American self-esteem in a flat world

I recall sitting with an American friend at a top-notch restaurant in Bombay (now called Mumbai) in the early 1990s. At a table close to us were some Indian female models. My American male friend boasted that he could pick up one of them anytime. “ They will certainly join me if they know I am an American,” he added very casually.

In Taipei, a couple of years later, a Taiwanese girl was chatting animatedly with an Indian. We were all part of a large multinational group. An American, whose amorous interest in the Taiwanese girl was well known, was overheard from the other end of the table, “What does she see in that guy ? He is only a bloody Indian”.

First world self-perceptions of invincibility are taking hard knocks in Asia and around the world. All the top US companies, including IBM and Intel, had Americans or Europeans in top positions in Asia, and many of them enjoyed a position and lifestyle akin to colonial viceroys of yore.

Today not only are most of the top positions occupied by Asians, but Asians are occupying top positions in the US as well. Now Cisco plans to have 20 percent of its top management in India, most of whom will be hired locally.

Why was the American knocked off from the pedestal. I think it was the boom in the Asian economies, and dollops of national pride in these countries. The resurgence in national pride started in the early 1990s in countries like Malaysia, which admired the American model, but did not see the need to be pliant to Americans.

As local markets grew, it became quite clear to multinational companies that they had to adapt and get more inclusive, appoint local bosses. After a number of abortive joint ventures with American and European companies, Asian companies also saw the virtues of going it alone. In a radical shift in attitudes, that reflected the economic success of Asia, companies in China, India, and rest of Asia started to be wooed by Americans and Europeans for business.

Offshore outsourcing also tore into the American veil of invincibility. The American’s job could be done as well, if not better and more cheaply in Asia. There were brainy guys there too, as was evident from the large number of Indian and Chinese engineers who made it big globally.

Attitudes towards the American and America has also changed to a large measure in Asia. The greenback lost its sheen to local currencies, some of which were only getting stronger. If earlier, educated people from Asia made a beeline to the US for jobs, now there is a queue back as the local economy is generating jobs that are lucrative in the local context. To be sure there are those for whom living in America is still the ultimate dream, but these are getting fewer by the day.

Nicolas Sarkozy’s American love fest could backfire

“But my generation did not love America only because she had defended freedom. We also loved her because for us, she embodied what was most audacious about the human adventure; for us, she embodied the spirit of conquest. We loved America because for us, America was a new frontier that was continuously pushed back--a constantly renewed challenge to the inventiveness of the human spirit.”

That was Nicolas Sarkozy, France’s President buttering up to the United States during a speech to Congress on Wednesday.

Sarkozy, who incidentally comes from a country with a rich tradition in art, literature, and music, says the imaginations of his generation “were fueled by the winning of the West and Hollywood. By Elvis Presley, Duke Ellington, Hemingway. By John Wayne, Charlton Heston, Marilyn Monroe, Rita Hayworth. And by Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins, fulfilling mankind's oldest dream”.

Goodbye Jean Paul Satre, Albert Camus, Claude Levi-Strauss, Georges Bizet, Emile Zola and others that have long made France a center, nay a beacon of culture, politics, and ideology. Farewell to France’s own perception of how politics and the economy should be run.

Enter the new France, a pastiche of all things American, of George Bush and Donald Duck, of Britney Spears and Madonna.

To this sad pass has come such a proud nation that once tenaciously clung to its culture, language, and heritage.

Sarkozy seems to have done a perfect job wheedling his way into replacing former British Prime Minister Tony Blair as America’s poodle.

In his speech, he agreed with the US that Iran with nuclear weapons was unacceptable, he reiterated his commitment to French continued engagement in Afghanistan. He gave the US a bonus: he did not refer to the country’s embarrassing debacle in Iraq. That was one issue at least on which Sarkozy could have held his pride, and told America, “we told you so, but you didn’t listen”. He could have used that opportunity to outline a broader view of how the world should move, rather than toeing George Bush’s now jaded and US-centric perception of the world

The members of the US Congress gave him a standing ovation, not once but many times. At a media briefing US President George Bush was seen escorting Sarkozy away with his arm patronizingly around his shoulders.

But Sarkozy carried nothing substantive home, except memories of a transcontinental love affair.

