Beauty Queen Wants to Date Musharraf

Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf [Images] may be facing the heat from all corners but not from one Pakistani beauty pageants winner who says he is a “hunk”.

Reigning Miss Pakistan World Mahleej Sarkari found time last week to write a post on Musharraf on the pageant’s website.

“A little note to the people of Pakistan. Going to international pageants we have found out how much Musharraf is known to all beautiful young girls, the beauty queens. Some

have replied, ‘Oh yes, the general man (sic)’. While others have said ‘the man who rules Pakistan’,” wrote Sarkari.

“Everything positive… I think personally Musharraf Sahab is very good-looking. Some Pakistani politicians may not agree with these gorgeous women.

“You know like Benazir, all men around the world thought she was a beauty, similarly Musharraf is a hunk. He has enough charisma to have young girls going nuts,” goes the beauty queen’s post.

Sarkari said she would love to date Musharraf if he asked her out. “Yes, any time… I like him a lot…,” she told a news portal.

Sarkari also said she thought “Mrs Musharraf would nod her head in agreement that her husband is an icon no matter what happens”.

Sonia Ahmed, founder of the Miss Pakistan World pageant, too is a huge Musharraf fan. On the pageant’s website, there are several shots of beauty queens holding up Musharraf’s picture, blowing kisses and saying, “We love you Mushy”.

“Well, I am a huge fan of President Musharraf and so are my Miss and Mrs Pakistans and I don’t know why but we all look up to him as a man who gave freedom to the  entertainment industry and media.

Sarkari represented Pakistan in the Miss Tourism Queen International contest earlier this month in China.

While most contestants taking part in such pageants are non-resident Pakistanis, a few residents are flying out of the country to make a mark at these events.

Sarkari, a Baloch, was raised in Karachi and has been in Toronto for the past six years. She had gone to Canada [Images] to study but stayed on and now runs a spa business there.

When reminded that Musharraf was not exactly popular in her home province of Balochistan, Ahmed said, “I don’t care… that’s politics.”

