Globalization

Globalization

Globalization in its literal sense is the process of making, transformation of some things or phenomena into global ones. It can be described as a process by which the people of the world are unified into a single society and function together. This process is a combination of economic, technological, socio cultural and political forces. Globalization is often used to refer to economic globalization, that is, integration of national economies into the international economy through trade, foreign direct investment, capital flows, migration, and the spread of technology.
Globalization is 'flattening' of the globe", and globalized trade, outsourcing, supply-chaining, and political forces have changed the world permanently, for both better and worse. Pace of globalization is quickening and will continue to have a growing impact on business organization and practice.
Sometimes the terms internationalization and globalization are used interchangeably but there is a slight formal difference. The term "internationalization" refers to the importance of international trade, relations, treaties etc. International means between or among nations. "Globalization" means erasure of national boundaries for economic purposes and international trade.
Globalization is largely the result of planning by economists, business interests, and politicians who recognized the costs associated with protectionism and declining international economic integration. Their work led to several international institutions intended to oversee the renewed processes of globalization, promoting growth and managing adverse consequences.
These institutions include the World Bank, WTO and the IMF. Globalization has been facilitated by advances in technology which have reduced the costs of trade, Since World War II, barriers to international trade have been considerably lowered through international agreements -WTO, have included:
Promotion of free trade:
Reduction or elimination of tariffs; creation of free trade zones with small or no tariffs
Reduced transportation costs, especially resulting from development of containerization for ocean shipping.
Reduction or elimination of capital controls
Reduction, elimination, or harmonization of subsidies for local businesses
Restriction of free trade:
Harmonization of intellectual property laws across the majority of states, with more restrictions.
Supranational recognition of intellectual property restrictions (e.g. patents granted by China would be recognized in the United States)
Cultural globalization, driven by communication technology and the worldwide marketing of Western cultural industries, was understand at first as a process of homogenization, as the global domination of American mass culture at the expense of traditional diversity. However, a contrasting trend soon became evident in the emergence of movements protesting against globalization and giving new momentum to the defense of local uniqueness, individuality, and identity. These movements used the same new technologies to pursue their own goals more efficiently and to appeal for support from world opinion.
Effects of globalization
Globalization has various aspects which affect the world in several different ways such as:
Industrial - emergence of worldwide production markets and broader access to a range of foreign products for consumers and companies. Particularly movement of material and goods between and within national boundaries.
Financial - emergence of worldwide financial markets and better access to external financing for borrowers. Simultaneous though not necessarily purely globalist is the emergence of under or un-regulated foreign exchange and speculative markets.
Economic - realization of a global common market, based on the freedom of exchange of goods and capital.
Political - some use "globalization" to mean the creation of a world government, or blocks of governments (e.g. WTO, World Bank, and IMF) which regulate the relationships among governments and guarantees the rights arising from social and economic globalization. Politically, the United States has enjoyed a position of power among the world powers; in part because of its strong and wealthy economy. With the influence of globalization and with the help of The United States’ own economy, the People's Republic of China has experienced some tremendous growth within the past decade. If China continues to grow at the rate projected by the trends, then it is very likely that in the next twenty years, there will be a major reallocation of power among the world leaders. China will have enough wealth, industry, and technology to rival the United States for the position of leading world power.
Informational - increase in information flows between geographically remote locations. Arguably this is a technological change with the advent of fibre optic communications, satellites, and increased availability of telephony and Internet.
Language - the most popular language is English.
About 75% of the world's mail, telexes, and cables are in English.
Approximately 60% of the world's radio programs are in English.
About 90% of all Internet traffic is using English.
Competition - Survival in the new global business market calls for improved productivity and increased competition. Due to the market became worldwide not specific area, there are many industries around the world. Industries have to upgrade their products and use technology skillfully for facing the competition and increasing their competitive.
Cultural - growth of cross-cultural contacts; advent of new categories of consciousness and identities which embodies cultural diffusion, the desire to increase one's standard of living and enjoy foreign products and ideas, adopt new technology and practices, and participate in a "world culture". Some bemoan the resulting consumerism and loss of languages.
Ecological- the advent of global environmental challenges that might be solved with international cooperation, such as climate change, cross-boundary water and air pollution, over-fishing of the ocean, and the spread of invasive species. Since many factories are built in developing countries with less environmental regulation, globalism and free trade may increase pollution. On the other hand, economic development historically required a "dirty" industrial stage, and it is argued that developing countries should not, via regulation, be prohibited from increasing their standard of living.
Social (International cultural exchange) - increased circulation by people of all nations with fewer restrictions.
Spreading of multiculturalism, and better individual access to cultural diversity (e.g. through the export of Hollywood and Bollywood movies). Some consider such "imported" culture a danger, since it may supplant the local culture, causing reduction in diversity or even assimilation. Others consider multiculturalism to promote peace and understanding between peoples.
Greater international travel and tourism
Greater immigration, including illegal immigration
Spread of local consumer products (e.g. food) to other countries (often adapted to their culture).
World-wide fads and pop culture such as Pokémon, Idol series, YouTube, , Facebook, and MySpace. Accessible to those who have Internet or Television, leaving out a substantial segment of the Earth's population.
World-wide sporting events such as FIFA World Cup and the Olympic Games.
Technical
Development of a global telecommunications infrastructure and greater transborder data flow, using such technologies as the Internet, communication satellites, submarine fiber optic cable, and wireless telephones
Increase in the number of standards applied globally; e.g. copyright laws, patents and world trade agreements.
Legal/Ethical
The creation of the international criminal court and international justice movements.
Crime importation and raising awareness of global crime-fighting efforts and cooperation.
Evolution of Globalization
Globalization is not new, pre-dating colonialism points out that the current manifestation of globalization is ‘not a force of nature…[but] a political and economic project which requires the…efforts of the WTO, IMF, United States of America, multinational corporations, World Bank etc., to push it forward.

First Era of Modern Globalization: to 1914
The current brand of globalization in American diplomacy can be traced back to the post–Civil War era, when internationalization and Americanization emerged in U.S. ideology and expressions of power. From about 1850 to 1914 an international economy existed, managed by Great Britain, resting on free trade and open capital markets and reliant on colonies.
This period did not experience the revolutionary form of globalization that characterized the post–Cold War years, with their highly synchronized and integrated worldwide communications, transportation, and politics. The velocity of globalization in the pre-1914 years was immensely slower than at the end of twentieth century, as were the volume and the scope. The years before World War I did not witness the fundamental transformation in the global economy that started in the last century's final two decades.
Evident in the earlier era, however, were improvements in technology and a greater volume of world economic connections that indicated the influence of globalization on American power, diplomacy, and the economy. However, remarkable changes shaped by new business networks were not fully understood by diplomats back then. Some policymakers noted the importance of new technology and economic relationships; the presidents of these times, for instance, became more aware of global economic concerns.
By the twentieth century, the United States had begun to replace Britain's colonial and trans-Atlantic systems of free trade and government run transportation and communication networks. The new form of organization was a structured but open economic system of private enterprise and business-friendly public support for access to foreign markets, inventions, immigration, and adherence to international law. Private enterprise could export and produce abroad, the fruits of America's leadership in technology and intellectual property.
The early era of globalization, before World War I, was greased by the technological leaps of transportation improvements like the steamship, and by marvels like the Suez and Panama Canals, which sped European and American commerce around the globe. Transatlantic cables, then direct telegraph links to Latin America and connections through British cable to Asia, allowed American investors and merchants to communicate faster abroad, thus expanding their markets.

