Sustainability: Outcome of the Kabul Conference

I like guests. But perhaps I should say, “We all like guests, regardless of the intentions of their visit.” Having guests is always an occasion to bring out the best in us, as well as to adorn our tables with the best tablecloths, plates and tastiest food. July 20, 2010 started like any other day, but this one was more memorable than others. The occasion was the Kabul Conference, a date that may well be marked a special day in Afghanistan’s history and future calendars. As an ordinary citizen I was amazed and gratified at the great effort made by leaders of the world who made their way to Kabul for this very unique event. There I was, sitting in front of the humble TV or “everyman’s window to the world”, watching the arrival of dignitaries at the reception area designated at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The repeating refrain was in my mind that, “They’re doing this for us, for suffering Afghanistan…” The level of my appreciation and gratitude was greatly increased after every speech, each speaker confirming again and again the sense of responsibility, commitment and confirmation of support for which Afghanistan has been looking for so many years. At last! Real recognition and hope. Just like everyone Afghan I have always been thinking, wondering, if it were possible for real change to come - change and an active vision which the people of country need and which Afghans deserve. There is hope. There is expectation. And there are promises. We have a right after 30 years to have expectations. I should say that we still have hope. Seeing these visitors, listening to their words, I am encouraged. Regardless of the financial figures trotted out, expectations and hope are needed by both Afghans, and the international community. My concern however is about the understanding of the values which has been extended to Afghans by the entire world, while making best use of the tremendous opportunity envisioned at the Kabul Conference. Here my anticipation at the outcome of the conference is aligned with Victor Hugo’s famous quote “You can resist an invading army, you cannot resist an idea whose time has come.” This idea is sustainability: Sustainable government, sustainable security, sustainable political system, sustainable economy, sustainable society, sustainable businesses, sustainable army and sustainable energy. But the philosophy of sustainability is not limited to just these areas. In essence I suggest that sustainability is the creation of a functioning, constructive and forward-looking socio-political environment that enables the people of this country to carry forward one generation to the next. “Sustainability” is not a complex word, nor a complex concept. Yet for Afghanistan it has been an elusive, vague and impossible goal. It can easily be defined as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” The idea of sustainable development is nothing new, for through the ages societies have learned in varying degrees to balance social, environmental and economic elements in order to prosper and continue. At its core, sustainable development is about creating a fair balance and interaction among key elements common to societies everywhere. There are a few examples that might consider for example, that are common to all civilized peoples being in the 21st century. Areas that include basic human rights, internal and external peace and security, justice, equality for all citizens male and female, and cultural diversity are primary for a progressive or developing society. There are the essential natural elements necessary for the economic and social well being of every country such as access to clean water, adequate supplies of energy, diverse and supported agricultural resources including lakes, rivers and forests, and clean air. We must develop and nurture an understanding of the limits and potential of economic growth, essential for establishment of a dynamic economic model to support current and succeeding generations. These are important considerations such as the reduction and elimination of poverty, coupled with the economic and social support for the most disadvantaged of society, responsible use and consumption of natural resources, corporate responsibility, energy efficiency and conservation, waste management, employment and education. Certain and defined guiding moral and ethical principles that support, encourage and enable sustainable development to occur through the promotion of upstanding and transparent social and governing commitments and structures at the local, regional and international levels are very necessary for the effective integration of both government and private enterprise to the benefit of the State and its inhabits. And finally there are the shared attitudes, values, language, goals and practices that provide the framework for sustainability as they guide and shape our day-to-day activities, providing a momentum and common reference for all citizens. Afghanistan is not unique in its being multi-cultural and multi-lingual, characteristics found world-wide. But with vision, courage and commitment, Afghanistan can do it differently, putting behind it the divisions of history, race, culture and rivalry to form a society that is strong in its unity, courageous in its commitment, and resolute in its determination. Charles Darwin wrote that “It is not the strongest of the species that survives, or the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.” As Afghans we must stand together while change encircles us, working hard with common purpose and commitment to bequeath the greatest gift of all to those after us: the gift of a healthy, whole and solid nation for future generations, an Afghanistan that our generations consider it home and live with pride and love. Sustainability is a journey rather than a destination in itself. The journey starts with the decision of willingness to explore the issues that matter most, accepting that the status quo cannot continue if we are to have a quality life in succeeding generations. It is important that we understand where we currently stand and where we want to go, whether we are just starting out or we have already begun to build a sustainable Afghanistan. The Kabul Conference and its agenda have provided all of us with the opportunity to move forward and to grasp our future with both hands. Now it is not the time to hesitate.