French reaction was fast and bitter. "You cannot be content with looking into each other's eyes and declaring you love one another. You must transform that into a vision and action for the world," former Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin, a Sarkozy rival, told RTL radio, according to this report by Reuters.

The smitten President also returns home to meet continuing opposition to his bid to Americanize the French economy. Two powerful Paris public transport unions said on Thursday they would join a wider rail strike from the evening of November 13, after rejecting a government offer on reforming their pensions, according to Reuters.

Whoever said the world loves a lover was evidently not French.

Who will rein in the CIA if not the Supreme Court ?

By refusing to hear the appeal from Khaled El-Masri, an illegal detainee of the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency), the US Supreme Court may have passed up an opportunity to rein in the CIA, and restore faith in the American way of life. El-Masri had appealed after the decision of lower courts not to hear his case against the CIA on national security grounds.

Last week, the New York Times revealed that a 2005 Justice Department memo endorsed interrogation techniques were some of the harshest ever used by the CIA. They included head-slapping, exposure to freezing temperatures and simulated drowning, known as water-boarding.

That was torture by any interpretation of the term, but frankly pales in its audacity and brutality when compared to the alleged torture of El-Masri under a CIA program called “extraordinary rendition”.

To get around US federal and international conventions, the CIA is said to have invented the concept of “extraordinary rendition”, the unlawful kidnapping of foreign citizens, and their transfer to secret prisons in countries that have little regard for human rights and legal niceties.

Suspects are detained and interrogated either by US personnel at US-run detention facilities outside US sovereign territory or, alternatively, are handed over to the custody of foreign agents for interrogation, according to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). In both instances, interrogation methods are employed that do not comport with federal and internationally recognized standards, ACLU added.

El-Masri, a German citizen of Lebanese origin, by his account was abducted in Macedonia in 2003 and flown to Afghanistan for interrogation, under the “extraordinary rendition” program. The 44-year-old alleges he was tortured during five months in detention, four months of which were spent in a prison in Kabul, Afghanistan, nicknamed the "salt pit".

On his flight to Afghanistan, he says, he was stripped, beaten, shackled, made to wear "diapers", drugged and chained to the floor of the plane.

By his account, he was finally released in Albania after the Americans realized they had got the wrong man. For a copy of El-Masri’s petition before US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia see here.

There are a number of people kidnapped tortured by the CIA under “extraordinary rendition”, according to civil liberties unions. Some were probably terrorists, but that does not make “extraordinary rendition” justified. If the US and other free countries do not follow norms of fair play, detention, and interrogation, and instead look for subterfuges, they will lose the high moral ground they have taken with regard to the terrorists. The free world is appearing to be just a brutal as the terrorists.

Rather than give the CIA cover under the "state secrets" privilege, US courts should have seized the opportunity to bring some accountability into the CIA and the US government.

There are dangerous man at large, and not all of them are Islamic terrorists. Some of them are in the pay of the US government.

Related article:

They torture prisoners in Myanmar, Iran, and yes the US

Thoughts on Che Guevara and the cruelty of capitalism

The pain and cruelty generated by the free market and capitalism is no single person’s fault. As most people will tell you, it is the “invisible hand” more efficiently balancing supply and demand, including the demand and supply of factors of production, even if one of those factors - human beings - can often feel pain, joblessness, insecurity, and powerlessness.

The capitalist world at large absolves itself from the pain and cruelty by blaming it on “the system”. It is the way things are, and sorry you just lucked out. Sorry you lucked out and lost your job when some US companies decided to send your job to India or China, because they were only following capitalist principles of finding the lowest cost factor of production.

You could take some cold comfort in the theory that this is just a structural adjustment, and that progressively the American economy will move to higher value-added jobs, for which incidentally you were never skilled. Tell that to your hungry kids when they are whining for the food you can no longer put on the table.

The Indians and the Chinese are now on a spending spree, yes on acquired tastes like Cabernet and caviar, and all things branded. The American worker should not crib, apologists say, because they are these days buying all things American, and helping boost the US economy. Unfortunately all things American are not longer manufactured in the US, but in China.