Text: PTI | Image courtesy: mahleejsarkari.com

Tibet & China: Boycotting Carrefour

Boycotting Carrefour: Lessons for business from China

by Stephen Frost  sfrost@csr-asia.com

This morning, the China Daily reported that China’s Ministry of Commerce yesterday welcomed Carrefour’s statement that it opposes Tibet independence. At the same time, the Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) issued a statement that Carrefour currently hires more than 40,000 people in China (99% of whom are locals), has a sales turnover of nearly 30 billion RMB (US$4.29 billion), and 95% of products sold on the shelves are made in China.  When Carrefour entered the China market in 1995, it could not have imagined making such a statement, nor that the French President would personally intervene to protect its interests. And yet Chinese views on Tibet have been consistent for all that time; nothing has changed since 1995. In fact, Tibet is an issue on which the government has always drawn considerable support from its citizenry. So why has Carrefour (and the world it seems) been caught so off guard? This article suggests two basic shifts have occurred; i) China is no longer a factory, it is a market as well, and ii) Chinese consumers have a voice beyond China’s borders. Both shifts will have far reaching consequences. Boycotting Carrefour: Boycotting the products of western companies in Asia is nothing new. Mahatma Gandhi successfully persuaded Indians during the 1920s and 30s to boycott British goods and buy local products instead. In the early 1980s, Prime Minister Mahathir launched a “Buy British Last” campaign in Malaysia over tuition fees. More recently, Indian activists successfully pressured Coca-Cola with a “Quit India” campaign in 2005 over allegations of water misuse. Boycotts are nothing new in China either. In 1915, 1919 and again in 1931, China initiated campaigns against buying Japanese goods. And in 2005, aided by the Internet, Chinese netizens called for a boycott of all things Japanese. With greater access to the Internet, recent years have seen sporadic calls from netizens for action against mostly foreign companies (although local companies like clothing brand Semir have found themselves on the receiving end of Internet anger too). So at one level the calls for a boycott against Carrefour over the last few weeks are not surprising. Yet despite our familiarity with such events, this one has induced the feeling that there is a disconnect with previous consumer campaigns; that difference (which has forced Carrefour to reconsider the meaning of responsible business practices) mirrors a truly global market for ideas and influence. This change has the potential to change the way we understand stakeholder relations to responsible business practices because the definition of responsible is contested. For many years, one of the fundamental – but unspoken – assumptions underpinning ideas about social and environmental responsibility has been that Western companies are responsible (or have the potential to be responsible) and others are not. The definition of responsible was more or less agreed upon. This is most clearly seen in the supply chain; where most advocates for better business practices believe responsibility lies with companies like Nike, adidas, Reebok, Gap Inc., Levi’s, Wal-Mart, Tesco and Mattel. Foreign stakeholders know that factories supplying goods to brands and retailers don’t comply with law, regulations and codes of conduct, but believe that the best way to ensure they improve conditions is to pressure global brands to leverage their power as buyers to stimulate change. Outside the supply chain, the view that Western companies are responsible (or can be more easily pressured to be responsible) is evident when companies from the developing world (such as Lenovo or the China National Offshore Oil Corporation) purchase – or attempt to purchase – US or other global companies. An assumption – often stated – is that allowing such purchases is unwise because Chinese companies (in these cases) will export bad or irresponsible business practices. For example, when China Minmetals attempted to acquire Canada’s largest mining company Noranda in 2004, one of the loudest arguments from stakeholders in Canada was that Minmetals would export poor labour and environmental practices that would hurt Canadians. Even liberal voices (such as those from within the labour activist community, including trade unions) have based their strategies for ensuring more responsible business practices on the assumption that stakeholders need to hold Western companies accountable for their practices at home and abroad. This assumption has proven to be effective for twenty years; ever since Jeff Ballinger started writing about conditions in Indonesian factories in 1988 stakeholders have assumed that to improve workplace practices in Asia it is most effective to pressure factory clients (i.e., Nike and others). In a world where stakeholders have a common definition for responsible business practices, this strategy makes sense; labour activists or consumer campaign groups in Europe or North America are unlikely to have the influence or reach to force factories in Asia to change their behaviour. The strategy doesn’t make sense, however, in a world where stakeholders of equal importance disagree over what responsibility means. The view that stakeholders generally agree on definitions of responsibility has underpinned and reinforced a Euro- and US-centred view that Western companies are the solution because they agree (or can be pressured to agree) on what responsibility means. Many stakeholders will disagree, but the unspoken assumption in all of this is that the West is good and the rest is bad (which is ironic because much of the rhetoric from Europe and North America is the complete reverse).  Jin Jing was attacked as she carried the Olympic torch through Paris. (Photo from ESWN) The reasons for this assumption – that Western companies agree on how to define and have the power to be responsible and should use their power to pressure suppliers and business partners – are complex. First, the market is clearly larger in Europe and the US than elsewhere, so consumer pressure is more powerful there. Second, most investment originates in Europe and the US, so it makes sense to pressure companies investing offshore to be agents of change. But there is also an assumption that Western companies can be pressured to change whereas others cannot. Even in Hong Kong or other parts of Asia, stakeholders overwhelmingly tend to put pressure on foreign companies to affect change; not their local partners. My argument above, therefore, is that Western stakeholders have assumed a moral duty to ensure responsible business practices in the developing world (and specifically in China) in the absence of stakeholders in the developing world doing it themselves.   Strategically, this means that responsible practices in Asia (or China) are dependent upon foreigners pressuring foreign companies to in turn exert pressure over their suppliers and business partners. The assumptions underpinning this include the view that foreign direct investment overwhelmingly moves from the West to the East (e.g., from the US or Europe to China), and that the most important markets (where consumers have the most power) are in the West. Responsibility in a changing world: In this second part I suggest that none of these assumptions make sense any more, and that the implications of this argument are that i) the West can no longer assume agreement on the term business responsibility, particularly in non-Western parts of the world, and ii) the fundamental but unspoken belief driving a lot of discussion and action on CSR (i.e., it is the role of Western stakeholders and companies to build a better world) is no longer relevant. When “cd huakai fugui” started listing French companies on China’s most popular BBS forum (Tianya) on 10 April, there was no hint that Carrefour was the target for consumer action. In fact, the first companies listed were luxury brands like Chanel, Dior and Cartier. The posting was – as is well known now – a response to an attack on Jin Jing (a young Chinese wheelchair bound fencing champion) as she carried the Olympic torch through Paris (see photo left). Pictures of a young man supporting an independent Tibet trying to wrestle the flame from Jin circulated widely in China, particularly on BBS and other sites where condemnation of the protest reached fever pitch. While commentators in the West penned obituaries for the torch relay and pondered the enormity of China’s public relations disaster over Tibet, inside China the story was completely different. In fact, rather than a public relations disaster, the attack on Jin Jing simply provided more support for the Government’s view on Tibet and hardened public attitudes on i) the West’s perceived biases on China, ii) the Western media’s misreporting on China, and iii) the danger to China of calls for Tibetan independence. As Roland Soong noted on his ESWN blog: the pictures of the attack on Jin Jing set back any moderate discussion within China on Tibet by at least a generation. The failure by the Western press to understand this reflects a wider malaise in China commentary and understanding. Seeing only frenzied netizens, the media missed a much more important story; that is, the fact that Chinese stakeholders are now in a position to define and shape perceptions on what is responsible. Whereas a free Tibet is a virtually uncontested cause célèbre in the West, it is not in China (in fact, it is just the reverse). Until a month ago, Chinese views on Tibet were mostly written off as inconsequential; this is no longer the case (as the Carrefour statement quoted at the start of this article shows). I believe that the post by “cd huakai fugui” on Tianya has led to the emergence of different listening to Chinese voices. Within a day, comments on the Tianya BBS mushroomed to include the names of other French businesses operating in China. Within days, a rumour circulated on Chinese BBS forums that Bernard Arnault, France’s richest man and CEO of LVMH (Moët Hennessy Louis Vuitton), had provided financial support to the Dalai Lama Foundation. Arnault, along with a French investment company, holds a 10% stake in Carrefour, and so Carrefour – with 2 million customers and 122 hypermarkets – was an obvious target of rage. Carrefour and Arnault have since publicly and strenuously denied any support to the Dalai Lama. Whether they did or not is of little consequence here. Of more importance is the bigger picture; that old assumptions about who gets to determine and define social responsibility have been fundamentally challenged. The widespread calls to boycott Carrefour and the large protests – sometimes numbering in the thousands – outside Carrefour stores in China is a reflection of a powerful challenge to how we define responsibility. For the first time, a Western company’s responsible business practices are being effectively challenged by people whose view of responsibility is totally at odds with stakeholders abroad; stakeholders whose views have almost always been given primacy over Chinese views.  The slogan reads “Say No to France!” (Photo from Moobol.com) It is now almost certain that Carrefour and Arnault have not provided support to the Dalai Lama. Yet the truth of the events in China over the past two weeks is that Chinese stakeholders have shaped corporate notions of responsible practice. And they have shaped them in fundamental ways; French President Sarkozy has offered an apology to Jing Jing, as well as sent a special envoy to China to try and calm things down (proof surely of how seriously Carrefour and other French companies perceive Chinese stakeholders’ views). On not understanding a changing world: The inversion of a traditional view that the West shapes what good practices should be in China has profound implications, which mainstream analysts have yet to understand. Just this week, Francoise Lemoine, of the French economics think-tank CEPII said that Carrefour’s prospects depend more on its “capacity to insert itself in the Chinese industrial fabric” than on “political phenomena”. Suggesting that a company’s ability to ‘insert itself in the Chinese industrial fabric’ is not related to political phenomena is to ignore that the events in China over Carrefour include the Dalai Lama, Tibet’s future, the Olympics and China’s place in the world and are political at the most elemental level. The view that the protests in China are somehow removed from business assumes that business is somehow apolitical; it may aspire to be so, but surely the case in question here shows that a politically inspired mugging in Paris can spark a fire in China (and one that threatens to consume some of the goodwill and reputation Carrefour has built up over the last decade). For the first time, the capacity of a company to insert itself into the Chinese industrial fabric relies more on what Chinese stakeholders believe (no matter how wrong or misguided many believe they are) than what companies independently think they should do. There is nothing that Carrefour (or LVMH) can do to salvage the situation now (and the analysts are probably correct when they say that Carrefour’s retail business won’t really suffer), but other companies should be watching very carefully. Few companies have engaged with Chinese communities beyond a superficial level. Communication of CSR visions and strategies has been generally poor, and Chinese stakeholders have been increasingly asking whether foreign companies do CSR for stakeholders back home or for Chinese themselves. It’s a good question, and many companies would have to admit that it is for (more vocal and important) stakeholders back home. If anything, the anti-Carrefour protests show that the most vocal and important stakeholders may no longer be only in Europe and North America. And if that’s the case, those stakeholders may have entirely different views of what constitutes responsible business practice. Giving money to charities or causes that make sense in Paris or New York may not only not make sense in other parts of the world (which are now important markets for companies), but might also result in significant actions that damage reputations and market share. It is now possible that in supporting stakeholders’ views and opposing an independent Tibet (which may be good for business in China), Carrefour will enrage stakeholders back home (which may be bad for business in France). The world has heard Chinese stakeholders, and many have felt uncomfortable with the message. In an earlier time, these views (if heard at all) could have been easily sidelined. China is becoming an important market, but it also home to large and growing enterprises that are starting to purchase their clients, business partners, and brands or retailers. The have started to enter various sectors abroad and the next decade will see more Chinese companies entering major markets, either as brands (such as Li Ning in the sportswear market in the US), or by purchasing existing companies. The boycott against Carrefour is symbolic of a new era. It is more urgent than ever for Western companies to understand stakeholder concerns globally and at a deeper level than ever before. The world is not a unified market; the views of Chinese and many Westerners over Tibet are incommensurable. And they will be incommensurable over numerous other issues. For companies seeking to be socially responsible, this is a not insignificant issue. Conclusion: It is a cliché now to say that China (or Asia) matters. This usually means that we want China to think and act like the West. The anti-Carrefour protests are an example of the emergence of a truly global market in ideas and influence. Pressuring companies to be responsible may not be possible in the not too distant future. Major stakeholders are likely to clash more often on how to define responsible practices. Companies and stakeholders that fail to acknowledge this are destined to lose relevance as the focal point for influence shifts. Chinese consumers and other stakeholders have stood up and the Internet has provided them with a voice. Their purchasing power has given them a hearing. Story, as they say, is developing. ■