Raaz Hassan is the chairman of Siemens Afghanistan. He can be reached at raaz.hassan@gmail.com

Can Russia escape the “resource curse” implied by high oil prices, or will it succumb to what we call a “70-80” scenario? That is the question confronting Russians today, and we fear that their fate will be the latter: if oil prices remain at $70-80 per barrel, Russia is likely to relive key features of the Brezhnev era of the 1970’s and 1980’s – with a stagnating economy and 70-80% approval ratings for its political leaders. The resource curse means, of course, that Russian elites will prefer to postpone restructuring the economy and modernizing the country’s political and economic institutions. This will undermine economic performance, making it very unlikely that Russia will catch up with the advanced economies in the next 10-15 years, as officials promise. Fast and sustainable economic growth requires the rule of law, accountable, meritocratic, and non-corrupt bureaucrats, protection of property rights, contract enforcement, and competitive markets. Such institutions are difficult to build in every society. In Russia, the task is especially problematic, because the ruling elite’s interests run counter to undertaking it. In post-crisis Russia, the resource curse is reinforced by two factors. First, massive renationalization since 2004 has left state-owned companies once again controlling the commanding heights of the economy. These firms have no interest in developing modern institutions that protect private property and promote the rule of law. Second, Russia’s high degree of economic inequality sustains the majority’s preference for redistribution rather than private entrepreneurship. Russia’s leaders acknowledge the need for modernization, and pay it frequent lip-service, as is evidenced by President Dmitri Medvedev’s manifesto “Go, Russia!” But the incentives to escape the resource trap are weakened by the overwhelming importance of the resource rents to the wider political elite. When the economy was near collapse during the recent crisis, we thought that the government would recognize the need to push ahead with radical reforms that would eventually lead to a diverse, de-centralized, and fast-growing economy. But, while stimulus policies were mostly effective in dealing with the immediate crisis, they did not address the long-term issues that impede growth. Still, the government continues to tout plans to boost the economy. Vertical industrial policy, horizontal industrial policy, investment in education – all have been tried in the last ten years. Yet Russia’s public institutions remain as weak as ever (for example, corruption is as prevalent as it was 10 years ago, if not more so), and the economy is no less dependent on commodity prices. Today’s economic silver bullet is an “innovation city” in Skolkovo, which the government hopes will spur inflows of modern technology. But there are no magic recipes for modernization. Moreover, there is no need to reinvent the wheel. A comprehensive and consistent reform plan was already included in then-President Vladimir Putin’s own economic agenda at the beginning of his first term in 2000. The so-called Gref Program (named after former Minister of the Economy German Gref) foresaw many of the reforms that are vitally needed – privatization, deregulation, accession to the World Trade Organization, and reform of the government, natural monopolies, and social security. Many of these reforms are outlined in the current government’s own “Long-Term Strategy for 2020.” The problem is that – as with the Gref program in 2000 – the Strategy is unlikely to be fully implemented, owing to the same old weak incentives. Even the recently announced privatization of non-controlling stakes in the largest state-owned firms – while timely and laudable – will not create an irreversible commitment to reform. So far, the government does not want to let control over these firms get into private hands. Hence, the sales that Prime Minister Putin announced will not increase the demand for pro-market institutions. By contrast, the “70-80” scenario seems increasingly likely. In June, during the St. Petersburg Economic Forum, participants in two sessions – Russian government and business leaders, as well as influential foreign players – were asked about the future of Russia’s economy. The results were drearily similar. In one session, 61% of participants foresaw stagnation in the next 2-5 years (33% predicted growth and 5% expected a crisis). In the other session, 55% of participants foresaw stagnation in the next ten years (with 41% projecting growth and 4% expecting collapse). The factors that drove the Putin era of rapid economic growth – high and rising oil prices, cheap labor, and unused production capacity – are all exhausted. Russia will thus be forced to start spending the reserves that saved the economy in the recent crisis. The “70-80” scenario will preserve the status quo, but eventually the economy will reach a dead end, at which point the only choice will be genuine economic reform or decline and dangerous civil disorder. (Courtesy Project Syndicate)
Aleh Tsyvinski is Professor of Economics at Yale University. Sergei Guriev is Rector of the New Economic School, Moscow.