Take ten years from now, Indian workers, including software engineers may also find their jobs on the block, as companies move to lower cost locations, or expand to other markets. Once again the theorists of capitalism will tell them that their pain, their powerlessness are only temporary effects of a structural change.

Have you ever wondered why the Latin American revolutionary Che Guevara inspires many people in a vague sort of a way, even 40 years after his death ? It is not that these people support Marxism, or for that matter some of Che Guevara’s controversial actions, including his summary executions of supporters of General Fulgencio Batista in Cuba after the Marxists seized power in 1959.

Che Guevara and revolutionaries like him strike a mild sympathetic chord in many of us, because despite the odds, they did what we may never do.

Instead of being powerless victims of a cruel system, they chose to question and to overthrow the feudalism coupled with neo-capitalism in parts of South America. And they were not alone. In other countries around the world too there have been people who have stood out to fight systems that are unjust and oppressive.

Today it may be the turn of people in capitalist societies, aiming to restore their power and autonomy. As citizens, people have the right to influence the political process so that the wealth that is generated is distributed more equitably, and people are empowered.

This is not about overthrowing the capitalist system. It is not about “economic populism” which Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the US Federal Reserve Board, says has caused many an economic disaster in Latin America. This is about moderating the system – getting governments to spend more on the welfare of their people, getting capitalism to get less rapaciously greedy, and protecting vulnerable sections of society who have neither the skills nor the capital to compete.

Take the plight of workers in capitalist economies. Currently in most of these economies, if the CEO of a company cuts staff, the company’s shares spike on the stock market, and later the CEO’s salary also jumps. The CEO can now keep fewer staff and make them work longer, many of them driven by the fear that their jobs could be lost. The CEO and his top management have benefited, and so have the shareholder, and you as the consumer. But you as a worker are out of a job, no longer able to participate in the orgy of consumption.

Do companies have to maximize profit at the expense of workers, or are they doing so mainly because a lot of industries are not unionized ? The pet argument is that if CEOs are not given the freedom to do as they please, they will lose out to competing companies. Lost in this dogma is the possibility that you can still pay and treat your people better, without making your products costlier, and still winning in the market. You can do that by shooting for reasonable profits, rather than exorbitant profits !

If the stock market would put less pressure on CEOs to generate profits, CEOs could continue to please the consumer, and yes, even the worker. CEOs may even allow trade unions and higher worker empowerment.

The cult of equity, and the celebrity status accorded to CEOs who help drive that stock up, has also translated into wide disparities between the salaries and perks of the CEO and his top management and the rest of the organization. Can’t that gap be perhaps reduced, so that the rest of the organization also benefits from capitalism ?

Apologists for capitalism will say that the key strength of capitalism is that you too can strive to be CEO. That line is cold comfort to the unemployed guy on the dole. Others will say that the outrageous salaries earned by CEOs and top management are an incentive to perform. Pray do only CEOs need an incentive to work ? What about the stiff who catches a bus or train to work each day, with nothing to look forward to except his daily routine ?

Nothing about what has been outlined so far is fool-proof. It may not work, or there may be people who don’t want it to work. But it is only by thinking of empowerment, thinking of humanizing the system, and organizing around these principles, that the process of change can begin.

Che Guevara is more than a handsome face on a T-shirt. His example dares us to dream of empowerment, of taking control of our lives.

Marxism may be dead as an ideology, but revolutionaries like Che Guevara can inspire us to think about ways of countering our powerlessness in a capitalist system.

Related article:

Free markets do not necessarily mean democracy or quality of life

American secularism stripped ?

I always suspected that when heave came to shove, Americans would go searching for their Christian roots and give secularism the go-by. The heave and shove seems to have come from the growing influence of Islam and other religions in the country, and yes, perhaps the audacity of a person with a Muslim name to aim for the country’s Presidency.

Truly, the US had an Indian priest, Rajan Zed, read a prayer to the Senate, to protests from some Christians in the galleries Yet the Hindu prayer in the Senate boiled down to more of good form rather than real secularism.

Else what is one to make of US Presidential candidate and Senator John McCain telling beliefnet in an interview that, “I think the number one issue people should make [in the] selection of the President of the United States is, 'Will this person carry on in the Judeo Christian principled tradition that has made this nation the greatest experiment in the history of mankind?'”