Zimbabwe: Stop Arms Shipments

Even as the Zimbabwe crisis worsens, an extraordinary solidarity movement has taken hold across Southern Africa–sparked by a South African dock workers’ union that refused to unload a Chinese shipment of Zimbabwe-bound weapons.[1]

Their refusal to facilitate Zimbabwe’s crackdown has ignited a wildfire that is spreading across the continent. Now, as pressure builds, China is publicly wavering–and might decide to bring the arms home.[2] Click below to sign a petition to keep arms away from Zimbabwe. The petition will be presented at a press conference in Johannesburg this Thursday morning, and used to lobby key leaders until the crisis ends. Join the call now:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/no_arms_for_zimbabwe/1.php

Three weeks on, the results of the March 29 elections have still not been released, and Zimbabwe’s crisis is getting worse. Mugabe’s government has unleashed a brutal campaign to retain power. The opposition says that ten have died, and hundreds have been injured; now, a “human wave” of refugees is fleeing to South Africa and other neighbouring countries.[3]

But even as the political emergency deepens, an African-led upswell of resistance has begun to turn the tide. In the last ten days:

• More than 150,000 Avaaz members worldwide signed the petition for democracy in Zimbabwe, including citizens of 53 of Africa’s 54 countries. The goal: prod South Africa’s president Mbeki to pressure Mugabe. To make sure the message got through, Avaaz hired a small plane to fly a 280 square metre (3000 sq ft) banner over the United Nations.[4] The next day, amidst pressure from other governments and worldwide media coverage of the Avaaz stunt, South Africa finally shifted its position on Zimbabwe.[5]
• Last week, a Chinese ship carrying 77 tonnes of Zimbabwe-bound weapons and ammunition docked in Durban, South Africa–but, refusing to aid Mugabe’s crackdown, the dockworkers refused to unload it. Unions, churches, and legal groups throughout Southern Africa quickly mobilized; the ship was forced to leave the harbour, and other ports in the region are vowing to block the weapons as well.[6]
• As the grassroots outcry has grown, political officials have begun to press their case. Zambian president Levy Mwanawasa urged other African leaders not to allow the weapons to reach Zimbabwe.[7] United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon and former UNSG Kofi Annan have called for democracy. And more and more other leaders in Africa and worldwide are joining in.

The Chinese arms ship is now sailing up the Western coast of Africa. Union officials tell Avaaz that it could stop in Namibia to refuel, but is probably headed towards Angola.[8] Time is short. A strong international outcry now can help support the groups in both countries–dockworkers, NGOs, and church leaders–who are working to block the weapons and support Zimbabwean human rights.

There is more at stake here than the weapons in this ship. Together, we can build a consensus that Zimbabwe should not be sold ANY weapons in this time of crisis–and in the longer term, we can build momentum for a strong international Arms Trade Treaty[9]. Moreover, stopping the flow of weapons provides a concrete, immediate step that leaders in the region can take on Zimbabwe–paving the way for stronger actions in coming days and weeks.

Add your name to the petition, and then send this link to friends and family:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/no_arms_for_zimbabwe/1.php

The situation in Zimbabwe is dire. But because of people power–the courage of ordinary workers and community members, standing on principle–the political currents are shifting, and hope is emerging for change. And in the global media, a new strain can be heard amidst the grinding stories of brutality and chaos.

This crisis has many layers, and raises issues that range from the legacy of colonialism to the uncontrolled international arms trade. At the heart of it is the simple idea that every human life is equally precious, and that every person has rights. The people of Zimbabwe took their stand in the voting booth. The dockworkers of South Africa took their stand at the harbour. Now, even if we can only offer a click, it is time to do our part as well.

With hope,

Ben, Ricken, Graziela, Galit, Paul, Iain, Pascal, and Veronique–the Avaaz.org team

Sources:

1. Business Day: “South Africa: Unions Bid to Halt Zimbabwe Arms Ship.” http://allafrica.com/stories/200804220109.html
2. New York Times: “China Says Shipment of Arms for Zimbabwe May Turn Back.” http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/world/africa/23zimbabwe.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
3. New York Times: “Human Wave Flees Violence in Zimbabwe.” http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/21/world/africa/21zimbabwe.html?ex=1366516800&en=0378560da461b30a&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
4. SW Radio Africa: “Mbeki put under pressure at the UN over Zimbabwe” http://www.swradioafrica.com/news170408/mbekipressure170408.htm
5. Globe and Mail: “South African leader forced to speak up after long keeping quiet on Mugabe.” http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080418.ZIMBABWEANALYSIS18/TPStory/TPInternational/Africa
6. Associated Press: “Zimbabwe’s neighbors unite to block arms shipment” http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i4kT7pJlnuzY_vpKdTACcQYIPcvQD9077G780
7. Reuters: “Zambia asks African states to bar Chinese ship” http://africa.reuters.com/wire/news/usnBAN223066.html
8. Ibid.
9. See http://controlarms.org.