After months of debate, French parliament is voting on banning the burqa or the veil worn by Muslim women. By the time you read this, deputies of lower house of parliament would have passed the vote with an overwhelming majority and the Senate in all probability will follow suit in September. Only three members of the Green party have voiced their opposition while opposition Socialists have boycotted the vote. If the lawmakers from President Nicolas Sarkozy’s party are vociferously campaigning against the veil, they’re only reflecting the strident public opinion that is opposed to the Islamic custom, if opinion polls are to be believed. Sarkozy himself, who launched the campaign against the veil, has condemned the burqa saying it “hurts the dignity of women and is not acceptable in French society.” The country that gifted the Statue of Liberty to America has already banned hijab and other forms of religious identity in schools, leading to massive protests by the largest Muslim community in Europe. The French are not alone in what can be described as unprecedented Islamophobia in Europe though. Belgium, which is close to France in many ways and is home to the European Union headquarters and European parliament, recently passed a similar vote against the veil. In neighbouring Swiss paradise, they have put a ban on minarets. What is going on in the continent that gave the world Magna Carta, the first charter of human rights in the world, and democracy? Not long ago, Europe and the brilliant EU experiment were viewed as role models of progress, political freedom and civil liberties by the rest of the world. In fact, this is precisely why people from around the world risked – and still do—their lives and paid a huge price to head to Europe and realise their dreams. All that appears to be a thing of the past now. Maybe this is a natural reaction to the recent phenomenon of extremist violence by some Muslims. Maybe it has something to do with the sense of insecurity that haunts some Europeans because of the growing tide of Muslims – and other immigrants—around them in a white, Christian continent. Whatever the explanation, this Muslims-coming hysteria, fanned in this case by governments and politicians, is disturbing, to say the least. As France’s main Muslim body has rightly pointed out, the full-face veil is not mandatory according to Islam. It’s more of a custom. In fact, more than half of Muslim women don’t wear it. In France, the number is less than 2,000. This is why many believe that the French move is a ploy by the ruling party to attract rightwing voters and ensure Sarkozy’s re-election. But measures like these are only fuelling the already strong anti-Muslim sentiment in the West. Let’s not forget that not long ago, Europe witnessed a similar campaign against the Jews that eventually resulted in thousands of them being sent to their death by the Nazis. European governments, lawmakers and the media must therefore desist from once again unleashing a monster that cannot be coaxed back into the bottle. It’s in their own interest. (Courtesy Khaleej Times)

As the untamable insurgency in Afghanistan requires more forces, sources and funds, the British Prime Minister has indicated possible involvement of Chinese forces in this mission, saying that all nations should see Afghanistan as the frontline in the fight against terrorism. China has, so far, played significant role in areas of reconstruction. Based on historical background and longstanding friendship between the two countries that also share a common border, the people in Afghanistan continue to remain receptive of the generous assistance China has provided. China is set to increase its investments in Afghanistan, which will contribute to economic development of the country. More over, many view Chinese future investments in Afghanistan to be as an engine in the country’s economy. Chinese companies ZTE and Huawei are working the Afghan Ministry of Communications to implement digital telephone switches, providing roughly 200,000 subscriber lines. Many Chinese firms are hired to implement various construction projects and rebuilding of roads in Afghanistan. On Friday, November 14, 2008, Gordon Brown told the New York’s council on Foreign Relations of China’s possible plans for deploying forces to Afghanistan. NATO commanders have been calling for more footprints but this demand has not been met since the country has undergone a downward spiral. British premier also announced that his country is considering dispatching 2000 additional troops to join its 8000 forces already operating in Afghanistan mainly in southern part of the country. The US president-elect, Barack Obama has viewed the troop surge as a panacea and strategic renewal for getting rid of the violent militancy and insurgency in Afghanistan and region. Gordon Brown also said earlier that he would support Obama’s call for more European troops, if other countries would also ‘share the burden. Needless to say, it is important to meet the requirements of cracking down on the insurgents to win the war in Afghanistan.