Disrupted Globalization: 1914–1939
The period from the end of World War I to 1950 also experienced some elements of globalization as new technology joined expansion in finance, trade, investment, and culture throughout the world. Yet in a major sense this was an era of deglobalization: first, the international economic system malfunctioned or broke down; then, during the Cold War, the world divided along ideological fissures.
Nonetheless, the onset of the Great Depression and World War II dealt a setback to further globalization. Powerful concentration of forces elevated the domestic economy over the international order. World powers promoted the ideology of technoglobalization but often refused to take responsibility through policies of running the world economy. They were unwilling to make the tough moves that involved political haggling at home—on matters like reducing war debts and tariffs, for instance—that were requisites to continuing their brand of internationalism. This proved especially so when economic times spiraled from prosperity to misfortune during the Great Depression.
A World Divided: 1940–1950
World War II further threatened Anglo-American-style globalization. The Axis powers—a loose coalition of Germany, Italy, and Japan—resorted to military force to overthrow the world order and to establish closed, regional systems dominated from Berlin, Rome, and Tokyo. The conflict afforded the United States a second chance to provide leadership and to promote its vision of a peaceful, prosperous, and united world.
In effect, scientists and their laboratories, with government funding and direction, contributed in a major way to the success of the war effort, and in the process they developed many new products that had commercial applications which would transform the postwar world. Atomic energy, for instance, had many peaceful applications, particularly as a source of electrical power. The mass production of penicillin transformed the treatment of disease. Also, radar provided the basis for microwave cooking. The first computers appeared during World War II to assist the military with code breaking and long-distance ballistics calculations. The transistor, which was developed in 1947 and 1948, grew out of wartime research on silicon and germanium at Bell Telephone Laboratories
Growth was also in order for consumer goods, which were also foundations for later globalization. Robert Woodruff, who had taken over the Coca-Cola Company in 1923, aimed to make his beverage an ordinary, everyday item for Americans and people around the world. He built on his foreign operations, particularly in Europe, during World War II by having Coke accompany the military overseas. Soldiers not only identified with Woodruff's product during and after the war but heroes requested it—as did an American pilot who crashed in Scotland and asked, upon regaining consciousness, for a Coke. The beverage was so pervasive that the Nazis and Japanese denounced it as a disease of American society. By war's end the company ran sixty-three bottling plants across the globe, on every continent. Its net profits in 1948 soared to $35.6 million, elevating it to near-universal acceptance as the world's beverage of choice.
The Cold War dashed the hopes of internationalists who would have facilitated the globalization of the world economy, but still strides were made toward the technoglobal system, induced particularly by governments working through the United Nations. In these instances, officials instilled international law and arbitration processes in the international economy, yet another foundation of globalization.
The protracted Cold War struggle that divided the world into two spheres of influence—one led from Washington, the other from Moscow—prompted national security considerations, rather than invisible market forces, to define international relationships. Governments continued to regulate trade and financial exchanges, despite efforts to lower barriers and promote commerce. But America's technological advantage, adaptable production processes, and access to resources, so decisive in the struggle against Axis aggressors, helped win the conflict. Also, a new generation of U.S. political and corporate leaders, familiar with mistakes made at the end of World War I when the United States shunned overseas responsibilities, chose to accept this second opportunity to guide the world. Furthermore, as it turned out, these internationalists were also better salesmen than Soviet leader Joseph Stalin and his heirs, who presided over a old, controlled Soviet economy unable to satisfy basic consumer wants. Aware that a troubled world had an greedy appetite for American values, goods, and services, U.S. leaders exploited their comparative advantage in communications and marketing to advance the American dream of democracy, mass consumption, and individual enterprise. In the long Cold War, the formula of guns, butter, and liberal ideals eventually proved a winner that spread American values on a global basis. Without America's Marshall Plan, support for Japan, and containment of the Soviet Union, the history of the Cold War might have turned out quite differently, and likewise for the course of globalization. Had the USSR won the Cold War, Soviet-directed expansion would have been far different—far more impulsive, authoritarian, and state-managed—than the American-led alternative based on the rule of law, democratic elections, open markets, and the relentless energy of technology and entrepreneurship. Thus, the era of globalization that began near century's end evolved, ironically, from the deglobalized structure of the Cold War.
Globalization Undercurrents: 1951–1972
Despite Cold War crises and the further regionalization of the world economy, highlighted by the launching of the European Common Market in 1957 (which lured massive American investment), a revolution in critical technologies—including transatlantic telephone service, satellite communications, computers, and jet travel—accelerated the globalization process and ushered in a new era of rapid intercontinental travel, instantaneous communications, and economic interdependence.
Marshall McLuhan, a Canadian who coined the term "global village" in 1962 referred to the new electronic interdependence that had recreated the world. Communications like radio and television were homogenizing the world: everyone watched the same sporting events, news, and soap operas. He identified a significant trend. The late 1950s was a period of enormous change as technical developments in aviation, transportation, and communications brought cost reductions and improved service. People, goods, and capital began to move across borders, creating interactive bonds among people and between nations. These flows integrated markets, harmonized tastes, and homogenized cultures.
Along with the arrival of reliable, efficient jet freight in the late 1960s, other important cost-saving developments occurred in maritime shipping, including containerization. This meant faster ship turnaround, better coordination, and lower transportation costs. The international shipping industry developed specially designed ships for automobiles (the first auto carriers could handle from one thousand to two thousand cars) and LNG (liquified natural gas) tankers after the 1973 war in the Middle East..
Improvements in communications also boosted the globalization process. Until the mid-1950s individuals could not communicate quickly and easily across the Atlantic and the Pacific Oceans. In 1927 commercial telephone service using high-frequency radio opened between New York and London. But this interactive advance was not designed for mass communications. Radio telephones were noisy, unreliable, and costly—forty-five dollars for the first three minutes. September 1956 brought the most significant improvement in communications in over a century when American Telephone and Telegraph opened the first transatlantic telephone cable (TAT-1) by using microwave amplification techniques. The number of transatlantic telephone calls soared—climbing slowly from 10,000 in 1927 to 250,000 in 1957, and then jumping to 4.3 million in 1961. Soon large corporations such as Ford began using the telephone cable to exchange information and coordinate their over-seas operations from their U.S. headquarters. While telephone cables improved business communications among metropolitan centers, large areas of the world could not take advantage of telephone communications. Starting in the 1980s, satellite communications ended this isolation and made the emerging global village truly interactive.
The Cold War generated momentum for globalization in many ways, Space research particularly spun off growth in intelligence gathering, electronics and engineering, and weaponry. Laboratories hired thousands of corporate engineers to work on missile and aerospace projects, and clusters of companies and laboratories sprouted up near major academic institutions. The space program's budget steadily increased to $1.2 billion by 1962, and steps were taken to orbit a man around the earth (via the Mercury Project from 1959 to 1962), and eventually to send him to the moon (through the Apollo Project in 1969). These were the precursors to the space shuttle and satellite communications of the 1980s and beyond, which fueled the globalization of information.
Decentralization Accelerates: 1973–1989
From the mid-1970s onward the process of world political and economic decentralization, so essential to globalization, picked up momentum. The technological transformations allowed American and other multinational firms to escape national regulations, and also helped free ordinary people from the boundaries of the nation-state. In addition, the rise of the OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries) oil cartel shifted global economic power away from the West. Free exchange rates, unfixed from the gold-dollar standard, gave great flexibility to international investors. Firms with leading-edge technologies took advantage of market-opening opportunities to expand abroad. In the era of jet travel and networked business communications, the battle for market share was increasingly fought on a global playing field, involving all of the world's major high-income markets—Japan, Europe, and North America. Companies and nations converged as global markets for standardized consumer products appeared; transnational companies now sold the same reliable, low-priced goods in Brazil as they did in New York.
Even as the economic changes occurred, however, and despite the re-ignition of Cold War tensions during the late Carter and early Reagan administrations, ideological shifts occurred that reflected the emerging age of globalization. One was a new international outlook encouraged by better communications, transportation, open borders, deregulation, and the revival of nineteenth-century, lenient and liberal. Business leaders began to think globally and to develop global networks that could exert influence over national political leaders through money and ideas.
President Ronald Reagan can be credited with fostering the second era of techno-economic globalization by expounding on the possibilities for freedom, political and economic, under U.S. leadership. He was the first president to push openly for free trade and privatization of government services, and one of the first to appreciate how new technologies of communication were transforming the marketplace and weakening the authority of totalitarian regimes. As he left office the technoglobal revolution was accelerating, bringing major changes to economics and politics, and to culture and society as well. His successors wrestled with the implications of globalization at home and abroad.

American-Led Globalization: 1990–2001
The Clinton administration perceived that globalization had the potential to harmonize behavior, customs, and politics and usher in prosperity, development, and democracy. As the world's only superpower, the United States would lead the way toward openness, free access, and political stability. Also, Clinton's enthusiasm for globalization was not shared by all Americans; many wondered if globalization was both inevitable and desirable. As the new millennium began, the business community seemed united in support of globalization, but among ordinary people there were concerns about jobs, food safety, harm to the environment, sovereignty, cultural homogenization, and the like. Americans were as unsure about the costs and benefits of this second era of globalization as they had been during the first one before World War I.
The Clinton administration veered from postwar history and adopted the universalist, integrative, and democratic posture of globalization. Economics replaced security on the U.S. policy agenda; globalization was the focus. The administration tied free markets to democracy. After the Mexican crisis of 1994, the president placed economic diplomacy at the center of foreign policy, supporting the consolidation of market democracy throughout the world, an ideology that put him in stride with global business but at odds with many in his own party who were tied to the traditional big government, worker protection liberalism of the past.
Americans were not the only ones anxious over globalization. In western Europe and many developing countries, globalization was a dirty word, associated in the public mind with American sneakers, blue jeans, burgers, and videos. The French were most skeptical. In one poll, 65 percent said globalization increased the gap between rich and poor; 56 percent thought it threatened national identity. The French Ministry of Culture sought to rally Europeans and to restrict access for Hollywood films and American television programs.
Around the world, defenders of traditional values sought to block the spread of American-style pop culture, but globalization proved a worthy foe. Iranian religious fundamentalists raided homes to confiscate videos and satellite dishes, and in neighboring Afghanistan the Taliban closed movie theaters, burned films, and denied schooling to women. Try as they might, the fundamentalists could not eradicate this powerfully projected alien culture. Their efforts merely benefited smugglers and the flow of contraband. Many discreetly hid satellite dishes to access Western television. The failure of Islamic fundamentalists to stamp out Western influences, like the inability of state-controlled societies in Eastern Europe to block the appeal of Western democracy and consumerism, demonstrated the power of mass communications in the era of satellites and videocassettes. It also underscored the global appeal of American values to the young, the well-educated, and the prosperous, a shapeless yet tangible element of U.S. power in the world.
Yet the argument that globalization led to American cultural dominance ignored the appeal of the competition. At the time anti-globalization demonstrators were protesting e against the WTO, children throughout America were gripped by the Japanese fad game Pokemon. Film industries in India and Hong Kong presented competition to Hollywood, and MTV discovered the need to vary its formula in the world's various regional markets—providing, for example, Chinese music in China and Hindi pop in India. True cultural globalization, not just Americanization, was in effect.
Among the world's cosmopolitan elite—business leaders, government officials, academics, and media types—the requirements of globalization produced a convergence. English became the predominant language of commerce and transnational communications, and business and government leaders wore Western business suits, flew in the same airplanes, stayed in the same hotels, read the same newspapers (the Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times), and communicated with cellular phones and e-mail. The acceptance of American-style globalization reflected the success of U.S. business, the need to play by the rules of the world's largest open market, U.S. leadership in technological innovation and the information revolution, and the attraction of America's universal values. It also reflected the victories over fascism, militarism, and communism during the twentieth century that allowed the Anglo-American powers to establish the United Nations system, design the institutions of international economic and financial collaboration, and press for acceptance of common standards and the rule of law that were so crucial to globalization.
Many of the less educated who remained in their homelands, moving from countryside to city, have joined the global economy. Labor became part of a global assembly line; transnationals working for the Nike Company and other multinational firms assembled products from components manufactured in factories throughout the world, while management, administration, and research and development were done at the headquarters. Service jobs in law firms, insurance, and data entry focused on electronic production, which meant that jobs flowed in and out of countries at great speed. Globalization had, simply, changed the world and its business, including the projection of national power and diplomacy.
Along with the globalization of brands like Nike, McDonald's, Coca-Cola, and Marlboro, the process also benefited sports teams. Michael Jordan's star qualities, as well as the global reach of satellite television, established a worldwide following for the Chicago Bulls. Soccer's Manchester United and baseball's New York Yankees also appealed to extensive audiences. An influx of eastern European players strengthened the international appeal of the National Hockey League.
Supporters of globalization argue that worldwide statistics strongly support globalization:
From 1981 to 2001, according to World Bank figures, the number of people living on $1 a day or less declined from 1.5 billion to 1.1 billion in absolute terms. At the same time, the world population increased, so in percentage terms the number of such people in developing nations declined from 40% to 20% of the population. with the greatest improvements occurring in economies rapidly reducing barriers to trade and investment.
The percentage of people living on less than $2 a day has decreased greatly in areas affected by globalization, whereas poverty rates in other areas have remained largely stagnant. In East-Asia, including China, the percentage has decreased by 50.1% compared to a 2.2% increase in Sub-Saharan Africa.
Income inequality for the world as a whole is diminishing. Due to definitional issues and data availability, there is disagreement with regards to the pace of the decline in extreme poverty. Regardless of this disagreement it has been argued that improving absolute poverty is more important than relative inequality.
Life expectancy has almost doubled in the developing world since World War II and is starting to close the gap between itself and the developed world where the improvement has been smaller. Even in Sub-Saharan Africa, the least developed region, life expectancy increased from 30 years before World War II to about a peak of about 50 years before the AIDS pandemic and other diseases started to force it down to the current level of 47 years. Infant mortality has decreased in every developing region of the world.
Democracy has increased dramatically from there being almost no nations with universal suffrage in 1900 to 62.5% of all nations having it in 2000.
Feminism has made advances in areas such as Bangladesh and other developing countries through providing women with jobs and economic safety.
The proportion of the world's population living in countries where per-capita food supplies are less than 2,200 calories (9,200 kilojoules) per day decreased from 56% in the mid-1960s to below 10% by the 1990s.
Between 1950 and 1999, global literacy increased from 52% to 81% of the world. Women made up much of the gap: female literacy as a percentage of male literacy has increased from 59% in 1970 to 80% in 2000.
Child labor, the percentage of children in the labor force has fallen from 24% in 1960 to 10% in 2000.
There are increasing trends in the use of electric power, cars, radios, and telephones per capita, as well as a growing proportion of the population with access to clean water.
Anti-globalization
Anti-globalization is a term used to describe the political stance of people and groups who oppose globalization.
The anti-globalization movement developed in opposition to the perceived negative aspects of globalization. The term 'anti-globalization' is in many ways a misnomer.
“Anti-globalization" may involve the process or actions taken by a state in order to demonstrate its sovereignty and practice democratic decision-making. Anti-globalization may occur in order to put brakes on the international transfer of people, goods and ideology, particularly those determined by the organizations such as the IMF or the WTO in imposing the radical deregulation program of free market fundamentalism on local governments and populations. This term anti Globalization encompasses a number of separate social movements such as nationalists and socialists. In either case, participants stand in opposition to the unregulated political power of large, multi-national corporations, as the corporations exercise power through leveraging trade agreements which damage in some instances the democratic rights of citizens, these mega corporations challenge authority of national government to determine labor rights including the right to unionize for better pay, and better working conditions, or laws as they may otherwise infringe on cultural practices and traditions of developing countries.
Critiques of the current wave of economic globalization typically look at both the damage to the planet, in terms of the perceived unsustainable harm done to the biosphere, as well as the perceived human costs, such as increased poverty, inequality, miscegenation( inter breeding of races), injustice and the erosion of traditional culture which, the critics contend, all occur as a result of the economic transformations related to globalization.