________

ABOUT AVAAZ
Avaaz.org is an independent, not-for-profit global campaigning organization that works to ensure that the views and values of the world’s people inform global decision-making. (Avaaz means “voice” in many languages.) Avaaz receives no money from governments or corporations, and is staffed by a global team based in London, Rio de Janeiro, New York, Paris, Washington DC, and Geneva.

Don’t forget to check out our Facebook and Myspace pages!

You are getting this message because you signed “Stand with the Burmese Protesters” on 2007-09-30 using the email address shanghaivimi@yahoo.com.
To ensure that Avaaz messages reach your inbox, please add avaaz@avaaz.org to your address book. To change your email address, language settings, or other personal information, https://secure.avaaz.org/act/index.php?r=profile&user=1bd675481ea408d0a2931e91f9169c86&lang=en. , or simply go here to unsubscribe.

To contact Avaaz, please do not reply to this email. Instead, write to info@avaaz.org. You can also send postal mail to our New York office: 260 Fifth Avenue, 9th floor, New York, NY 10001 U.S.A.

If you have technical problems, please go to http://www.avaaz.org.

LUMS Professor Wants Musharraf to be Tried

The joint press conference in Islamabad on April 22, 2008 by Nawaz
Sharif  and Asif Ali Zardari has finally sent a message to Musharraf
and his allies that implementation of Murree Declaration of March 9,
2008 will be a final death blow to a 8-year-long dictatorial rule in
Pakistan. The issue of restitution of judges (reinstatement is wrong
notion as they are still judges) is in fact a question of great
important determining whether as a nation we are going to progress or
retard. In two-day parleys between leaders of coalition partners, the
final draft resolution to be presented in the Parliament has been
finalised and consensus is reached for restoring all the judges
without any conditionality or reservation. It is heartening to know
that it has been realised that illegally removed judge, in fact, never
ceased as judges. They are still judges, hence, question is not that
of their reinstatement but ordering of status quo ante existing on
November 2, 2007.  The Parliament unquestionably and unambiguously
under the Constitution has full authority to do so.

Certain quarters, including some members of legal fraternity, are of
the view that in the presence of judgements, namely, Tika Iqbal
Muhammad Khan v General Pervez Musharraf and 2 others (PLD 2008
Supreme Court 6) and Tika Iqbal Muhammad Khan v General Pervez
Musharraf and others (PLD 2008 Supreme Court 178), it is not possible
to restore the judges through passing of a resolution in the
Parliament and/or an executive order. They conveniently ignore the
fact that these judgements are coram non judice,  issued after seven-
member bench declared action of November 3, 2007 illegal. These
judgements also have no binding force as reached per incuriam in view
of ratio decided by the apex court in PLD 1997 SC 351. On the one
hand, it has been recorded that “Prime Minister apprised the President
of the situation through the letter of 3rd November 2007” for
imposition of emergency, and on the other order passed by the Chief of
Army Staff is approved, which is self-contradictory. It has not been
elaborated under what authority of law Chief of Army Staff imposed
emergency on the advice of Prime Minister. It is held that judges “who
have not been given, and who have not made, oath under the Oath of
Office (Judges) Order, 2007, have ceased to hold their offices on the
3rd day of November, 2007.”  Since the Oath of Office (Judges) Order,
2007 is void ab initio, any proceedings taken in pursuance of the same
are nullity in the eye of law. No judge can be removed except the
method provided in Article 209 of the Constitution.

The above-referred judgements of apex court, issued after seven-member
bench declaring action of November 3, 2007, are untenable without any
iota of doubt. It is the duty of the present government under Article
190 of the Constitution to implement the judgement of seven-member
bench declaring the action of November 3, 2007 as unlawful. The
following steps will be sufficient for the restitution of illegally
deposed judges and taking care of other important constitutional and
legal issues:

• In its resolution, newly-elected parliament denounces all the acts
taken on November 3, 2007 and resolves  that for a true democratic and
constitutional rule, a strong and independent judiciary is a sin qua
non.
• The following bills should be tabled and passed:
o Bill for ‘High Treason Act 1973 (Amendment Act 2008).
This Act amending High Treason Act, 1973 should provide that that in
case of violation of Article 6 of Constitution, it will be incumbent
upon the apex court to take immediate cognizance and direct the
Attorney General of Pakistan to initiate trial of offender. Thus in
future, the apex court instead of validating any violation of Article
6 will be legally obliged to punish the offender(s). It will send
clear message to imposer of emergency on November 3, 2007 to step down
voluntarily or face trial for his admitted extra-constitutional acts.
o Bill for ‘Oath of Judges, Act, 2008’ (invalidating Oath of Office
(Judges) Order 2007).
By Passing this Act, the National Assembly will pave the way for
reinstatement of November 2, 2007 Judiciary and nullify the judgements
of apex court, namely, Tika Iqbal Muhammad Khan v General Pervez
Musharraf and others (PLD 2008 Supreme Court 178) and Tika Iqbal
Muhammad Khan v General Pervez Musharraf and 2 others (PLD 2008
Supreme Court 6). With the passing of this Act, in future no judge
will be removed through any executive order or through any law related
to oath of judges.
o Bill for National Reconciliation Act 2008 (NRA)
In National Reconciliation Ordinance 2007, Musharraf intentionally
excluded cases registered after 12 October 1999 for ulterior motives
to exclude Nawaz Sharif and Shahbaz Sharif. In order to create a
genuine atmosphere of national reconciliation and put an end to
political victimization, this new Act should be passed immediately
removing all the time-specific and person-specific provisions in NRO,
2007, which are in direct conflict with Constitution, and extending
its scope to all the persons affected.

The above measures will pave the way for a new beginning in this
country ensuring the rule of law, constitutionalism, democracy and
justice through an independent judiciary.
_______________________________________________________
The writers (ikram@huzaimaikram.com), tax advisers, legal historians
and authors, are visiting Professors of Lahore University of
Management Sciences (LUMS).