It is easy to dismiss McCain as a rare bigot. I am however worried he is one of many Americans who hold this view. His mistake was he shot himself on the foot by being frank.

McCain may in fact be reflecting the view of a large number of Americans who believe that the US constitution and political tradition is based on Christianity and Christian values. No place here for jihad, I guess, but certainly place I guess for strong Christian traditions like the Crusades and the Inquisition. You know what, it are these double standards, and arrogance about Christian tradition that riles other religious communities !

Sixty-five percent of Americans believe that the nation's founders intended the U.S. to be a Christian nation, and 55 percent believe that the Constitution establishes a Christian nation, according to the “State of the First Amendment 2007” national survey released Sept. 11 by the First Amendment Center, a nonprofit organization focused on education and information about First Amendment issues in the US.

Rick Green of WallBuilders, an advocacy group that believes the US was built on Christian principles, told USA Today that the poll doesn't mean a majority favors a "theocracy" but that the Constitution reflects Christian values, including religious freedom. "I would call it a Christian document, just like the Declaration of Independence," he told USA Today.

One redeeming result of the survey was that the right to practice one’s own religion was deemed “essential” or “important” by nearly all Americans (97%). This figure speaks for American tolerance, but not for real secularism, I think. What the people surveyed, and McCain seem to be saying is “this is a Christian country, but of course we are tolerant of other faiths”.

It is not dissimilar from the UK, where the country claims to be secular, but the monarch takes the oath to protect the Anglican faith. Of course the UK too tolerates other religions within its constitution, inspired as it is by Anglican principles.

As non-Christian religions with their cultural baggage threaten the American’s Christian way, not only by violence but in most cases by peaceful co-existence and assimilation, the country’s secular foundations may be giving way. From secularists, Americans may be moving to tolerance. Bigotry, albeit subtle, may not be far way.

Related Articles:

When atheists and secularists want to play God
Ram Setu: the importance of religious symbols

Why the US should stay in Iraq

On August 22, US President George Bush told war veterans that a US withdrawal from Iraq would lead to bloodshed and reprisals akin to those after the US withdrew from Vietnam.

Bush’s comparison of Iraq with the withdrawal in Vietnam has been described as inaccurate by many historians.

The scary fact remains however that should the US and its allies decide to pull out from Iraq, the country could in fact witness a blood-bath of violent sectarian squabbling.

There is a growing school of thought in the US and other countries that the strife among the Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds is an internal problem of Iraq, better left to the new government in Iraq to solve. Some have even said that the government in Baghdad will move to reconcile the factions, only after it knows it does not have the US to prop it up.

Having invaded Iraq in 2003 with the multiple aims of removing Saddam Hussein, destruction of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) that were never found, and to bring democracy to Iraq, the US cannot now wash its hands off the problems that the new dispensation has thrown up.

The country does not as yet have a government in Baghdad that is accepted by all in the country. It does not have a strong police force that is respected and seen as impartial across the country, and is still trying to rebuild an army that was disbanded after Saddam Hussein’s government was brought down.

The Iraq oil and gas law, also referred to as the Iraq hydrocarbon law, approved by the cabinet in February, has still to be passed by Parliament. Under the proposed regulations, oil revenues will go to a central fund distributed to all Iraqis in all regions and provinces according their populations.

The oil law has however become a political battleground between those who favor a more unified Iraq and those who want a decentralized federation where provincial governments have larger rights over the award of contracts and the revenue from the oil and gas under their geographical jurisdictions.

Al Qaeda of Mesopotamia is clearly a key threat to the US in Iraq. But it is facile to blame all the violence in Iraq, and the problems faced by US troops there, on Al Qaeda of Mesopotamia. The violence in Iraq comes from a variety of factors including feuding militias, both Shia and Sunni that have still not come under the control of the government in Baghdad.

Clearly the US has a long way to go in Iraq both on the military and political front.

The political initiatives so far have assumed that Sunni, Shia, and Kurd populations will eventually put their heads together in a pan-Iraqi nationalism. What if they decide to fight, regardless of the consequences, for the control of Baghdad and the whole country ? What if they decide to partition the country, and feud and kill over which land and which part of the oil reserves should go to them ?