Critics argue that:
Poorer countries are sometimes at disadvantage: While it is true that globalization encourages free trade among countries on an international level, there are also negative consequences because some countries try to save their national markets. The main export of poorer countries is usually agricultural goods. It is difficult for these countries to compete with stronger countries that subsidize their own farmers. Because the farmers in the poorer countries cannot compete, they are forced to sell their crops at much lower price than what the market is paying.
Exploitation of foreign impoverished workers: The deterioration of protections for weaker nations by stronger industrialized powers has resulted in the exploitation of the people in those nations to become cheap labor. Due to the lack of protections, companies from powerful industrialized nations are able to offer workers enough salary to entice them to endure extremely long hours and unsafe working conditions, though economists question if consenting workers in a competitive employers' market can be decried as "exploitation". The abundance of cheap labor is giving the countries in power incentive not to rectify the inequality between nations. If these nations developed into industrialized nations, the army of cheap labor would slowly disappear alongside development. It is true that the workers are free to leave their jobs, but in many poorer countries, this would mean starvation for the worker, and possible even his/her family if their previous jobs were unavailable.
Poverty, though supporters of globalization have figures to show that poverty has gone down but the reality is poor has became poorer while rich has became richer, the whole game of globalization is set in a way which increase the concentration of money in a few hand, which leads to so many other economics issue, resulting increase in poverty.
Global warming is gift of this globalization. rapid industrialization has created this menace, now all the developed countries are not ready to reduce their emission of harmonious gases because it is directly liked with their industrial production and growth, and in this highly competitive world of technology, no one wishes to lose this race, so we are heading to disaster courtesy to this globalization.
The shift to outsourcing: The low cost of offshore workers have enticed corporations to move production to foreign countries. The laid off unskilled workers are forced into the service sector where wages and benefits are low, but turnover is high. This has contributed to the widening economic gap between skilled and unskilled workers. The loss of these jobs has also contributed greatly to the slow decline of the middle class which is a major factor in the increasing economic inequality in the United States. Families that were once part of the middle class are forced into lower positions by massive layoffs and outsourcing to another country. This also means that people in the lower class have a much harder time climbing out of poverty because of the absence of the middle class as a stepping stone.
Cultural globalization is proving deadly for the local traditions and norms, westernization of the culture is big issue in the countries of Asia and Africa, who doesn’t have any tolerance for the bold ideals of western culture. Youngsters of these Asian and African countries are greatly influenced by western trends shown on Satellite TVs, internet and western movies etc. So cultural identities are seriously in question at the hands of this globalization.
Weak labor unions: The surplus in cheap labor coupled with an ever growing number of companies in transition has caused a weakening of labor unions in the United States. Unions lose their effectiveness when their membership begins to decline. As a result unions hold less power over corporations that are able to easily replace workers, often for lower wages, and have the option to not offer unionized jobs anymore.