The US is wasting billions of dollars that would be better spent on reconstruction The American House of Representatives has voted in favour of $37 billion (Dh136 billion) in new funding for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, despite official administration claims that both engagements will draw to a close in the foreseeable future. It is sad that these huge resources are being allocated for military purposes, rather than rebuilding the shattered nations. It is a waste of money that could be much better spent. The sorry tale of American spending in Iraq has included a colossal proportion wasted on private security companies carrying out semi-military functions, such as the corrupt Blackwater Corporation (now called Xe Services), with a shockingly small proportion being spent on essential infrastructure and services such as schools and hospitals. The same miserable pattern is being repeated in Afghanistan, but the truth is that the country needs an economic and social boost far more than it needs Nato to support its government. The soldiers will leave in time, but the infrastructure would stay and have a long-lasting effect, reducing the need for huge foreign or Afghan security forces as growing prosperity started to have its natural effect. Congress should insist that over half of the new funding is spent on civilian aid. (Courtesy Gulf News)

After months of debate, French parliament is voting on banning the burqa or the veil worn by Muslim women. By the time you read this, deputies of lower house of parliament would have passed the vote with an overwhelming majority and the Senate in all probability will follow suit in September. Only three members of the Green party have voiced their opposition while opposition Socialists have boycotted the vote. If the lawmakers from President Nicolas Sarkozy’s party are vociferously campaigning against the veil, they’re only reflecting the strident public opinion that is opposed to the Islamic custom, if opinion polls are to be believed. Sarkozy himself, who launched the campaign against the veil, has condemned the burqa saying it “hurts the dignity of women and is not acceptable in French society.” The country that gifted the Statue of Liberty to America has already banned hijab and other forms of religious identity in schools, leading to massive protests by the largest Muslim community in Europe. The French are not alone in what can be described as unprecedented Islamophobia in Europe though. Belgium, which is close to France in many ways and is home to the European Union headquarters and European parliament, recently passed a similar vote against the veil. In neighbouring Swiss paradise, they have put a ban on minarets. What is going on in the continent that gave the world Magna Carta, the first charter of human rights in the world, and democracy? Not long ago, Europe and the brilliant EU experiment were viewed as role models of progress, political freedom and civil liberties by the rest of the world. In fact, this is precisely why people from around the world risked – and still do—their lives and paid a huge price to head to Europe and realise their dreams. All that appears to be a thing of the past now. Maybe this is a natural reaction to the recent phenomenon of extremist violence by some Muslims. Maybe it has something to do with the sense of insecurity that haunts some Europeans because of the growing tide of Muslims – and other immigrants—around them in a white, Christian continent. Whatever the explanation, this Muslims-coming hysteria, fanned in this case by governments and politicians, is disturbing, to say the least. As France’s main Muslim body has rightly pointed out, the full-face veil is not mandatory according to Islam. It’s more of a custom. In fact, more than half of Muslim women don’t wear it. In France, the number is less than 2,000. This is why many believe that the French move is a ploy by the ruling party to attract rightwing voters and ensure Sarkozy’s re-election. But measures like these are only fuelling the already strong anti-Muslim sentiment in the West. Let’s not forget that not long ago, Europe witnessed a similar campaign against the Jews that eventually resulted in thousands of them being sent to their death by the Nazis. European governments, lawmakers and the media must therefore desist from once again unleashing a monster that cannot be coaxed back into the bottle. It’s in their own interest. (Courtesy Khaleej Times)