India: Opposing a Multinational

 

People call Upon GAIN to leave India and Government of India to regulate PPPs

 

Media Brief: April 16 2008 

A joint action group constituted by 33 persons including individual experts, pediatricians, public health experts, representatives from 19 national organisations working in public interest in health, development, gender, education and nutrition sector made strong voice and protest to GAIN for sparing India from the hands of multinational consumer and food companies to which GAIN is a promising market builder

The group staged a silent protest using placards at the site of GAIN initiated meeting to call for an India Alliance for Infant and young child nutrition (IYCN) on 15^th April in Delhi.

The group submitted a pretest note to the GAIN representative in India and also interacted with the participants who were invited at the meeting and offered to answer any questions if they have while using their right to protest in the interest of people of India reeling with poverty, lack of food and lack of support to women who nurture the future of India.

Two members of the protest group also participated in the meeting and raised the points of ‘conflicts of interest’ while entering into any partnership.

Participants met immediately after the meeting and decided to work together for future action on these issues.

 

Contact for more information:

Dr Arun Gupta arun@ibfanasia.org 9911176306

Vandana Prasad 9891552425

Mira Shiva  9810582028

We the undersigned

Aware that hat infant and young child feeding and nutrition is a crucial period of child development and nutrition inputs are key to their survival, health and later developments;

Concerned the there is increasing interference of baby food/children’s food lobby on policy and implementation level for infant and young child feeding and nutrition;

Believe that such interference is conflicting with public interest;

Highly disturbed on the setting up an India Alliance led by GAIN the Global alliance for Improved nutrition, which is business interest NGO and its interests are creating markets for its partners like Unilever, Cargill, Danone, and Wockhardt;

 Noting that Government of India has failed to initiate public action in this area and now moving towards public private partnerships with MNCs to tackle the problem of child malnutrition;

 Appreciating the fact that the Ministry of HRD has not succumbed to the pressures of the Biscuit Manufacturers lobby and resisted the attempts to replace the hot, cooked mid-day meal with a packet of biscuits;

 Concerned that food supplies is a major problem as well as price rise which pushes people to poverty;

 Believe that MNCs would be keen to market their baby foods for infants and young children, which will perpetuate poverty;

 Seriously concerned that GAIN under Infant and child nutrition intends “to find new & sustained market for fortified food” and for ” promoting market driven solutions “

 Recognise that market solutions have failed where health and nutrition are concerned , specially where majority are poor , without purchasing power or purchasing with indebtedness  and they can’t  resist aggressively marketed products;

 Respect the Infant Milk Substitutes Feeding Bottles, and Infant Foods (Regulation of Production, Supply and Distribution) Act 1992 as amended in 2003, which prohibits promotion of all infant milk substitutes and baby foods for children below 2 years;

 Protest against such action and partnerships, which cater to profits and markets;

 Call upon Government of India, not to allow private manufacturers and multinationals to take over and compromise the nutrition of India’s infants and children;

 Call upon private players in nutrition to leave India’s children alone and submit our concerns explained in the document ‘Questioning Market Solutions for Child Malnutrition’

 

 1.      Devika Singh, Mobile Crèches

2.      Colin Gonsalves, HRLN

3.      Vandana Prasad, Jan Swasthya Abhiyan

4.      Vandana Shiva, Navdanya

5.      Shiv P Bhandari, Marketing Consultant Markman Marketing Associates

6.      Mira Shiva, Initiative for Health Equity & Society, AIDAN

7.      Sunita Bhasin, Swami Sivananda Memorial Institute (SSMI)

8.      K. Ashok Rao, National Confederation of Officers Associations (NCOA)

9.      Arun Gupta, BPNI

10. JP Dadhich, Pediatrician, SLJ Hospital Delhi

11. Kuldeep Khanna, Pediatrician, Jaipur Golden Hospital, Delhi

12. Dinesh Bhatt, PHRN

13. Karminder, Haryana Gyan Vigayan Samiti

14. Surekha, Haryana Gyan Vigayan Samiti

15. Mukesh, Haryana Vigyan Manch

16. Satbir, Haryana Vigyan Manch

17. Leena Menghaney, MSF

18. Gurminder Singh, Right to food campaign

19. Radha Holla, Consultant Women’s Health, Noida

20. Amit Sengupta, DSF

21. Maria Edna Martin, BPNI

22. Subrata Datta, Communication Consultant

23. Indira Chakravorty, JSA

24. Dipa Sinha, Right to Food Campaign

25. Haripriya Soibam, PHRN

26. Sudha Sundararaman, AIDWA

27. Anup Srivastava, HRLN

28. Sudeshna Sengupta, Mobile Creches

29. Beena Bhatt, IBFAN Asia

30. P.K Sudhir, Pitamapura Delhi

31. Tultul, Delhi Forces (Neenv)

32. Abhijit Visaria, ICCHN

33. Sulakshana Nandi, JSA

Questioning Market Solutions for Child Malnutrition

 

·        GAIN comes with a pre set mind aiming to build business for its partners. Proposed GAIN Forum in May 2007 lays down its intent. “…..The demonstrated benefits of GAIN’s new business models will attract some of its leading partners from the EU, European Governments, leading companies such as Cargill, Unilever and Danone, and representatives of major international organisations.”

·        Unlike traditional aid campaigns GAIN looks to build new markets for nutritious foods.  “

·        The new alliance is seen as “..champions for infant and young child feeding related issues in the country…”. And they will advocate for ‘IYCF friendly policy/ regulatory environment…. increasing access to affordable complementary foods/ complementary food supplements in accordance with the regulations in the country…”

·        Yakult Danone is a joint venture entrant to the probiotic foods market in India, they have already begun supporting pediatricians

·        In 2007, UNILEVER in partnership with UNICEF.…., “…we piloted an education programme for schoolchildren in Uganda highlighting the importance of hand-washing with soap, underpinned by our soap brand Lifebuoy. Coupled with this, the Unilever Marketing Academy helped develop health promotion campaigns in Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda. During the year the brand grew by 9%.”

·        Wockhardt, listed as one of the partners and who has recently acquired ‘Farex’ brand from DUMEX ( stated reason to give up is prohibition of promotion) Wockhardt has been recently found to be illegally promoting the ‘Farex Infant Formula’ through gifting ‘slip pads’ to doctors. Thus violating the Infant Milk Substitutes Feeding Bottles, and Infant Foods (Regulation of Production, Supply and Distribution) Act 1992 as amended in 2003.

·        This raises the question of who will decide what Indian children should eat- health and nutrition experts from India, or corporate driven bodies from abroad. 

·        Who should decide? Indian mouthpieces  of the business interest NGOs( BINGOs) or public interest NGOs (PINGOs) and the  GOs.