War on Terror

War on Terror


The War on Terror (also known as the War on Terrorism) is a campaign initiated by the United States government under President George W. Bush which includes various military, political, and legal actions ostensibly taken to "curb the spread of terrorism," following the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States. The War on Terror was authorized by the United States Congress under the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists passed on September 18, 2001. Both the phrase “War on Terror” and the policies it denotes have been a source of ongoing controversy, as critics argue it has been used to justify unilateral preemptive war, perpetual war, human rights abuses, and other violations of international law.
The phrase "War on Terror" started being used to refer to the U.S. campaign in Iraq and elsewhere by members of the American Republican Party.
Historical usage of phrase
The phrase "War on Terrorism" was first widely used by the Western press to refer to the attempts by Russian and European governments, and eventually the U.S. government, to stop attacks by anarchists against international political leaders. Many of the anarchists described themselves as "Terrorists," and the term had a positive valence for them at the time. When Russian Marxist Steven Park shot and wounded a Russian police commander who was known to torture suspects on 24 January 1878, for example, he threw down his weapon without killing him, announcing, "I am a terrorist, not a killer."
The next time the phrase gained currency was when it was used to describe the efforts by the British colonial government to end a spate of Jewish attacks in the British Mandate of Palestine in the late 1940s. The British proclaimed a "War on Terrorism" and attempted to crack down on Irgun, Lehi, and anyone perceived to be cooperating with them. The Jewish attacks, Arab attacks and revolts, and the subsequent British crackdown hastened the British evacuation from Palestine. The phrase was also used frequently by U.S. President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. In fact, many leaders from all over the world utilize this term when dealing with perceived terrorist activity.
Overview
Terrorist organizations carried out attacks on the U.S. and its allies throughout the latter part of the 20th century, prompting occasional military responses. Following the 1998 embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, United States President Bill Clinton launched Operation Infinite Reach, a bombing campaign in Sudan and Afghanistan against targets associated with al-Qaeda. In October of 2000 the USS Cole bombing occurred, followed by the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. The latter attacks created an immediate demand throughout the United States for a response.
The first aspects of the campaign came in the freezing of assets terrorist organizations and associated groups. The United Nations Security Council also adopted United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373 which obliges all States to criminalize assistance for terrorist activities, deny financial support and safe haven to terrorists and share information about groups planning terrorist attacks. NATO began Operation Active Endeavour on October 4th, which stepped up security checks in the Mediterranean.[After the Taliban rejected an ultimatum to turn over the al-Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan, the United States and NATO allies began air strikes against Taliban and al-Qaeda targets on October 7, 2001. The Afghan Northern Alliance and allied militia, aided by elements of the United States Special forces, began a ground offensive that succeeded in capturing most of Afghanistan by early 2002. While operations continued in Afghanistan, the campaign was expanded into the Philippines, where United States Special Forces assisted the Philippine army against elements of al-Qaeda, Jemaah Islamiyah, and Abu Sayyaf. It was expanded further into the Horn of Africa, where NATO allies began training Ethiopian and Djiboutian armed forces in anti-terror and counter-insurgency methods.
On March 20, 2003, the United States, United Kingdom, and a coalition expanded the campaign into Iraq, seeking to topple Saddam Hussein for his alleged possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction and state sponsorship of terror. By May 1, they had succeeded in doing so, though an insurgency developed supported by al-Qaeda and other militant elements. Likewise, the Taliban insurgency continued in Afghanistan, and their frequent border crossings into Pakistan prompted the nation to expand the campaign further into Waziristan in 2004, to remove Taliban and al-Qaeda elements.
In 2005 the Security Council also adopted resolution 1624 concerning incitement to commit acts of terrorism and the obligations of countries to comply with international human rights laws. Although both resolutions require mandatory annual reports on counter terrorism activities by adopting nations the United States and Israel have both declined to submit reports.
Campaigns and theatres of operation
Europe
Beginning in October 2001, Operation Active Endeavour is a naval operation of NATO started in response to the 9/11 attacks. It operates in the Mediterranean Sea and is designed to prevent the movement of terrorists or weapons of mass destruction as well as to enhance the security of shipping in general. The operation has also assisted Greece with the prevention of illegal immigration.
Iraq
Iraq had been listed as a State Sponsor of Terror by the United States since 1990 , and maintained poor relations with the United States since the Gulf War. Tensions were high throughout the 1990s, with the United States launching Operation Desert Fox against Iraq in 1998 after it failed to meet demands of "unconditional cooperation" in weapons inspections.. After the September 11 attacks, the U.S. government claimed that Iraq was a threat to the United States because Iraq could begin to use its alleged Weapons of Mass Destruction to aid terrorist groups.
The George W. Bush administration called for the United Nations Security Council to send weapons inspectors to Iraq to find and destroy alleged weapons of mass destruction and for a UNSC resolution. UNSC Resolution 1441 was passed unanimously, which offered Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" or face "serious consequences." Resolution 1441 did not authorize the use of force by member states, thus Resolution 1441 had no effect on the UN Charter's prohibition on the use of force by member states against fellow member states. Saddam Hussein subsequently allowed UN inspectors to access Iraqi sites, while the U.S. government continued to assert that Iraq was being obstructionist. In October 2002, the United States Congress authorized the president to use force if necessary to disarm Iraq in order to "prosecute the war on terrorism." After failing to overcome opposition from France, Russia, and China against a UNSC resolution that would sanction the use of force against Iraq, and before the UN weapons inspectors had completed their inspections which were deemed to be fruitless by the U.S. because of Iraq's alleged deception, the United States assembled a "Coalition of the Willing" composed of nations who pledged support for a war against Iraq. On March 20th, 2003, the invasion of Iraq was launched in what the Bush Administration said were the "serious consequences" spoken of in UNSC Resolution 1441.
Saddam Hussein's regime was quickly toppled and on May 1, 2003, George W. Bush stated major combat operations in Iraq had ended and claimed victory against it. But the war continued on as an insurgency against the U.S.-led coalition forces and the Iraqi police units and governing structures they installed. Elements of the insurgency are led by Sunni loyalists, who are Iraqi nationalists and pan-Arabists. Some insurgency leaders are Islamists and see themselves as fighting a religious war to liberate Iraq of foreign non-Muslim occupiers and their Iraqi collaborators.
Afghanistan
Soldiers in south-eastern Afghanistan check their coordinates during a combat patrol.
In October 2001, in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, NATO invaded the country of Afghanistan to remove al-Qaeda forces and oust the Taliban regime which had control of the country. After the initial attack, the Taliban's conventional force dissolved and the war turned into an insurgency.
Pakistan
Pakistan has been a site of many high profile arrests in the War on Terrorism, including Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in 2003. In 2004 they launched an offensive into the Federally Administered Tribal Areas region of Waziristan. The goal of the conflict was to remove the al-Qaeda and Taliban forces in the region. After the fall of the Taliban regime many members of the Taliban resistance fled to the Northern border region of Afghanistan and the tribal regions of northwest Pakistan where the Pakistani army previously had little control. With logistics and air support from the United States, the Pakistani Army captured or killed numerous al-Qaeda operatives. Pakistan has lost over 3000 of its soldiers since 2001 fighting, Taliban, al-Qaeda, and Waziri Terrorists.
Indonesia
In 2002 and again in 2005, the Indonesian island of Bali has been struck by suicide and car bombings that killed over 200 people and injured over 300. The 2002 attack consisted of a bomb hidden in a backpack exploding inside of "Paddy's Bar," a remote controlled car bomb exploding in front of the "Sari Club" and a third explosion in front of the American consulate in Bali. The 2005 attack consisted of 2 suicide bombings, the first near a food court in Jimbaran, the second in the main square of Kuta. The group Jemaah Islamiyah is suspected by Indonesian authorities of carrying out both attacks.
On September 9, 2004, a car bomb exploded outside of the Australian embassy in Jakarta, killing 10 Indonesians and injuring over 140 others; despite conflicting initial reports there were no Australian casualties. Fo reign Minister Alexander Downer reported that a mobile phone text message was sent to Indonesian authorities before the bombing warning of attacks if Abu Bakar Bashir was not released from prison. Abu Bakar Ba'asyir was imprisoned on charged of treason for his support of the 2002 and 2005 Bali bombings.Currently Jemaah Islamiyah is suspected of carrying out the attacks and Noordin Mohammed Top is a prime suspect. Top is a bomb maker and explosions expert for Jemaah Islamiyah.
Philippines
In January 2002 the United States Special Operations Command, Pacific deployed to the Philippines to advise and assist the Armed Forces of the Philippines in combating terrorism. The operations were mainly focused on removing the Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG) and Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) from their stronghold on the island of Basilan. The United States military has reported that they have removed over 80% of the Abu Sayyaf Group members from the region. The second portion of the operation was conducted as a humanitarian program called "Operation Smiles." The goal of the program was to provide medical care and services to the region of Basilan to prevent the ability for members of the terrorist groups to reestablish themselves.
United States of America
Smoke billows from the Pentagon after a highjacked commercial jetliner crashed into the building September 11, 2001.
On September 18, 2001, the 107th United States Congress passed the "Authorization for Use of Military Force" (Public law 107-40), which states "That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 [...]" This is the authorization for the War in Afghanistan, and has also been used as justification for other operations, domestic and international.
A $40 billion emergency spending bill, and an additional $20 billion bail-out of the airline industry were also passed.
Investigations were started through many branches of both federal and state governments, pursuing tens of thousands of tips. Thousands of people have been detained, arrested, or questioned.
The Justice Department launched a Special Registration procedure for certain male non-citizens in the U.S., requiring them to register in person at offices of the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
Several laws were passed to increase the investigative powers of law enforcement agencies in the United States, notably the USA PATRIOT Act. Many civil liberties groups have alleged that these laws remove important restrictions on governmental authority, and are a dangerous encroachment on civil liberties, possible unconstitutional violations of the Fourth Amendment. No official legal challenges have been started as of 2004, but governing bodies in a number of communities have passed symbolic resolutions against the act.
In a speech on June 9, 2005, Bush said that the USA PATRIOT Act had been used to bring charges against more than 400 suspects, more than half of whom had been convicted. Meanwhile the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) quoted Justice Department figures showing that 7,000 people have complained of abuse of the Act. The ACLU also maintains that many others do not know they have been subjected to a search because the law requires that searches be kept secret.
DARPA began an initiative in early 2002 with the creation of the Total Information Awareness program, designed to promote information technologies that could be used in counterterrorism. This program, facing criticism, has since been defunded by Congress.
Various government bureaucracies which handled security and military functions were reorganized. Most notably, the Department of Homeland Security was created to coordinate "homeland security" efforts in the largest reorganization of the U.S. federal government since the consolidation of the armed forces into the Department of Defense. The Office of Strategic Influence was secretly created after 9/11 for the purpose of coordinating propaganda efforts, but was closed soon after being discovered. The Bush administration implemented the Continuity of Operations Plan (or Continuity of Government) to ensure that U.S. government would be able to continue in catastrophic circumstances.
Recently the House of Representatives passed a bill enacting many of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, something the Democrats campaigned on as part of their "100-Hour Plan". The bill passed in the House 299-128 and is currently still being considered in the U.S. Senate. So far funding has not been appropriated for the enactments.
Role of U.S. media
Others have also suggested that press coverage has contributed to a public confused and misinformed on both the nature and level of the threat to the U.S. posed by terrorism. The media have given constant attention to possible terrorist-initiated catastrophes and to the failures and weaknesses of the USA’s response, the War on Terror is disconnected from the real but remote threat terrorism poses, and that the generalized War on Terror began as part of the justification for invading Iraq, but then took on a life of its own, fueled by media coverage.
Media coverage of this war on terror contains many examples of controversies concerning mainstream reporting of the War on Terror. mainstream press’s failed to adequately check facts before publication caused many news organizations to retrack or change news storie.
Mainstream reporting of the War on Terror has frequently contained factual inaccuracies. In some cases, the errors go uncorrected; moreover, when corrections are issued they usually are given far less prominence than the initial coverage containing the errors.
The mainstream press has sometimes failed to check the sources of information or visual images supplied
Mainstream reporting has tended to concentrate on the more violent areas of Iraq, with little or no reporting of the calm areas.

International military support
The multinational Combined Task Force 150 was established to pursue the war on terrorism. Countries contributing to CTF-150 have included Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Pakistan, New Zealand, Spain, United Kingdom and the United States.
The first wave of attacks were carried out solely by American and British forces. Since the initial invasion period, these forces were augmented by troops and aircraft from Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, New Zealand and Norway amongst others. In 2006, there were about 33,000 troops in Afghanistan.
On September 12, 2001, less than 24 hours after the terrorist attacks in New York City and Washington, NATO invoked Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty and declared the attacks to be an attack against all 19 NATO member countries. Australian Prime Minister John Howard also declared that Australia would invoke the ANZUS Treaty along similar lines.
In the following months, NATO took a wide range of measures to respond to the threat of terrorism. On November 22, 2002, the member states of the EAPC decided on a Partnership Action Plan against Terrorism which explicitly states that "EAPC States are committed to the protection and promotion of fundamental freedoms and human rights, as well as the rule of law, in combating terrorism."[55] NATO started naval operations in the Mediterranean Sea designed to prevent the movement of terrorists or weapons of mass destruction as well as to enhance the security of shipping in general called Operation Active Endeavour.
The invasion of Afghanistan is seen as the first action of this war, and initially involved forces from the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Afghan Northern Alliance.
Support for the United States cooled when America made clear its determination to invade Iraq in late 2002. Even so, many of the "coalition of the willing" countries that unconditionally supported the U.S.-led military action have sent troops to Afghanistan, particular neighbouring Pakistan, which has disowned its earlier support for the Taliban and contributed tens of thousands of soldiers to the conflict. Pakistan was also engaged in the Waziristan War. Supported by U.S. intelligence, Pakistan was attempting to remove the Taliban insurgency and al-Qaeda element from the northern tribal areas.[56]
The International Security Assistance Force
December 2001 saw the creation of the NATO led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) to assist the Afghan Transitional Administration and the first post-Taliban elected government. With a renewed Taliban insurgency, it was announced in 2006 that ISAF would replace the U.S troops in the province as part of Operation Enduring Freedom. The British 16th Air Assault Brigade (latter reinforced by Royal Marines) formed the core of the force in Southern Afghanistan, along with troops and helicopters from Australia, Canada and the Netherlands. The initial force consisted of roughly 3,300 British, 2,000 Canadian, 1,400 from the Netherlands and 240 from Australia, along with special forces from Denmark and Estonia (and small contingents from other nations).[57][58][59][60]
Criticism of the War on Terror
Both the phrase “War on Terrorism” and the policies it denotes have been a source of ongoing controversy, as critics argue it has been used to justify unilateral preemptive war, perpetual war, human rights abuses, and other violations of international law. Opponents have also heavily criticized the Iraq War, and USA PATRIOT Act. Criticism of the War on Terrorism addresses the issues, morals, ethics, efficiency, economics, and other questions surrounding the War on Terrorism. Arguments are also made against the phrase itself, calling it a misnomer.
The notion of a "war" against "terrorism" has proven highly contentious, with critics charging that it has been exploited by participating governments to pursue long-standing policy objectives, reduce civil liberties, and infringe upon human rights. Some argue that the term war is not appropriate in this context (as in War on Drugs), since they believe there is no tangible enemy, and that it is unlikely international terrorism can be brought to an end by means of war[61]. Others note that "terrorism" is not an enemy, but a tactic; calling it a "war on terror," obscures differences between conflicts. For example, anti-occupation insurgents and international jihadists. Some have also alleged that the tactics used are counterproductive to the goals. The U.S. media has also received criticism for its coverage of the War on Terrorism. The Bush administration's use of the War on Terrorism to justify the invasion of Iraq has been particularly controversial, as the link asserted between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein was disproved, even by Bin Laden himself.
Decreasing international support
In 2002, strong majorities supported the U.S.-led War on Terrorism in Britain, France, Germany, Japan, India, and Russia. By 2006, supporters of the effort were in the minority in Britain (49%), France (43%), Germany (47%), and Japan (26%). Although a majority of Russians still supported the War on Terrorism, that majority had decreased by 21%. Whereas 63% of the Spanish population supported the War on Terrorism in 2003, only 19% of the population indicated support in 2006. 19% of the Chinese population supports the War on Terrorism, and less than a fifth of the populations of Turkey, Egypt, and Jordan support the effort. However, a major exception is India, where the support for the War on Terrorism has been stable. Andrew Kohut, speaking to the U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs, noted that, according to the Pew Center polls conducted in 2004, Majorities or pluralities in seven of the nine countries surveyed said the U.S.-led war on terrorism was not really a sincere effort to reduce international terrorism. This was true not only in Muslim countries such as Morocco and Turkey, but in France and Germany as well. The true purpose of the war on terrorism, according to these skeptics, is U.S. control of Middle East oil and U.S. domination of the world.