Bush has made a lot of the Anbar Awakening, the optimistic name often given to the move by some Sunni militias in Anbar to join Americans in fighting Al Qaeda. The US will surely pamper Sunni militias to counter the Al Qaeda influence, and hope to also nudge them into reconciliation with the Shias and Kurds.

There is however also the possibility that the Sunnis have teamed up with the Americans for arms and cash to be used after the Americans are out. They must be aware that the US administration is under pressure at home to get US troops out of Iraq.

Having played the role of global policeman, and got into this quagmire, the US will now have to stay there. If it pulls out prematurely, and there is civil war, the blame will be pinned primarily on the US. Public memory is short, and there may be some who may even argue that Iraq was better off before the US ousted the butcher Saddam Hussein.

An Iraq going through a civil war will also be to the US’ disadvantage as it will provide opportunities to US enemies like Iran and Al Qaeda.

All in all a thankless task for the US going forward.

When Democrats in the US demand the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, it is very reminiscent of Vietnam. When the going was just too hot, and public support at home waned, the US pulled out from Vietnam leaving behind all the people and interests that had counted on America’s continued support. These included the puppet rulers, but the rest were ordinary people caught on the wrong side.

Didn’t many of the Democrats including Hillary Clinton vote in favor of the Iraq war ? They probably didn’t want to be spectators or protesters during those heady days when images flashed worldwide of a tall statue of Saddam Hussein being pulled down. But when the body bags started coming home, they quite naturally lost their nerve.

Both Democrats and Republicans showed lack of foresight on the US invasion of Iraq. The Democrats could do worse by now demanding a premature withdrawal from Iraq.

Related Article:
Six years after 9/11, whistling in the dark

In Pakistan, Osama bin Laden more popular than Musharraf

Al Qaeda head Osama bin Laden is more popular in Pakistan than the country’s President Pervez Musharraf, according to Terror Free Tomorrow, a non-profit organization in Washington D.C. focused on finding effective policies that win popular support away from global terrorists and extremism.

The nation-wide survey by the organization also found that former prime ministers Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif are far more popular than Musharraf suggesting that the US’s unstinted support for the military dictator may be ill-advised.

When Pakistanis were asked, unprompted, what they think is the real purpose of the U.S.-led war on terror, a mere 4 percent volunteered any kind of positive motivation, according to the report. Remaining responses were all decidedly negative, with “breaking Muslim countries, killing Muslims, ending Islam, etc” among the most common, volunteered responses, the report added.

Yet, despite pervasive negative feelings toward the United States, a majority of Pakistanis said their opinion of the US would improve if American educational, medical, disaster, business investment, and the number of visas for Pakistanis to work in the US increased.

Senator John McCain and former 9/11 Commission Chairs Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton lead the international advisory board of Terror Free Tomorrow.

Related Articles:
Six years after 9/11, whistling in the dark
Osama Bin Laden's seductive new avatar
A white Jihadi !!

Osama Bin Laden's seductive new avatar

Until recently the public pronouncements by Al Qaeda have primarily consisted of frothing-at-the-mouth threats against the American “infidels” and “dogs”.

In a video this week, transcripts of which are available from various sources, including MSNBC, Al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden attempts to flesh out a political ideology, a justification for Al Qaeda’s brand of terrorism.

Democratic governments are controlled by the money bags of corporations, which is why, argues Laden, John F. Kennedy was killed when he was trying to get the US to pull out of Vietnam:


--- And you’re the ones who have the saying which goes, “Money Talks.”And I tell you: after the failure of your representatives in the Democratic Party to implement your desire to stop the war, you can still carry anti-war placards and spread out in the streets of major cities, then go back to your homes, but that will be of no use and will lead to the prolonging of the war ----


Laden also makes common cause with environmentalists


------ mankind is in danger because of the global warming resulting to a large degree from the emissions of the factories of the major corporations, yet despite that, the representative of these corporation in the White House insists on not observing the Kyoto accord --------


And appeals to Christians to convert to Islam, attempting to point similarities between the two faiths.


In his new avatar, Laden did not directly threaten the American people, instead focusing on convincing his listeners that they and the Muslims were on the same side, all victims of the capitalist system.