·        Why such special focus on fortified complementary foods ? Issue is not fortification but market based solution.

·        Who is interested in scaling business for Cargill, Danone, Unilever and Wockhardt?  Who wants to sell the little babies of India to MNCs?

·        Where are the guidelines for private sector and what is a private sector in the Partnerships?

 

These are open questions to all, including the Government of India

 

Notes on child malnutrition

·         Child malnutrion in India is essentially a problem of under 24 months so should be dealt entirely during or before that. It is so much so that it doubles up during first six months, reflecting undernutrition of mothers and infants. Further after six months it peaks by 2 years during the time it is due both to lack of food, that is hunger, and inadequate breastfeeding, with lots of other liquids or liquid like foods given to babies.

·         Child malnutrition is associated with majority of infant deaths. Most deaths of children under five occur during first year, and 2/3^rd of those during first month, due to newborn infections, diarrhoea and pneumonia.

·         In India , more than 1.4 million infants die each year, and about 36 million children under three are under nourished and do not develop to their full potential .

·         A cohort of more than 10 million under weights is added every year. These children continue to suffer the long term impact and pushed to severe child malnutrition due to hunger later in life.

·         Assuming that 27 million babies are born in India 75% women i.e. more than 20 million are NOT beginning breastfeeding within an hour. 72% i.e. close to 19.5 million women are NOT exclusively breastfeeding for six months and 48% i.e. close to 12 million are NOT giving solid/semisolid foods for complementary feeding to babies by 6-9 months.

·         According to the most updated scientific evidence one to one or group counselling/ education about breastfeeding and complementary feeding is the way to enhance these practices and after six months solid food supplements are required for food insecure populations.

·         Universal coverage of starting breastfeeding within one hour can avert 22% newborn deaths. Universal coverage of exclusive breastfeeding can cut down diarrhea deaths by 4.6 times, and pneumonia deaths by 2.5 times.

·         As a public health recommendation WHO, UNICEF, Government of India recommend exclusive breastfeeding for the fist six months of life and after six months, mothers milk plus complementary feeding using semisolid/solid family foods is recommended.

·        The Infant Milk Substitutes Feeding Bottles, and Infant Foods (Regulation of Production, Supply and Distribution) Act 1992 as amended in 2003, bans promotion of all kinds of foods marketed for babies under the age 2.

 

Please spare a few minutes to post your comment, for or against the PPPs and how GAIN operates, this will allow us to know the world opinion about this issue.

Link to reach our report is http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-11952

Is Hillary Clinton a Liar?

This is how Nawaz Sharif and Zardari Appear to Behave Nowadays

Attitude of Sub Chaltai Hai in Pakistan

Over the last ten years, due to the politics of confrontation, instability and breakdown in the system of governance, the government has never given any importance to quality and standards nor to the enforcement of laws that govern these two very important components of civil society.

 

This is reflected in our daily lives, in which ‘chalta hai’ has become our attitude towards everything. This lack of respect for the rule of law and quality and standards is reflected in our education and health system, in professional and business organizations, our traffic and in even our individual behavior.

 

Educated and ‘enlightened’ citizens fail to demand quality and have no respect for the law and flout it with impunity. As such, we are witnessing a breakdown of law and order and our streets have become a lawless jungle, where might is right and our markets are flooded with substandard, look alike, and counterfeit products and Pakistan has become a dumping ground for such goods.

 

In the absence of a democratically elected government and the lack of good governance, the citizens have reached a breaking point and violence and aggressive behavior has become their tools to express their anger and frustration against the social injustices in their lives.

 

For the last two years we have witnessed violence in the streets of our cities, in which hundreds of innocent citizens have been mercilessly killed just because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. And this is mainly due to the fact that the government has failed to establish its writ in the country.

 

Today Pakistan, though a nuclear state, must be the only country in the developing countries that is without Consumer Protection laws, Consumer Courts and an effective National Quality policy. Due to the lack of these laws, the rights of consumers are being constantly abused, both by government and manufactures.

 

Newspapers carry stories of innocent citizens being killed due to collapsed buildings because of violation of building laws and use of standard materials, fires caused by electrical short circuit and lack of fire escapes, exploding boilers, substandard gas, CNG and LPG cylinders and substandard and unhygienic foods, beverages and medicines, but the authorities take only cosmetic steps to appease the public.

 

Because of government’s apathy and lack of interest, consumerism nor consumer protection has taken root in Pakistan. Though a Consumer Protection law was introduced in Islamabad in 1996, it remains dormant and ineffective. The Balochistan CPL was introduced in 2000, but that too remains ineffective.

The Sindh Governor had signed the Consumer Protection Ordinance, Sindh, on 12^th August 04 three times, but because of lack of interest and political will, the Ordinance has lapsed each time, as it was never presented to the Provincial Assembly for ratification. As such, Sindh is still without a Consumer Protection law. Punjab is the only province in Pakistan that has introduced a CPL and consumer courts, which are proving to be very effective in enforcing the food laws and quality and standards.

The government has established Pakistan Standards & Quality Control Authority (PSQCA), to set standards and monitor and check the quality of the products. It has the authority to take effective action against those who violate these standards, which includes fines and imprisonments.

 

Unfortunately, due to poor management and lack of interest and commitment by those who manage its affairs, it has lost its credibility to control quality and standards. Its quality logo is being misused by unscrupulous manufacturers, who print the PSQCA logo on substandard products without even registering themselves with them.

 

 Due to the lack of enforcement of laws, our markets are flooded with substandard, adulterated and look alike products, including life saving drugs and we have become a ‘number doo’ nation, which has badly affected our local industry and exports.

 

However, one must accept the fact that manufacturers face a dilemma. If they were to strictly follow international standards for quality, they would not be able to market their products, as majority of our citizens live below the poverty line and their products would be out of their reach. As such, they are forced to compromise and manufacture and market ‘sasta maal’.

At the same time, those who adhere to international standards are unable to compete with the unregulated industries, who manufacture counterfeit, substandard and look alike products without fear of punishment.

 

A recent survey has shown that most of the manufacturers of these products are not registered and they do not pay taxes, electric or water bills, etc.,, due to which the government is loosing Rs. 15 billion per year in revenue. This has had a negative effect in the investment climate and has also tarnished our image in the International community.

 

In its thirst for foreign investment, the past government had totally compromised on its policies and on quality and standards and its related laws. This has resulted in its misuse by giant conglomerates, who find Pakistan a ‘soft target’ for investment and quick returns, with no questions asked, for which the consumers have to pay.