War On terror and Pakistan

War On terror and Pakistan


Introduction
Sun that rose on the morning of 12th of sep 2001 saw a totally different world. 9/11 incident has changed this modern world altogether, things have changed their definitions, now everything has a new and diverse meaning in the current perspective. Though these terrorist attacked were carried out in America by some anonymous individuals but it’s the common man of Pakistan and Afghanistan who are paying its price, who is being killed every day in suicide bombing, missile attacks, air strikes etc, who hardly know anything about world towers or Al-Qaida or Bush etc. War On terror once again brought Pakistan and Afghanistan to the lime light and once again Pakistan became the front line state in the war against terrorism and world is listened to the same kind of rhetoric about Pakistan and its importance that they used to hear back in 1980s. Pakistan’s relations with USA once again became of primary importance as USA is leading this war and asking for Pakistan’s co-operation against Taliban and Al Qaida. This war on terror has raised many question for Pakistan and possible answers for these questions are not all that easy to find. These question are mainly concerned with issue like,

· Pakistan’s external Security concerns
· Pakistan’s internal Security concerns
· PAK – USA Relations



Pakistan and the War on Terrorism
After September 11, the Pakistan army knew its strategic overextension in the region, especially its support for the Taliban and, by implication, al-Qaida, was weak. But nearly bankrupt, the country had neither the political will nor the resources to take on these forces. The United States would provide Pakistan with both and, in turn, receive critical support from Pakistan in the war on terrorism.
Pakistan has cooperated with the United States in a number of ways, by granting logistics facilities, sharing intelligence, and capturing and handing over al-Qaida terrorists. Pakistan has provided more support, captured more terrorists, and committed more troops than any other nation in the GCTF (Global Counterterrorism Force)." Additionally, Pakistan has sealed off its western border and has made two naval bases, three air force bases, and its airspace available to the U.S. military.
According to Pakistan Embassy officials in Washington, D.C., Pakistan has deployed more than seventy thousand of its troops to the Afghan border and has launched more than thirty-eight major successful operations to flush out foreign terrorists. More than three hundred Pakistan army and paramilitary troops have been killed, and an even larger number have been injured, accounting for more casualties than any other U.S. ally in the war on terrorism. the intelligence provided by Pakistan has led to successes against terrorism around the world. For example, all of the top al-Qaida leaders captured to date have been apprehended in Pakistan with the government's help, while Pakistan itself has arrested more than seven hundred terror suspects. The country has also banned or placed on watch lists a large number of sectarian and militant organizations and has enacted numerous antiterrorism laws, freezing thirty-two bank accounts suspected of belonging to terrorist organizations. Finally, Pakistan is currently creating a national criminal database and is the first country to successfully install PISCES, a terrorist-interdiction program set up at seven Pakistani airports and at border crossings with India.
For its part, in the three years after September 11, the United States extended grants to Pakistan equaling $1 billion and wrote off $1 billion in debt. In June 2003, the U.S. announced a $3 billion assistance package for Pakistan to start in October 2004 and to be distributed over five years, with roughly equal amounts going to economic aid and security assistance. Additionally, a framework agreement on trade and investment (TIFA) has been signed, and the two countries have begun negotiating a bilateral investment treaty. On the security front, the U.S. approved a $1.2 billion arms-sale package that includes roughly $950 million for the purchase of P3C Orion aircraft. In March 2005, President Bush authorized the sale of a yet-to-be-specified number of F-16 fighter jets to Pakistan. The United States has also reinstated a military-training program through which some three hundred officers have received instruction at U.S. military institutions since 2001.
The current U.S.-Pakistan engagement may be focused on cooperation in the war on terrorism, especially on building the military-intelligence partnership between the two countries, but it is not limited to it. Pakistan's domestic order, especially its weak institutional architecture, stillborn political process, underdeveloped economy, poor educational system, unsure civil society, and simmering internal tensions, enhances the potential for extremism and instability and has been of serious concern to the United States. Pakistan , too, realizes the dangers and government is trying to lead the country in a new direction.
Pakistan Government recognizes that there is a need for institution building, economic development, improvement in relations between the center and provinces, and bringing an end to extremism and sectarianism. Pakistan government has the support of the United States, not only because broader reforms in Pakistan are central to combating religious extremism and succeeding in the war on terrorism, but also because regional peace and stability are requisite to the realization of America's economic and strategic interests in the region. Nonetheless, both Pakistan and the United States face difficult challenges.
Challenges for Pakistan
This war on terror has put Pakistan into a big fix and is posing many questions, questions related to its internal and external security, growing trends of talibanization, arousing anti-American sentiments etc.
External security Concerns
Pakistan’s geographical position makes it the important ally in this was on terror, but at the same time Pakistan's geopolitical environment remains a threat to its external and internal security and may explain government's wariness to take bold steps, especially in dealing with the jihadists. Relations with India are a case in point. India and Pakistan may have come a long way from their posture of confrontation, but peace between them is still far off. Only time will tell if there has been an enduring change in India's strategic stance toward Pakistan or the Kashmir dispute. Pakistan, therefore, has to watch India's moves carefully.
Taliban :- But biggest challenge for Pakistan and USA at the moment is Taliban, Pakistan took a u-turn in 2001 when they decided to abandon support Taliban and decided to join USA in this war on terror. It was a big change, Pakistan made and developed Taliban for more than 6 ot 7 years , Pakistan was one of the important country who acknowledged Taliban’s government and had diplomatic relations with them, but when Taliban refused to listen to their master over Osama Bin Laden, rift started between the two and widened further ever since. with out Pakistan support it was impossible for Taliban to with stand against mighty USA fire power and it took days to capture Kabul and rest of Afghanistan, But Taliban went back to their traditional war tactics, guerilla warfare, that what they are best at and that how they were trained by the ISI, as things became tough inside Afghanistan, these Taliban element, as most of these gents were grown up in the midrassas across Pakistan, for them Pakistan was like second home, these scores of Taliban who were of diverse nationalities across the Durand line ( border line between Pakistan and Afghanistan ) and found safe heavens in the tribal areas of Pakistan, were they were cordially welcomed by the local mullahs and Islamic extremists who were already mad with anti american sentiment. These factors combined together formed ideal conditions for Taliban to launch guerilla attacks on the foreign forces present in Afghanistan. As these activities picked up frequency, the attention of whole world diverted to the these tribal areas and they became centre of attention. Pakistan army under American pressure launched operation against theses elements in the FATA region, which caused a huge reaction across the targeted area, Pakistan army had some success but suffered huge losses as well and this maniac of terrorism came further in to the settled areas of NWFP province of Pakistan and world saw peaceful area like swat etc burning in this fire of terrorism, where local mullahs together with Taliban prepared a bread of suicide bomber and implanted them across Pakistan, killing thousand of innocent civilian as well as security personals. This has hurt the over all internal and external security of the country greatly. There is great danger that these Taliban element might creep down to the plans of Punjab and sindh and might ruin everything. To fight against this danger successfully and to continue to peruse war on terror’s objective is pakistan’s biggest challenge, which is in fact the question of Pakistan’s future and existence.
Indo Pak Relations :- 9/11 offered a new dimension to Pakistan and India relations. Issue of Kashmir had new meaning, once freedom fighters of Kashmir were now terrorist, Indians were labeling them as terrorist since long but they could convince world over this but now suddenly over night all the world powers were on there side, Indians were trying hard to get it approved from the world that kashmiri freedom fighters are terrorist and Pakistan is harboring them to promote terrorism inside India, they had some success in this case, kashmiri mujahidine were called as terrorist but USA and other powers had there interests in Pakistan, that’s why they can’t declare Pakistan as a terrorist state. So in these testing and difficult environment Pakistan’s natural choice was to side line with USA and other world powers in this war on terror. This decision of pakistan countered Indian proganda well and Pakistan won back confidence of world powers. With this confidence Pakistan successfully forced India to with draw its aggressive stance over bilateral issues. India and Pakistan were asked to resolve their issue through dialogues .this change saw some ground breaking developments but nothing meaningful is achieved, but thngs returned to normality between the two countries, both countries hope that with the passage of time the so-called "CBMs" (confidence building measures) between the two countries will become their own reward, and that perhaps with increased economic and commercial exchanges, cultural interplay, and trends toward moderation in Pakistan, Pakistanis will develop a different perception of India and Kashmir. India also hopes that other critical issues, such as energy, sharing of water resources, security, and good neighborly relations, may eventually take precedence over Kashmir in defining the countries' relationship, freeing India to find an internal solution to the dispute, facilitated by Pakistan's diminished leverage and unforced concessions. There might be gains for Pakistan in the relationship with India, but not in Kashmir, whose centrality to India-Pakistan relations will have gradually eroded. But still still big challenge for Pakistan to peruse its case of Kashmir in this changed world where difference between a terrorist and freedom fighters has vanished. Slightest of increase in the kashmiri freedom movement would automatically provide an opportunity for India to fight its case of state sponsored terrorism.
Western Borders : - War on terror has its impact and challenges for Pakistan on its western borders with Iran and Afghanistan. Iran, with its regional ambitions, emerging nuclear capability, strategic rivalry with Pakistan, and suspicions of a U.S.-Pakistan axis, has the motive and capability, if not the intention, to leverage Pakistan's policies. Iran is also a rival influence in Afghanistan and an economic competitor for access to Central Asia, which itself remains unstable. Furthermore, an unsettled Afghanistan, especially where the Taliban rump—which has affinities with and support from Pakistan's tribal areas—still remains, can be a source of potential instability on the Pakistan-Afghan border and an irritant in the relations between the two countries. But Iran can’t lose Pakistan’s support against USA aggression over its nuclear program. If tomorrow USA decides to attack Iran, Pakistan’s support for this adventure would be very necessary, so its very important for both USA and Iran that how Pakistan calculate this scenario.
Historically its always its eastern borders where Pakistan had all the worries and challenges to handle, it never had any military presence on its western borders with Afghanistan. Though Pakistan’s relations with Afghanistan has not been all that smooth and pleasant, and worse came with the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, even in such fragile times Pakistan never had any significant military presence on its border with Afghanistan. But at last Pakistan is forced to employee 80 thousands troops on its porous border with Afghanistan to handle and counter terrorism and Taliban movements across this border, this change seriously hurt its military strength on eastern borders with India. But the more serious Pakistan army was forced to fight against their own people and in an unknown area, natural advantage was with Taliban who had local support and were more familiar with the guerilla warfare and the mountainous terrain. Bu they learned from the early losses and improved their activity and had further success. But both American and Afghan government ( president Hamid Kerzai ) are continuously blaming Pakistan for across the border movement of Taliban which is one of the main reason for ever increasing unrest inside Afghanistan.. Now there is a very complex situation for Pakistan, which is full of challenges and security threats. Its commitments with USA for War on terror holds a binding on Pakistan to seal its border with Afghanistan , which is next to impossible , to stop this reported movement of Taliban. This isn’t a simple task it would take a lot of effort to make it possible. Second task which Pakistan has on its job list is to eliminate Taliban and Al-Qaida elements present inside its borders in FATA region. But elimination of these Taliban elements is full of risks and threats , any campaign against Taliban in FATA region and some settled districts of NWFP would put a lot things at stake, but this is important even for Pakistan’s internal and external security, because what ever unrest which is setting in Pakistan , Taliban are directly and indirectly responsible for this. If they are given free hand they would spoil everything and would make everything ugly and distorted. Pakistan should take this task seriously and should try to win support of local population to snatch that natural advantage from Taliban which they are having at the moment. With out local support Taliban would not find it easy to continue their activities. Recently started propaganda by the Afghan President , as he is looking to blame Pakistan for every ill that is happening inside Afghanistan, is building up pressure on Pakistan to act move strongly against these Taliban. USA and India are fully supportive of Afghan president, they are also involving ISI into this game, they say thay ISI is responsible for attacks on Afghan President and recent bombing out side Indian embassy in Afghanistan.

