, so he must burn fuel to spread the word and any masseuse should be priviliged to jerk him off whenever he says so."
Its crude, it makes the friends laugh, life continues on, that person unknowingly having just sold their soul. To top it off, leaving that circle of peers on account of disagreement will get you slandered, as it creates the same question of doubt in others' souls.
I knew a guy, borderline genius, would have gone far had he put in half the effort of wanting to be a liberal douchebag. Yes, a choice, liked have groping fans eager to hear his next dirty joke or outrageous costume or memorable party. Smartest guy in the coffee shop, when he wasn't working at a liquor store or trying to freeload off a groupie.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