 

The examples are the scandals relating to the privatization of the Steel Mill, KESC, PTCL, cartels by banks, manipulation in the stock exchange, the poor services of the mobile and internet services, the misuse of TV channels, etc.

 

The lack of attention to quality and standards has also reflected in our exports and Pakistan is loosing its traditional markets. In developing countries, there are strict consumer protection laws, trade and IPR regulations and standards to protect consumers from substandard products.

 

India has attached great importance to quality, standards and consumer protection and had established a Ministry for Consumer Affairs, a federal Consumer Protection Law and consumer courts in 1986. Because of this initiative, there are now over 2000 consumer courts and 5000 consumer organizations that are actively involved in demanding quality protects and services and in protecting consumer rights. This has also led to a tremendous improvement in the quality of their products and services, especially the IT industry. This has given a big boost to its exports.

 

To overcome this serious crisis, our government must give attention to quality and standards and ensure that they meet the health and safety standards of consumers under the WTO trade regime. The previous cabinet has already approved a comprehensive National Quality Policy & Plan (NQP&P).

 

An Implementation Committee, headed by the Fed. Minister for S&T and represented by all relevant public and private sector organizations, has been constituted to oversee implementation of this policy under Abdul Rashid Khan, DG, Pakistan National Accreditation Council (PNAC), who is to provide secretarial services and act as secretary to the committee.

 

To expedite and facilitate preparation of viable proposals, funds have also been allocated and a preliminary meeting for the implementation of NQP&P, was convened at Islamabad in September 2005 in the Ministry of Science and Technology.

 

In the meeting, I had warned Ch. Nouraiz Shakoor, former Minister, S&T, that due to poor quality and standards, Pakistani products would loose a major chunk of its exports to the developing countries in our region and our products would end up in being sold in cheap malls and flea markets. And this is exactly what has happened and we have lost a major portion of our markets to Bangladesh and Sri Lanka.

 

At the recent National Conference on Consumer Protection, organized by The Helpline Trust in collaboration with PNAC, the DG had emphasized that: ‘Consumers play a major role in the economic growth of any country. Being the key contributor in promotion of national and international trade, their acceptance and rejection of sub standard and low quality goods and services can make or break an industry’.

 

One hopes that Ms. Tahmina Daultana, the new minister for S&T appreciates this fundamental need to establish quality and standards through a NQP and consumer laws and courts in Pakistan and takes appropriate steps without any further delay.  

 

For registration of consumer complaints against substandard products or services, please visit HT web site: www.helplinetrust.org

 

H. Maker. (email: trust@super.net.pk).

 

Americans are Responsible for the Suicidal Bomb Attacks

March 19, 2008
Shireen M Mazari

As a new elected parliament has come into play and a new government
will soon follow, the new bonhomie between the major political parties
has been welcomed by the nation as a first step in enforcing the
national consensus on crucial issues such as restoration of the
judiciary, civilian supremacy and a free media. However, there are two
very important issues relating to external policy that will require
immediate attention and some distancing from our past policies will
now be possible so that our national sovereignty and lost political
space can be reclaimed. Equally important, we need to reclaim the
principle of reciprocity which has been lost on both counts.

The first is the issue of the terrorist threat that confronts us
post-9/11. In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, hurried and expansive
concessions were made to the US which made us a frontline state in the
US-led war on terror. Subscribing to the US’s military-centric
approach, we have seen an increasing space created for terrorists
within Pakistan and equally dangerous, we have seen the US shift the
centre of gravity of the war on terror from Afghanistan to Pakistan’s
tribal belt. Discussing the whole range of issues which necessitate
our delinkage from the US-led war on terror to a more national
strategy is not the intent of this column although one has written and
spoken extensively on the issue. However, it is worth drawing
attention to some aspects that are now arising in connection with
terrorism. On the issue of reciprocity, the US, along with its allies
in the EU, has not shown an iota of reciprocity even at a basic level
of declaring certain groups wanted in Pakistan for terrorism as
terrorist groups. Worse still, the US has shown no sensitivity to our
relations with Iran as they continue to use parts of Balochistan to
destabilise the Iranian state through Iranian Sistan.

Beyond the reciprocity principle, the US is deliberately undermining
our policy of attempting to adopt a more holistic approach towards
dealing with the terrorist issue by increasingly conducting predator
and missile attacks on Pakistani territory — without even notifying
Pakistan let alone seeking its permission. Yet, without a holistic
approach which should include dialogue with the extremists who are
prepared to talk, the isolation of the terrorists cannot even begin to
be achieved — and that after all is the desired strategy of a war
against terrorism. Ironically, it was the US which compelled the
British government to talk to the extremists and terrorists at the
time, the IRA, in order to conclude a political deal and peace in
Northern Ireland. The Philippine government has been doing the same in
dealing with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), so that now the
terrorists on the fringe have become increasingly isolated. Yet we in
Pakistan have not begun to move effectively in this direction. The
result has been an increase in terrorism all across Pakistan,
especially in the urban centres.

In fact, there are some interesting facts that have come to light in
the case of the attacks against the FIA in Lahore and the targeting of
a restaurant in Islamabad — and these facts highlight the US linkage
that is exacerbating violence in Pakistan. The terrorist attack in
Model Town F block was intended to target a building which had been
habited by the Punjab Special Investigative Unit (SIU). A terrorist
mastermind, Qari Zafar, who had been behind the attack on the US
Consulate in Karachi was being interrogated in that building but
managed to escape. He had vowed to get back at his interrogators.
Since the building could not be easily accessed directly from the
front, the terrorists chose to go behind through the servant quarters
of the building behind. It is believed that the FBI had sent a special
anti-terror unit to Lahore at around the time of the terrorist attacks
against the two FIA targets — on the assumption of a close link
between the FIA and the FBI, although FIA sources have denied this
latter assertion.

The attack on the restaurant in Islamabad seems to have been more in
the form of a targeted killing of FBI personnel since one injured
eyewitness has stated that he saw something being lobbed across the
wall. Look at the data available: The attack was not on the main
building but on the terrace behind. The timing was precisely when the
FBI personnel were eating there and the destructive capacity was just
enough to target these people. The method and weapon used is not the
usual Al-Qaeda hallmark, so one has to wonder whether the excessive
number of US intelligence and military personnel in Pakistan are going
to offer another form of targets for terrorists — and in the process
result in innocent Pakistani deaths as is happening in the tribal belt
at the hands of predator attacks. Any way one looks at it, Pakistani
lives are being lost in callous collateral damage. Let us hope the new
government in Pakistan will do a thorough examination of the war on
terror so far, our alliance with the US and more viable alternatives.
At the end of the day, preservation of Pakistani lives and territorial
security must be the main priorities.