The regional security environment thus compels Pakistan to have some impression of leverage in dealing with both India and Afghanistan. But Pakistan shouldn’t leave these jihadi outfits unscathed and should also turned on the Taliban with full force. Even Pakistan need to calculate it whether or not these jihadists, have nay role in the future, if there is any role for them then they should be handled and sidelined accordingly but if the naswer is in negative then they should be eliminated through every mean, they should be compelled to give up their activites. Though possible confrontation with Taliban could be a dangerous provocation.. But for a peaceful resolution of this issue it is very important to that Kashmir dispute is solved and foreigh occupation in Afghanistan is finished ASAP. In afore mentioned scenario these outfits may become rebels without a cause and thus die their own deaths.
Pakistan should get rid of this proposition as soon as possible that it is safe heaven for Al-Qaida and Taliban, because if tomorrow something happen which is as serious and big as 9/11 incident and it is concluded that it was planned by some elements who are sitting in FATA region, then there would be big trouble for Pakistan, it would be highly difficult for Pakistan to main its sovereignty and territorial integrity. So we should act fast before the time runs out.
Internal Security issues

Disjointed Society :- The country has serious problems relating to social change, governance, and democratization. Society is going through a turmoil, there is a grow trend of extremism and religious intolerance. One can debate endlessly as to whether the army or politicians are to blame for Pakistan's problems. Seen from a historical perspective, both have failed. Each has done enough damage to fully account for Pakistan's troubled history. They have both been united in common pursuit of strengthening their class and institutional interests. Indeed, their identities fluctuate and often merge imperceptibly. The army relied on the politicians for its legitimacy, while, in turn, the politicians have relied on the army's support to keep themselves in power and shield themselves from accountability. Both have pandered to the Islamists, who have provided the ideological underpinnings of a security-denominated nationalism in Pakistan that has guaranteed the military's dominant political profile. As a result, by creating political space for the Islamists, the military has helped foster religious extremism in the country.
Lack Of Political Will :- Thus, in a broad context, religion, politics, social order, national security, and foreign policy have all been rolled into one in Pakistan and—suffused with illusions and emotions— have come to both reflect and affect Pakistan's national priorities. Any sense of pursuing genuine national aims and moving in a positive direction has yielded to passions and empty slogans. Politics has become covered with cant, hypocrisy, and fraud.
Pakistan's multiple problems are now seamlessly linked and need to be attacked simultaneously. Above all, Pakistan needs to change its external behavior to strengthen its internal order, rather than pursue external goals at the expense of its internal stability. But because of his lack of legitimacy, Musharraf was dependent on forces resistant to change. These include the mullahs, whose extremism, ironically, he is fighting against, and the traditionally pro-establishment politicians who, like Musharraf, themselves have legitimacy problems and are fighting shy of reforms for fear of the mullahs and of social change that may erode the feudal and social structure they represent. Further, the support of the army, Musharraf's main constituency, imposes its own cost. By offering the military civilian jobs and economic and commercial incentives, the army's stake in its domination of political power only grows further and comes at the expense of democracy. Musharraf had unlike allies with discordant agendas, none of whom could offer him unqualified support. While each of them supported him on one issue, but opposed him on another. Thus, with each reform that is made another must be sacrificed.
Criticism provoked by his alignment with the United States and suspicions that his reforms are at the behest of the United States have also weakened Past and present gevernment. Indeed, the strongest resistance to him comes from the Islamists, whose tolerance toward these pro American policies has already been stretched to the limit by his cooperation in the war on terrorism. government is some what afraid to test it any further, that’s why government is trying to expand its political base in order to comply with the U.S. war on terrorism and securing country’s existence.
There is an ever increasing hatred for America and those who look to defend pro American policies across the society, results of last two elections speak volumes about it. Political parties who campaigned against war on terror and American aggression enjoyed success, MMA’s success in NWFP in 2002 election and in 2008 elections both PPP and PML-n had view against all out co-operation with USA in this war on terror. Government needs seriously to work on this to induce understanding of all the policies that it adopts for its commitments in this war on terror.
Internal law and order situation is the country is in worse shape, this is also a gift of this war on terror for Pakistanis, there is every day some killings in the shape of bomb blasts, suicide attacks, firing etc. we see foreigners are reluctant to come to Pakistan, recent postponement of ICC’s cricket Champion Trophy, which was suppose to be help in Pakistan in the sep 2008. this varying law and order has seriously hampered country’s image abroad. General public are under serious stress and pressure as far as they are concerned for their personal safety. These fears and suspicions aggravated when they see that law enforcement agencies themselves are not safe, they are attacked every day and hey can’t protect themselves. How would they safe guard others.
This ever varying law and order situation has seriously damaged economy and country is experiencing effects of very high inflation, every day currency is losing its worth against dollar, stock exchange index is dropping every day and on the verge of a closure. There is shortage of electricity in the country because government doesn’t have enough money to pay bills to private power generation companies, who have cut down their power generations. Foreign reserves are shrinking consistently and during last 8 months, they have shrunk by 50%. All these things have other reasons as well but some how where they are very closely linked with the consistently varying law and order situation, to maintain stable law and order situation is a big problem for this government and its going to be a big test for them.
USA-PAK relationship
War on terror has induced new life into the PAK – USA relations, but there are many apprehension about the durability of these renewed relations between the two. This revival of relations has resulted in various complication for Pakistan, there are people who are questioning the logic and rationale behind this partnership. Up till now all negative aftermath has falling into Pakistan’s bucket while all the positive are for USA. One needs to add balance Why is it that Pakistan has rarely disappeared for any length of tie from the United States' strategic radar screen? For more than five decades, it has loomed large in one form or another, as either a staunch ally, a troublesome friend, or even a threat. Now, for the first time, it is all of these things.
The war on terrorism may have provided the rationale for the current U.S. reengagement with Pakistan, but this war neither limits the relationship's scope nor exhausts the challenges it faces. The reengagement has merged with Pakistan's own reform effort, America's evolving strategic relationship with South Asia, and the broader issue of democracy in the Muslim world. And in Pakistan and beyond, this new relationship collides with the crosscurrents of religious extremism.
In the light of current campaign of war on terror U.S. policy choices toward Pakistan are complex and imperfect. Though Pakistan is not a failed state nor a failing or a rogue state, it has had, to varying degrees, tendencies of all three. On top of that, it is a nuclear power. So how should the U.S. relate to Pakistan? Pakistan is now not only a challenge but also a crucial partner in the war on terrorism. How does the United States keep Pakistan on its side when it may also target Pakistan? And if Pakistan is to be an object of reforms, how does the United States help the country, especially its democratization process?
Critical U.S. policy choices toward Pakistan must also be integrated with broader regional policies. South Asia has changed and so has the basis of U.S. relations with it. The currents of change, spawned by the post–Cold War world and globalization and gestated by the war on terrorism, have been flowing in varying directions. This presents new threats and opportunities for U.S. foreign policy. For example, India offers the United States great economic and strategic opportunities, but it is Pakistan's internal dynamics and relationship with India that have been at the root of challenges to U.S. foreign policy in South Asia.
Historical Perspective
What has been unusual about the relationship between the United States and Pakistan is that their spells of close ties have been, and may continue to be, single-issue engagements of limited or uncertain duration, which enjoyed, at best, limited or qualified support among their respective public and strategic communities. During each engagement there has been either a military or military-dominated government in Pakistan, while in Washington, the policy direction on Pakistan has largely been in the hands of the White House, Pentagon, and the CIA.
The relationship has also shared problems typical of U.S. ties with a small country. Pakistan has traditionally responded to regional impulses, while the United States tends to consider global dynamics in its relationships. The United States has historically made light of Pakistan's security concerns and underestimated the strength of Pakistan's commitment to its nuclear program, and Pakistan has failed to see that an inflated U.S.- Pakistan engagement had no staying power. Pakistan particularly has not understood the enormous challenges of running U.S. foreign policy and the need of U.S. policymakers to weigh foreign policy concerns against domestic political considerations, the dynamics of the media, America's sense of exceptionalism and moral purpose, the country's historical experience, and cold-blooded power politics. All this made it neither compelling nor easy for the United States to harmonize its strategic and tactical goals, short- and long-term agenda, and global and regional interests.
As a consequence, the U.S.-Pakistan relationship, for much of its history, has lacked continuity, a larger conceptual framework, and a shared vision beyond the narrowly based and vaguely defined. It is no wonder, then, that as soon as the United States achieved its objectives vis-à-vis Pakistan in past engagements, U.S.-Pakistan policy consensus would break down. Pakistan was either consigned to benign neglect or hit with a succession of punitive sanctions that left in their trail resentment and a sense of betrayal. In a strange irony, this led the engagements between the two countries to alternate with periods of estrangements. Consequently, the United States did not have the influence or leverage to address issues of concern, including those born of its own close cooperation with Pakistan. Such highs and lows turned into a love-hate relationship between the two.
Yet, U.S.-Pakistan cooperation has served some important mutual interests in the past and is doing so again in the present. As with previous periods of engagement, the current relationship may yet leave in its wake serious problems that may have to be addressed in the future at a much higher cost. Historically, the issues marking the U.S.-Pakistan relationship, whether they united or divided the two countries, have had a critical bearing on their respective national goals and priorities.
The first of the three major U.S. engagements with Pakistan occurred during the height of the Cold War, from the mid-1950s to mid-1960s; the second was during the Afghan Jihad in the 1980s, again lasting about a decade; and the third engagement dates to September 11, 2001, and relates to the war on terrorism.