---- as soon as the warmongering owners of the major corporation realize that you have lost confidence in your democratic system and begun to search for an alternative, and that this alternative is Islam, they will run after you to please you and achieve what you want to steer you away from Islam -----


To my mind, this avatar of Laden could be far more seductive to the young and impressionable in the West and other parts of the world. Laden’s new view of the world combines religious fundamentalism, with hot issues like anti-globalization and environmental concerns.

A white Jihadi !!

The arrest in Germany of two white terror suspects this week has demolished stereotypes of jihadi terrorists.

Until now the Jihadi was perceived as a person of West Asian or South Asian extract, fanatically religious, and unable to separate politics from religion.

Now it is that boy next door ! As if the number of west Asian and south Asian immigrants were not a large enough threat, it is the boy next door turning against Western civilization.

What makes a youngster, in the prime of life, strap bombs to his body, head to a crowded place, and blow himself and others around ? Until now this was an almost academic question about some people across the borders, or in some ghetto. Now it could be a question about a youth at home or in the neighborhood.

Rather than ask these questions, Germany is not unexpectedly slipping into knee jerk reflexes like exploring the option of monitoring the activities of German converts to Islam. See this report in Spiegel

It is becoming more clearer that unlike in conventional warfare, the “war against terror” will not be won by a large defense arsenal. Those were to an extent useful against organized terrorist militias in the Middle East like the Taliban, but they are increasingly less so when the new face of terrorism is increasingly an ordinary civilian in your neighborhood – most often a migrant, but sometimes that blond boy across the road..

Our weapons may be superior to that of the terrorist, but pray tell me where do you find him first ? He may be in our neighborhood, in our community. He may even be at the same place of work. And he will show his or her hand at a time suitable, typically when our guard is down.

We could get ham fisted, and back our government to search, intimidate, and harass communities which are suspected to breed terrorists . In the past our governments dropped some bombs hoping to kill terrorists, but also killed a lot of civilians in the bargain, as the Americans did recently in Afghanistan, hoping to kill some of the Taliban in a village. But you can’t do that on native soil.

If we harass and kill a lot of people in trying to catch a terrorist, we are doing a part of his work for him by alienating large parts of the community. If our laws become more draconian, we are again doing his work for him. Most terrorists have always believed that democracy is a sham that conceals an iron, dictatorial hand.

The American decision to house prisoners, suspected to be terrorists, in Guantánamo Bay, without access to the provisions of the Geneva Convention, did not cover America with glory. The fig-leaf of a pretext that Guantánamo was not American territory, and therefore the prisoners were not under the jurisdiction of US law, once again showed that we can expediently abandon democratic principles. Now Germany seems to be veering towards a surveillance policy that could seriously curb personal freedom.

It helps to have an army or police in the background to protect people, repeat to protect people if there is an attack. But soldiers and police armed to the teeth cannot be your diplomats, the carriers of your message of reconciliation.

Politicians and concerned people have to start communicating with suspects and those on the fence, break down the barriers, get around their fears and anxiety. The old ploy of identifying a “bogey-man” and attacking him may bring votes, but will not save lives.

Let us not try to change their way of life, their culture, because that is exactly what they suspect is our hidden agenda. When some of us talk, as does President George Bush, of exporting democracy to countries known to have large terror groups, we may in fact be insulting their way of life. It comes across as patronizing as some colonialists of yore who wanted to bring the colonized in Asia and Africa our of their “backward” living and beliefs into a more European and Christian way of life.

The NGOs should move in with aid, rather than prescriptions. The American people, the Indian people, the Russians, the British people, and all others who have been affected by the threat of terrorism should reach out to these people, talk to them about helping them, talk to them about restoring their dignity, their lives. This is not a job for governments, or the military, but for civil society.

The terrorist is in our midst. That brings up the opportunity for civil society to win them over on mutual terms. It is also a time to look within – what about US and European politics and culture, for example, are driving its young to other religions and culture ?

At the same time civil society cannot harbor the illusions that this will be an easy process. There will always be the more determined terrorists, planning a bomb attack, even while you are talking peace with them. While communicating with terrorists as people, civil society has to also communicate with one another, to keep a discreet eye on unusual activity, unusual objects lying around in our neighborhoods, unusual people.