Which brings me to the second issue that requires the implementation
of reciprocity. The Indian government, media and civil society is
building hype about the impending operationalisation of the death
sentence of Indian spy Sarabjit Singh by Pakistan. Some are taking the
humanitarian posture while others like the BJP are demanding that the
Indian government talk “sternly” to Pakistan! What an irony. Where
were the humanitarian voices in India when their government callously
killed an innocent Pakistani and dumped his body at Wagah border –
this being just one instance of the brutal way the Indian state deals
with its Pakistani prisoners — even as Pakistan chose to release an
Indian spy with compensation?

Now suddenly Indian MPs, including Rahul Gandhi, are opposing the
execution of the Indian spy. Why have they maintained a complete
silence on the treatment being meted out by their government to
Pakistani prisoners and to the killing of Khalid Mahmood? Even now, as
Indian voices rise in support of their spy, no one has deemed fit to
condemn what their state just did to the innocent Pakistani. Under
these circumstances, if the new Pakistani government — one has little
expectation of anything sensible from Ansar Burney after his
grandstanding with Indian spy Kashmir Singh — succumbs to Indian
pressure it will send wrong signals to India and reciprocity will be
buried as a guiding principle for future Pakistan-India dealings.
Surely no new government, no matter how strong its proclivity to reach
out to India, should succumb to the pressures of public relationing
which will impose a heavy cost for Pakistan in future dealings with
India.

Let me state that I am opposed to capital punishment in principle on a
number of counts and have written numerous times on this issue (see
The News, 28 June 2006). However, equally, I feel if we are to stay
executions, we must not do so only for foreign nationals – as we did
for the British citizen who killed a taxi driver in Rawalpindi. Are
foreign lives more precious than Pakistani lives for our state? As for
Manmohan Singh talking “sternly” to Pakistan, the very fact that the
BJP can make such a statement shows the perception of Pakistan in New
Delhi presently: Seeking concessions through diktat!

This is what we have been reduced to, thanks to our non-reciprocal
mode of cooperative behaviour with the US post-9/11. Our new and
assertive democratic dispensation must restore our sovereignty and
national dignity by retrieving the reciprocity principle.

The writer is director general of the Institute of Strategic Studies,
Islamabad. Email: smnews80@hotmail.com

Why Shariah? A NYT Story

 

 

The High Court in Cairo. In Egypt

Last month, Rowan Williams, the archbishop of Canterbury, gave a nuanced, scholarly lecture in London about whether the British legal system should allow non-Christian courts to decide certain matters of family law. Britain has no constitutional separation of church and state. The archbishop noted that “the law of the Church of England is the law of the land” there; indeed, ecclesiastical courts that once handled marriage and divorce are still integrated into the British legal system, deciding matters of church property and doctrine. His tentative suggestion was that, subject to the agreement of all parties and the strict requirement of protecting equal rights for women, it might be a good idea to consider allowing Islamic and Orthodox Jewish courts to handle marriage and divorce.

Skip to next paragraph

Related

Letters: Why Shariah? (March 30, 2008)

Enlarge This Image

Stephanie Sinclair for The New York Times

The practical application of Shariah in most Muslim countries (as here, in this Egyptian courtroom) is in matters of family law.

Then all hell broke loose. From politicians across the spectrum to senior church figures and the ubiquitous British tabloids came calls for the leader of the world’s second largest Christian denomination to issue a retraction or even resign. Williams has spent the last couple of years trying to hold together the global Anglican Communion in the face of continuing controversies about ordaining gay priests and recognizing same-sex marriages. Yet little in that contentious battle subjected him to the kind of outcry that his reference to religious courts unleashed. Needless to say, the outrage was not occasioned by Williams’s mention of Orthodox Jewish law. For the purposes of public discussion, it was the word “Shariah” that was radioactive.

In some sense, the outrage about according a degree of official status to Shariah in a Western country should come as no surprise. No legal system has ever had worse press. To many, the word “Shariah” conjures horrors of hands cut off, adulterers stoned and women oppressed. By contrast, who today remembers that the much-loved English common law called for execution as punishment for hundreds of crimes, including theft of any object worth five shillings or more? How many know that until the 18th century, the laws of most European countries authorized torture as an official component of the criminal-justice system? As for sexism, the common law long denied married women any property rights or indeed legal personality apart from their husbands. When the British applied their law to Muslims in place of Shariah, as they did in some colonies, the result was to strip married women of the property that Islamic law had always granted them — hardly progress toward equality of the sexes.

In fact, for most of its history, Islamic law offered the most liberal and humane legal principles available anywhere in the world. Today, when we invoke the harsh punishments prescribed by Shariah for a handful of offenses, we rarely acknowledge the high standards of proof necessary for their implementation. Before an adultery conviction can typically be obtained, for example, the accused must confess four times or four adult male witnesses of good character must testify that they directly observed the sex act. The extremes of our own legal system — like life sentences for relatively minor drug crimes, in some cases — are routinely ignored. We neglect to mention the recent vintage of our tentative improvements in family law. It sometimes seems as if we need Shariah as Westerners have long needed Islam: as a canvas on which to project our ideas of the horrible, and as a foil to make us look good.

In the Muslim world, on the other hand, the reputation of Shariah has undergone an extraordinary revival in recent years. A century ago, forward-looking Muslims thought of Shariah as outdated, in need of reform or maybe abandonment. Today, 66 percent of Egyptians, 60 percent of Pakistanis and 54 percent of Jordanians say that Shariah should be the only source of legislation in their countries. Islamist political parties, like those associated with the transnational Muslim Brotherhood, make the adoption of Shariah the most prominent plank in their political platforms. And the message resonates. Wherever Islamists have been allowed to run for office in Arabic-speaking countries, they have tended to win almost as many seats as the governments have let them contest. The Islamist movement in its various incarnations — from moderate to radical — is easily the fastest growing and most vital in the Muslim world; the return to Shariah is its calling card.

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6

Next Page »

 

Noah Feldman, a contributing writer for the magazine, is a law professor at Harvard University and an adjunct senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. This essay is adapted from his book “The Fall and Rise of the Islamic State,” which will be published later this month.