Anti-Americanism
Anti-Americanism in Pakistan has a complex dynamic. It is framed by four concentric circles: general reaction to U.S. might and power, America's current international conduct, relations between Islam and the West, and the history of U.S.-Pakistan relations. Indeed, as the most powerful nation on earth, the United States provokes envy and resentment around the world. As for America's international conduct, its legitimacy and self-centeredness have been under challenge, especially after September 11. Regarding Islam and the West, the picture is even more complex.
September 11 did not change history so much as it signaled the arrival in history of new struggles and conflicts and a dissolution of traditional patterns of power relationships. Well before, the relations between big powers were becoming at once cooperative, tense, and competitive: globalization was inciting serious discontent, the Islamic world was looking disordered, and regional disputes were beginning to radiate much violence and instability. There was a new wave of predominantly religion-based revisionism against the vestiges of the colonial and imperialist era and the domestic and international orders, which appealed to moderates and radicals alike in the Muslim world.
Pakistan and the rest of the Islamic world are in ferment. Islamic societies that have invariably experienced colonialism or varied forms of Western domination have been experiencing conflict in their search for national identities, political stability, and effective ways of absorbing modern liberal values. They have also been coming to terms with anti-Western feelings that have interloped into their culture. Across the Islamic world, the West, especially the United States, is believed to have historically complicated this search by becoming a party to this conflict. There is also a class antipathy to the ethically intolerable value system of the ruling classes, which themselves are invariably Western oriented.
The war on terrorism has sharpened the tensions between Islam and the West. The United States seems to be fighting terrorism with traditional instruments of power, whose bluntness obscures the subtlety and complexity of the issues involved, and with a crusading zeal that speaks of an ideological struggle and clash of civilizations. Elements on both sides see their basic value system as under siege and have exaggerated their mutual fears and are busy defaming and demonizing each other. Moral issues have been undifferentiated or confused, or sacrificed to self-righteousness. Each side is judging the other with its own ideals, ideals from which it has fallen short itself. The Islamic world especially rationalizes its own errant behavior by accusing the West of double standards. No wonder, in Pakistan, liberals and conservatives alike are outraged by the mistreatment of their "national hero" AQ Khan.
Within this larger framework, the history of U.S.-Pakistan relations has generated its own anti-Americanism, which is triggered by a perception that the United States has not been a reliable ally and has not helped Pakistan much in its conflict with India. September 11 and U.S. reengagement added new issues to the debate. For instance, liberal aspirations for democracy have been heightened but tend to flow into anti-American channels because of government’s association with the United States. These aspirations both merge with and deviate from the religious wave, as democracy and religion use the same jargon of social protest but advocate different means of empowerment. Nationalism, too, has come to the fore and is expressed, on one level, through anti-Americanism provoked by the war on terrorism and, on another, through the assertion of the will of smaller provinces.
Liberals in the Islamic world have their own reasons to be disaffected with the United States, particularly those aspects of the war on terrorism that are seen as repressive. There is a sense that the United States has fallen short of its ideals and its foreign policy has abandoned soft power, losing its moral superiority. Most liberals also feel that the United States is closing its doors on them with some of the more heavy-handed visa policies of the Department of Homeland Security. Besides, the United States has provoked anger all around by denigrating Muslim societies as backward and failed and by patronizing them with offers to help them modernize.
Anti-Americanism has one additional dimension in Pakistan. For decades, governments in Pakistan that often lacked popular support acquiesced to public resentment of America, using the United States as a lightning rod to divert dangerous currents of socioeconomic discontent within Pakistan. Now this same anti-Americanism is being exploited by the Islamists to gain popular support.
Nonetheless, there is also a muted appreciation of what America has done for Pakistan, especially in the nation's early history, when it was struggling for survival. And all the main political parties, including the Islamists, have channels of communication open with the United States and are prepared to work with it.



Pakistan’s way forward

Reformation of Society:- Government would have to take some very bold decisions to promote democracy and liberalism. Militancy and hardcore approach should be discouraged at any cost. Pakistan is facing many challenges including economic development and Islamic extremism., hour of need is to call very boldly for modern, liberal Islamic ideals. As world expects Pakistan to be nationally cohesive, at peace with itself and its neighbors, and a responsible member of the international community. To meet these strategic objectives, Pakistan must develop policies that contest regressive socioeconomic structures; promote education; encourage moderation, tolerance, and accommodation; seek an end to poverty and corruption; and address ethnolinguistic, religious, and sectarian prejudices. Above all, peace with India and a strategic reorientation in the army's core beliefs are critical to Pakistan's economic survival and national security. Stakes are high. Failure to reform will only give strength to the Islamists and their competing vision for the future of Pakistan.
Political Enlighment :- Government should realize that enlightened moderation is more than cultural liberalization. Only political liberalization will help strengthen liberal and secular forces that can be his allies in defeating religious extremism. Otherwise, cultural openness could backfire and give further ammunition to the fundamentalists, provoking a cultural war that could get entangled with class conflicts. Government should also bear in mind that economic development is neither a substitute for democracy nor a guarantee of his own survival or of Pakistan's political stability. One need only look to what happened in Iran—where despite economic gains people rose up against the Shah—as evidence of this.
Its rhetoric may be revolutionary, but Pakistan's political system is quasi reactionary— that is, it is the same civil-military bureaucratic complex that continues to work under the cover of a flawed democracy dominated by feudal tribal interests. Even working at its most efficient, the system will only be able to change Pakistan modestly before it itself becomes a roadblock to change. Thanks to the economic policies and management of Prime Minister Aziz, Pakistan has registered an impressive growth rate, but prospects of a major economic transformation remain uncertain.
Need For Good Governance :- Pakistan's economic development will remain limited if the country does not come to terms with problems of poor public services, corruption, inequities in land and income distribution, social exclusion of the marginalized and vulnerable, particularly women, and high illiteracy rates. Pakistan needs a new organizing idea and an improved relationship between its provinces and center. For example, the province of Baluchistan is significant for Pakistan's future economic prospects. It is rich in mineral resources that are strategically located near vital sea lanes and two oil-bearing regions, the Persian Gulf and Central Asia. But the development of Baluchistan is resisted by tribal chiefs who fear their traditional authority will be undermined there. (Similarly, the sharing and harnessing of water resources for irrigation and hydroelectric power are also contentious issues between the central government and the provinces.) The problem is political, not economic. Only through better management of relations between the central and provincial governments—which may even require constitutional adjustments—can Pakistan realize its full economic potential.
Political stability :- Political stability and peaceful internal order are essential for attracting critically needed foreign investment for economic development. The ability to provide such security depends upon the integrity and effectiveness of Pakistan's political process. In other words, economic development and democracy are interdependent. Economic change will foster a middle class that may help lead the balance of economic and political power away from the feudal stranglehold.
Military’s Role :- Beyond 2007, the army should have only a watch-dog role in the government. This should be for a designated period of time, provided there is a national consensus and constitutional support for the idea. Pakistan will not become a perfect democracy overnight, but such a move may be necessary to carry the reforms further; otherwise, the country will become depoliticized and may accelerate toward extremism and internal disorder.
If there is a broad spectrum of political and economic change empowering a new civilian leadership, the military will have no rationale to dominate Pakistan's political life. This may be the only way to resolve the complexity of having to deal with two imperfect choices—immediate democratization in a social context that hosts forces resistant to reforms, and open-ended reliance on army rule that is committed to reforms but is resistant to democracy.
PAK – USA Partnership :- Pakistan has to make the best possible use of the current U.S. engagement but also keep in mind two facts. First, Pakistan has to change and reform on its own. (Thus far, the United States' principal interest has only been in stabilizing Pakistan.) Second, while in the past Pakistan criticized the United States for lack of commitment to the relationship, Pakistan itself showed little regard for Washington by pursuing policies that defied U.S. concerns, such as those related to terrorism and the export of nuclear technology. Pursuing these policies served no conceivable national interest of Pakistan.
On proliferation, Pakistan needs to come clean about the past and assure the United States about the future. It is best to discuss the past now while the relationship is strong enough to absorb any further shocking disclosures.
Pakistan also has to recognize that opposition to some of America's core concerns, especially as it relates to nuclear proliferation, democracy, and peace with India, may be tolerated by Washington in the near term for the sake of expediency, but that such opposition will have no lasting place in a long-term relationship with the United States.


India and Pakistan Relations and USA’s Role
Critical U.S. policy choices in the region require an integrated approach to the issues of concern as they are all inextricably linked. Militancy and extremism, for instance, are linked as much to Pakistan's sense of insecurity as to the army's ambitions. Some of the core U.S. foreign policy concerns are thus rooted in India-Pakistan tensions. U.S. relations with India and Pakistan, therefore, should be designed to advance the prospects of regional peace and stability. Preoccupied by Iraq and relieved by the apparent success of the India-Pakistan dialogue, the United States may be tempted by a laissez-faire approach to the peace process. But the fact is, favorable and reciprocal changes in multiple contexts—domestic, bilateral, and international—are requisite to the resolution of long-standing conflicts. In that sense, enhanced U.S. stakes in South Asia are a stimulus to the peace process. However, this strategic pressure point will be eroded by any U.S. indifference to the India-Pakistan dialogue. Indeed, if the peace process fails, the United States will be blamed by the people of Pakistan on one hand for seemingly "pressuring" Pakistan to normalize relations with India and on the other for weakening Pakistan's leverage in Kashmir with the war on terrorism. The United States must therefore be engaged in the peace process to insure against its failure, as dissatisfaction among Pakistanis from an adverse outcome will ignite agitation against Government.
Additionally, a successful normalization of relations between Pakistan and India benefits the United States in more ways than one. It could, for instance, ease Pakistan's security fears and help lower the army's political profile, opening the way for democratization, and advance the prospects of an integrated South Asia market linked to energy-rich Central Asia, increasing opportunities for U.S. investment there.
Peace between India and Pakistan will also ease fears of a nuclear war, may open up the possibility of their incorporation into the international nuclear community, and will help strengthen their command and control structure, which will encourage nonproliferation. Though the United States will not let India and Pakistan be accepted into the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty regime as nuclear powers, the United States is keen to sign on both Pakistan and India to the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), the Bush administration's latest strategy to contain the proliferation of nuclear weapons. But Pakistan is not likely to join the PSI without India's participation. To get Pakistan and India on board, China's help should also be solicited. As a nuclear power with complex relations with both South Asian states, China can be an important contributor to strategic stabilization in South Asia.
Institution Building and Democracy
Pakistan's problems are not lack of institutions but the trivialization of the institutions. If institutions are not working, especially the police, judiciary, and administrative services, it is because they have been undermined by their subservience to the dominant centers of power. They can only be reformed if social and political structures are first reformed. Education and social sectors, however, are in a dysfunctional state and in need of urgent help. Building up of these depilated institutions is in the interest of Pakistan and war on terrorism.
As for democracy, with present winds of changes blowing in Pakistan, Government should look to promote these democratic norms further, for the first time in the history of Pakistan a strong political power base is made to leave his office with out much of unrest and chaos, now its up to the political leaders in power to continue these good traditions, attitude of tolerance and peaceful co-existence should be promoted.
Educational Reforms
Pakistan needs educational reforms more than anything else. US AID considers educational reform to be the most important current development project in Pakistan. In July 2002, more than $100 million was dedicated to a five-year education reform plan. USAID and Pakistan's Ministry of Education are working together to improve (1) policy and planning, (2) teacher and administrator training, (3) adult and youth literacy programs, and (4) partnership development and community building between the public and private spheres. Government should also invest in projects dedicated to improving teacher training and developing teaching materials; to building and furnishing schools in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas; These extensive efforts will only succeed if they are implemented countrywide and emphasize local solutions for meeting educational goals rather than impose unworkable or culturally insensitive solutions from the outside. Besides, the current levels of U.S. aid allocation for educational reforms do not appear to be adequate to the task and may have to be doubled, at least.
Given the problems already identified with Pakistan's bureaucracy, the United States has an understandable distrust of the government machinery for channeling U.S. aid to education reforms. The United States has turned to nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) as an alternative mechanism for implementing change in the education sector. An uncritical trust of NGOs is also a risk, however—many are themselves a product of an elitist and self-serving system. Pakistan should be encouraged to emulate the example of Bangladesh, where grass-roots-based NGOs have a stronger sense of public service. Indeed, the United States should help Pakistan build civil society, the most important institution-building challenge in the country after education.
According to Pakistan's minister of education, the government has vastly enhanced his ministry's budget to carry out wide-ranging reforms in the education system, including increasing teacher salaries, opening new schools, especially in villages, and modernizing the curriculum. The government has given him a budget allocation of 5.5 billion rupees to reform madrassahs by introducing science subjects and the teaching of English to their curricula, provide computers for classroom use, and upgrade their physical infrastructure. To date, madrassahs have been hesitant to accept such government intervention for reform.
However, there is a high risk that such policies will end up strengthening the madrassahs without actually reforming them. Their funding is already drying up, and reform will only give them a shot in the arm. Over the long run, with an expanded and reformed public educational system, the madrassahs will wither on the vine. Instead of bailing them out, they should be gradually absorbed into the mainstream educational system.


Political Islam
This partnership between USA and Pakistan for this war on terror must show some immediate results to demonstrate that there is an alternative vision for Pakistan and that it is working. The engagement must not fail because the alternative, an extremist Pakistan that itself becomes a U.S. target, will be a policy nightmare.
To be successful, the engagement must be geared toward benefiting the people, not just the regime. This will raise the people's confidence in the country's relationship with the United States. Additionally, the United States must not appear to be in conflict with Islam. Political Islam is not something out there on the fringes that the United States can combat and conquer. To varying degrees, it has been ingrained in the social culture of the Muslim world because of the emotional appeal of the causes it espouses. To this end, leaders of Muslim countries may have to make some compromises with the religion. The United States has to respect not only these concessions but also some minimum nationalist and democratic aspirations in the Islamic world. That is the possible remedy if USA is interested in some what acceptability of war on terror in the Islamic world.
Economic and Security Assistance and Sanctions Policy
The United States needs to find a new paradigm for its relationship with Pakistan. The weak sanctions of the 1990s that offered Pakistan no incentive for change did not work. In the future, sanctions should not be a policy option as long as there are strong reasons for the United States to be engaged with Pakistan and to help its reform efforts. Reform should be an end in itself, as a reformed Pakistan is in the interest of the United States whether or not there is a quid pro quo. Additionally, the United States needs to build a broader coalition of countries to support Pakistan's reform efforts, including highly visible donors such as Japan.
The United States must also help Pakistan create a dynamic economy that generates employment. To this end, the bilateral investment agreement between the two countries should be expedited. It will be seen by the international business community as an affirmation of Pakistan's economic stability, and thus raise investor confidence in the country. Indeed, U.S. and Japanese companies should be offered special incentives to invest in Pakistan. Pakistan considers the free-trade agreement with the United States an essential component of its economic development program. In the meantime, both the United States and Japan should provide greater market access for Pakistani textiles as an effective interim measure for relief.
The U.S. aid program toward Pakistan should focus heavily on supporting poverty reduction strategies. There is already a perception among Pakistanis of increased poverty in the country, concerns about rising inflation, and discontent over the army's growing domination of the civilian institutions, not to mention a host of other internal tensions in the country. In the absence of a charismatic secular leader, the entire range of opposition could coalesce under an Islamic banner, such as happened in the Iranian revolution. The U.S. would be well-advised to avoid such a scenario.
A minimum level of security assistance should also be immune from any future sanctions or political pressure by the United States. Pakistan has genuine defense and foreign policy concerns. Even if the country has overplayed these threats, they are real. Nor should Pakistan be any less deserving of the international community's sympathy and understanding just because of its past errant behavior. A reformed Pakistan, headed toward moderation, strongly committed against militancy, and at peace with India, is unlikely to go against America's core interests. Indeed, a strong Pakistan may be helpful in moderating India's ambitions.
The ability of the United States to help reform Pakistan will be strengthened if the United States appears to be less in need of Pakistan than Pakistan is in need of the United States. U.S. interests go well beyond the war against terrorism. By expending all of its political capital in securing Pakistan's cooperation in that war, the United States risks diminishing its leverage with Pakistan and neglecting other important strategic goals, such as promoting democracy in Pakistan and the Muslim world and containing nuclear proliferation. Any increase in the existing levels of security assistance, or any further sale of major defense equipment beyond the F-16s, should be linked to Pakistan's cooperation on these issues, as well as on the war on terrorism. What is needed is a broader framework for its relationship with Pakistan, one in which the war against terrorism is at the center of the agenda but does not crowd out other interests.
Conclusion

The current U.S. engagement with Pakistan may be focused on the war on terrorism, but it is not confined to it. It also addresses several other issues of concern to the United States: national and global security, terrorism, nuclear proliferation, economic and strategic opportunities in South Asia, democracy, and anti-Americanism in the Muslim world.
The current U.S. engagement with Pakistan offers certain lessons for U.S. policymakers. These are related to the risks involved in basing policy on principles without having a strategy, isolating a country that has the capacity to harm, and nation-building in a country ambivalent or resistant to the United States' embrace.
The United States must help Pakistan pursue a path that meets its people's democratic aspirations and socioeconomic needs and is resilient enough to accommodate ethnolinguistic, regional, religious, and sectarian differences. Only such a course can help Pakistan become a stable and responsible member of the international community, at peace with itself and with its neighbors.
Sanctions toward Pakistan should not be a policy option. However, the United States should put some pressure on Pakistan to keep the country's reform effort on track and to induce it to act as a responsible nuclear power. For this purpose, the United States should not allow Pakistan to feel that the United States needs Pakistan more than Pakistan needs the United States.
An assured and secure Pakistan is more likely to define its future in economic terms, wage peace with India, and be a natural ally of the United States. Therefore, Pakistan's peace process with India must be supported by the United States. The benefits to Pakistan must counterbalance the effects of a renunciation of Kashmir and the attendant loss of national honor this will cause.
Anti-Americanism exists in Pakistan but it can be toned down if the United States reaches out to liberal forces, the business community, and the female population. The United States should also reach out to the younger generation in Pakistan, which may resent U.S. power but not its ideals. Indeed, youth in Pakistan support a U.S.- backed normalization of relations with India, the fight against religious extremism, and educational and institutional reforms.
U.S.-Pakistan relations will stand or fall based on whether they benefit the Pakistani nation. And in their success or failure lies the future of Islamic extremism in the country.